math challenge of x' = x - vt

[woldemar]

Hello,

I am a first time time poster here. i would most appreciate some feedback upon the
article mentioned below. Please be aware that this is strictly a math issue.

If you comment, please make no reference to anything regarding Physics,
such as light, time, observers, mass, motion, energy, wave-fronts, time
dilation, length contraction or Einstein...as they are all irrelevant to my
argument. I am hoping to be able to focus this thread solely upon the article below.
Lastly, if you are gonna tell me that what I am challenging is correct and always been
correct and that i am wrong....without you presenting some MATHEMATICAL
proof as to your objections, I would appreciate you not adding it to the clutter
of what is. an already difficult stance that I am taking/presenting.

re - a short version of the argument presented in this recent article to GSJ

Challenge to the Mathematical Validity of the Voigt Transformation
Equations and Hence the Theory of Relativity

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/waterman12.pdf

Has anyone read it through ? While that is much hoped for,
i will try and present a brief idea of what i am on about....
but you really need to read the article.

.............................................................................
from the Galilean transformation equations -

What if we throw some numbers into the equation x' = v - vt

given -

Coincident frames have a point at 11,0.
One frame is moved to the right by 7 while the other remains in place.
What is the coordinate of the point now, in reference to the unmoved frame ?

Voigt and then accepted by Einstein x' = x - vt
x = 11,0
vt = 7
x' = 4,0

reality x' = x + vt
x = 11,0
vt = 7
x' = 18,0

Houston we have a problem -
Relativity says 4 and reality says 18.
............................................................................

if 4 is your answer...

is it counting backwards from 11 - 7 ?

obviously this cannot be...
as we are not counting from 0,0 in the unmoved frame.

is it counting forwards from 7 - 11 ?

note - in the unmoved frame all coordinates start from 0,0.

if 18 is your answer, then you agree ( albeit likely unknowingly )
that although 4 = 11 - 7, the equation x' = x - vt is wrong.

Indeed, NO COORDINATE transformation ever occurred.
When the length of 4 was taken, it WAS a coordinate in
the moved frame. When it got placed starting at 7 and
not from 0,0, ...it is now NOT a coordinate in the
unmoved frame....it is just a mere line segment.

steve waterman

[junglelord]

Hi and welcome.

Nice paper, I agree and think your quite clever. Dimensional Analysis strikes again.


I would hate to tell you, dispite the fact your correct, no one who matters, will talk to you about it.
Nor will your evidence change the world. Just ask Stephen Crothers, or Dave Thomson.

The Aether Physics Model showed other discrepencies in the dimensional analysis of GR that you have not touched on yet, importantly that there is no equality between energy and matter. Not in the statement e = m c^2, non at all, there is no equality in that formula....yet it is taught as gospel.


Heaviside is a failure too. What a box of limited "knowledge"...really a imposter of Maxwells Theorum.


I came to this conclusion three years ago. Heaviside is a dumbdown, and is not correct, nor does it represent the real truth of Electric Theory, let alone is it Maxwells Theorum.


I also showed a full and thorough review of Maxwells Original work from Quaternions, which reveals Scalar Technology and the Phase Conjugate Systems of Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter, the worlds first real Star Machine, the Theta Pinch, and also had a through review of Maxwells original thesis, line by line, from the point of view of APM via Dave Thomson.

There is a lot of nonsense out there perpetuated, but totally wrong, straight from the onset due to the math, but most of us never check the math, we just regurgitate it.


There are two charges, yet only one is quantified? There is no strong nuclear force. What a mess we have being taught as the gospel and the so called immuntable laws, they dissolve under Scalar methodology.

Some of the most overlooked reviews of so called properly applied math is the Schwarzschild Radius.
The Schwarzschild Radius of Black Holes is not correctly applied. Stephen Crothers showed that.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Ricci.html

[woldemar]

j - Nice paper, I agree and think your quite clever. Dimensional Analysis strikes again.

Thanks for the feedback and positive comment. I do not see this as some haphazard topic, I believe someday the math must speak for itself, being a mathematical only challenge. Amazing too, who ever heard of Woldemar Voigt ?

j - Nor will your evidence change the world.

Perhaps not in my lifetime, but dude...this is a math challenge....and that is something new for this crappy little formula.
It cannot survive. i can use some support big-time, but i a need a nucleus of those that truly grasp this. Yes, I get that
it is quite unbelievable and that we all bought the program for over a hundred years. Regardless, i am gonna give this a real try. i just hope we can all make this about the math, the math only, and nothing but math.


