You are eating (schransing) you own s... !

With t' = (x/v + gamma^2(t-x/v))/gamma, you clearly see that the LT
makes a distinction between the travel time of the rocket to x, and the
difference between that time and t. Why? There is no physical
justification for that.

Marcel

wrote in message oups.com...
With t' = (x/v + gamma^2(t-x/v))/gamma, you clearly see that the LT
makes a distinction between the travel time of the rocket to x, and the
difference between that time and t. Why? There is no physical
justification for that.

You *do* realize that you have no idea what you are
talking about, do you?

Using g in stead of gamma:
t' = (x/v + g^2(t-x/v))/g
= 1/g x/v + g (t-x/v)
= 1/g x/v + g t - g x/v
= g t + x/v ( 1/g - g ) (*)
= g t + x/v (-g v^2/c^2)
= g t - g v x/c^2
= g (t - v x/c^2) = Lorentz

(*)
1/g - g = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= [ 1 - v^2/c^2 - 1 ] / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= - v^2/c^2 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= - g v^2/c^2

I already told you that you are a cheater, didn't I?

Dirk Vdm

says...

With t' = (x/v + gamma^2(t-x/v))/gamma, you clearly see that the LT
makes a distinction between the travel time of the rocket to x, and the
difference between that time and t. Why? There is no physical
justification for that.

x has nothing to do with the rocket, in general, so there is no physical
meaning to the quantity x/v. Nothing is travelling a distance of x at
a speed v, so the quantity x/v has no significance.

A perhaps better way to rephrase the time transformation is this:

t' = t/gamma - v/c^2 (x - vt)

For any clock that is at rest with respect to the rocket, the quantity
(x-vt) is constant (it's the distance between that clock and the
rocket), so this becomes:

t' = t/gamma + constant

where the constant is different for different clocks.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
says...

With t' = (x/v + gamma^2(t-x/v))/gamma, you clearly see that the LT
makes a distinction between the travel time of the rocket to x, and the
difference between that time and t. Why? There is no physical
justification for that.

x has nothing to do with the rocket, in general, so there is no physical
meaning to the quantity x/v. Nothing is travelling a distance of x at
a speed v, so the quantity x/v has no significance.

Careful. Marcel obviously has in mind that x/v is the
time (as seen in the Earth frame) it takes for the rocket
to cover the distance x.
Remember that somewhere he has seen that the rocket's
equation of motion is given by
x = v t
so onviously
t = x/v.

Never forget this one when dealing with Marcel:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...elAtSchool.gif

Dirk Vdm

You wrote:

" I don't understand why you think this form is more
understandable than the usual form. "

The form t' = (x/v)/gamma + gamma(t-x/v) shows that
the LT is physically incoherent.

You wrote:

" Let e0 be the event at which the radioactive element
is put on the rocket
(let's assume that has Earth-coordinates x=0, t=0),
and let e1 be the event at which it decays, and let
the Earth-coordinates of e1 be (x1,t1). Then we know
(since it takes place on the rocket, which is travelling
at speed v):

x1 = v t1

We know from the LT:


t1' = gamma (t1 - v/c^2 x1)
= gamma (t1 - v/c^2 v t1)
= gamma (1 - v^2/c^2) t1
= t1/gamma "

Yes, this case is the only one where the time LT doesn't
give a wrong result.

You wrote:

" The atom has the *shortest* lifespan in the frame in which
the atom is at rest. "

Sure.

I wrote:

"If the radioactive element disintegates on a planet
*at rest* wrt the Earth, and situated at a distance x
from the Earth, its half-life remains of course t,
and the corresponding half-time observed on the rocket
is still t' = t/gamma."
"In other words, the ratio t'/t is independant from x."

You wrote:

" No, it's not. In the first case, we have t' = t/gamma, in
the second case, we have t' = gamma t.

Let e2 be the event at which the radioactive atom first
arrives on the distant planet, and let e3 be the event at
which it decays. The lifespan is t3 - t1.

The prediction of Special Relativity is that in the frame
of the rocket,

t3' = gamma (t3 - v x3/c^2)
t2' = gamma (t2 - v x2/c^2)

(t3' - t2') = gamma ((t3 - t2) - v/c^2 (x3 - x2))
= gamma (t3 - t2)

(because x3 = x2; the planet is at rest in the Earth's coordinates)

So the prediction of SR is that

t' = gamma t
not
t' = t/gamma "

Don't you realize the physical absurdity of the time LT?

The coordinates of event 2 are (x2,t2), those of event 3
are (x3,t3).

As x2 = x3, you are left with t' = gamma t.

But if the time LT is correct, it should apply to the case
where x2 = x3 = 0, i.e. when the position of the planet
coincide with that of the Earth.
Or you claim that, according to the LT, when the decay
takes place on Earth, t' = t/gamma, but when it takes
place on the planet, t' = gamma t.
But how can one physically distinguish the planet from
the Earth, when they occupy the same spot? This is
physically impossible. So, either t' = t/gamma or
t' = gamma t is correct. Only if t = 0 can they both
be correct. This proves that the time LT is wrong.

As I claim since many years, the Lorentz transforms
are a mere hoax.

Marcel

wrote in message ups.com...

[snip 5 years old rant]

As I claim since many years, the Lorentz transforms
are a mere hoax.

As I claim since many years, and as *you* have proven since
just as many years, you should not try to understand coordinate
transformations before you understand coordinates.
What you are trying to do, shows how disgustingly stupid you
are.
But by all means do continue feeding Marcel Luttgens' fumbles:
http://www.google.com/search?q=luttg...ers.pandora.be

Marcel Luttgens' home page:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/

March 2003
"The Lorentz transformation (LT) are false":
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/LTfalse.htm
shot down in
http://groups.google.com/groups?&thr... g.google.com

May 2003
"There is no length contraction"
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/mmx.htm
shot down in
http://groups.google.com/groups?&thr... ng.google.com

Sep 2001
"The Twin paradox falsifies SR"
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm
shot down in
http://groups.google.com/groups?&thr...nso-cl.aol.com

"Newton vs Einstein"
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V05n1lut.pdf

Dirk Vdm

Marcel:

Could you please tell all of us mere mortals where the hell did you get
your ideas? I've been to your homepage, but couldn't find one clue...
Did you even GO to the University? I mean, I'm just 23 years old and
even so I can understand GR and SR...
Vermins like you slow down scientific research, because people still
try to make you understand....

Please stop!!!

wrote in message oups.com...
Marcel:

Could you please tell all of us mere mortals where the hell did you get
your ideas? I've been to your homepage, but couldn't find one clue...
Did you even GO to the University? I mean, I'm just 23 years old and
even so I can understand GR and SR...
Vermins like you slow down scientific research, because people still
try to make you understand....

Please stop!!!

NO!
Please let him continue!

Dirk Vdm

no huh?
express the laplacian of a vector in cylindrical coordinates

show the details in your work