I notice that you post often and get responses. i am glad to embark a little journey with you. While this is my focus on this thread, is to safe to say that i have a few other thoughts regarding other math and physics and even cartographic issues.

steve

ps of the very few people to have ever seen this article ( probably way less than 100 )...i was given steve's name before...
he found it interesting, but no further comments have been received, although this was all pretty recent.

[junglelord]

Hi Steve,

I believe they ignore the truth for many reasons, that are way more powerful then the truth...that seems to be clear.


But with the internet many people can come to a personal education of fact vs fancy.
Its important for the ground swell movement.
Keep up the good work.


I found a slight spelling error

As with more things, it is always good to define things that upon occasion may seem evem simple or too obvious
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/waterman12.pdf

Thats funny, me finding a spelling error.


What do you think of this observation?

The amount of this hidden electric energy is about 0.1% wrt. to the force of gravity at the level of the earth's surface.
Tesla found it and the powers that be covered it up for more than 100 years. Now the cat is out of the bag:

Unified Fields in Disguise
The Unified Field Theory

[woldemar]

Thamks. i had mot moticed that before. I will try to fix it.

Tesla, I am certain, went to his grave with some very tasty secrets, real secrets...
as in he alone knew some things, I believe, that we still do not have a clue about.
He never the real credit due....as the electrical alchemist that we was....THE wizard
of electricy itself.

steve

[StevenO]

Steve,

Welcome to Thunderbolts, I hope you'll find more open minded people here.

The errors in relativity are explained and corrected a.o. here: The Final Argument Against x' = x - vt.

That is also where all the other stuff comes from.(The Greatest Standing Errors in Physics and Mathematics).

It's all well worth the read.

Regards,
Steven

[woldemar]

thank you for the welcome.

perhaps i year ago i initiated contact with Mr. Mathis, after reading the first article you mention above. it was so similar to my own that i had posted in 1999, that i wanted to know when he came up with his. in our very brief exchanges, Mr . Mathis wanted me to read through his near thousand pages of material. he was too busy at the time to answer all my questions....well, it was one question really, as he was way too involved in completing his article
"Proof from NASA that π is 4".

until i hear back from him, i can only wonder about his derivation of his article..

http://wbabin.net/physics/waterman14.pdf
http://wbabin.net/physics/waterman15.pdf

Do you see the name Woldemar Voigt in Mr. Mathis's article(s) ?
Do see a date prior to 2000 on any of his related work with x' = x - vt ?

Do you have a comment about MY article in this thread ?

agree 100 percent
disagree 100 percent
do not see what all the fuss I am making is all about
cannot follow the explanation
have no comment
other

i am trying to find those who not only get what i am talking about.
as well, they must agree, of course. Understanding too, that all of
relativity totally needs that one equation to be correct...
in order for any of it to be mathematically valid.

i want that list of names to grow over time....and hopefully it can develop some of its own momentum.

As of yet, there is no objection to confront on this thread. Everyone should have an opinion on this challenge,
but alas, very few care...feedback is SO essential, yet experience states that nobody wants to hear your crap,
and at best, they want to pitch you theirs.

Come on group there must be more of you out there...

Do you say x' should be 4 or 18 ?

This is not a trivial matter, Please weigh in to this thread. There is no trend with just just two responders.
want to disagree - fine....go for it. I will put your name in the 100 disagree column...and then i will have
three responders. Surely you either agree or disagree or something ???

steve waterman

[Goldminer]

Preview: Re: math challenge of x' = x - vt
Goldminer here:
I think Mathes has missed the point. The original point was to compare a frame of reference to another one. To then state that "origins cannot move," is to defeat the exercise.

Steve Waterman is pointing out that within a FOR (frame of reference) nothing can change in relation to anything else in that frame. If another FOR is moved to the right of the original, everything within that frame moves to the right. After the move, everything within that frame will be displaced to the right, by the same amount as the frame was displaced, as compared to the original FOR. Thus the symbolism: x'=x+d. (vt times t is a distance) as opposed to x'=x-d

[woldemar]

My correspondence with miles,

sept 9 2008,
................................................................................................................................
Steve, I will look at your site as I have time. I am glad to know I have allies, though they are few. Yes, it is quite simple, and shocking that so few can see it. I have a bio posted on my art site, just take the link over there. You can link from the homepage, under the picture. I recommend you read everything on my site, but start with what interests you most

is a response to my initial email...

Dear Miles,

I finally thought to place this equation x = x' + vt....into google..
and just now have initially seen your site.
http://milesmathis.com/final.html

I happen to totally agree with you that there is
a mathematical problem with x = x' + vt.

Please see this page on my site that deals exclusively with this issue.
http://watermanpolyhedron.com/GALbest.html

In my frustration to get people to see the logic of my mathematical attack of this equation,
[ has been almost 10 years by now ]
I took my ( self-taught ) background in the mathematics of sphere packing,
http://watermanpolyhedron.com/watermanpolyhedra1.html
from my site
http://watermanpolyhedron.com/

and eventually wrote a pastiche about That is paralleled to the Wizard of Oz. It is my way,
of documenting this/my Relativity challenge...
in let's say over 100 different manners/ways/examples.
http://watermanpolyhedron.com/lazpart1.html

One day, I believe/hope that many of the current sleepy world will all grasp the validity of this challenge.
I say this as, it is a mathematical challenge and not one requiring any kind of purely theorectical stance.
Hence, it is either right or wrong...and there is no fuzzy zone.

True, as mere line segments, this equationdoes work...
but these are coordinate(s) value and not just mere line segments...in particular,
x' should be counted from the origin in S and not backwards from its common location with x in S.
This all seems so obvious to me, that I am perplexed why others cannot extrapolate that this is a no-no,
as would be dividing by zero or letting say 2 = 1. Point x' IS physically point x in S...and Einstein
thus allows a second abscissal value to that one point !....call it x..then that singular point's abscissa is x...but call it x',
and what that does is let's x now also equal to itself put vt. Please read the material though at the site...
I was only trying to brief you a bit with this email

Additionally, I have a way to imagine space, and time etc...and have some other Physics postulates
http://watermanpolyhedron.com/universalconcepts.html

My focus, with all the rest of this other stuff being challenged....is indeed, to debunk the mathematical
acceptance of x = x' + vt...

Comments welcomed....

What specifically, do you recommend that I should read from your site ?
Can you please also, share a few words about yourself with background details....
..........................................................................................................................

sept 10 2006
I don't think we are far apart; you have just misread me. My discussion of the point here has nothing to do with the point as mathematical specifier. You can still do what you do in my universe. You need to read my paper on the calculus to understand my need to talk about the point here in this way. This gloss in the overview is not enough to see where I am going, or what I have done with the point. My main contention is that the point does not exist, physically, and you appear to agree with that. The singularity is not a physical object. A point can be a specifier in space, as you say, but it is never a thing, since it has no extension. I needed to hit this idea hard because modern math and physics believe in the reality of the point. Calculus believes in solutions at a point, and physics believes that the singularity is a possible astronomical object. Both very false and very destructive ideas.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve" <swaterman@watermanpolyhedron.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:44 AM
To: mm@milesmathis.com
Subject: central discoveries...initial comments...

Miles,

re the central discoveries of this book

"It concerns the definition of the point. Entire library shelves have been
filled commenting on Euclid's definitions, but neither he nor anyone since
has appeared to notice the gaping hole in that definition. Euclid declined
to inform us whether his point was a real point or a diagrammed point."

defining ;
physical -real, tangible, manifested, exists
mathematical -intellectual, imagined, abstract, created

All circles, lines, cubes, rectangles or pointa are mathematical.
No circle, line, cube, rectangles or point is "perfect" physically.

All points are mathematical.
No point is a physical entity....
just a location ( in space ) indicator.

"real point or a diagrammed point."
I believe then, he would answer....diagrammed of course, as it has no extents.
Thus I take your word - diagrammed....to mean, mathematica, as defined above.

defining Fixed point space -
Fixed point space views the universe as a mathematical
grid of mathematical points, forever fixed in an interrelationship to one another.

No matter remains at the same fixed point indefinitely.

All points remain eternally fixed.

You cannot have time without mass, as relative physical motion is required.

All mass, at any given instant of time, is at unique point in "fixed point space".

No two mass entities could occupy the same fixed point at any given instant of time.

Points are never in motion.

Mass is always in motion.

So....we are way far apart here, Miles. This concept ( fixed point space) ,
in fact, is quite central to my conprehension of things. I imagine a huge cube as a
mathematical cartesean grid that contains all the matter that exists on its inside.

A mathematical space.....made up of points frozen in time...meanwhile, little spheres
do their dance and combine with one another to form all the different types of matter.

So far then,
time...yes,
space...no,
light and mass....?
well looks like we both may have some stuff to read.

i must point out that this is a huge parting of how we see things. I hope we can
find some common ground here eventually...as this is critical. I fear this will be a
constant stumbling block between us. I am hoping then, for some discussion
about this fixed point space issue.

okay...back to your chapter on central discoveries....

steve
.............................................................................................................................
sept 11

Steve, I am sorry I can't keep up with all your questions and interest right now. I will look at your papers, but you will have to be a bit patient. I am in over my ears with pi this month, as I am convinced I am onto something big. At least two big papers coming up soon. I posted the first on pi last week but had to take it down because it had some holes. AM fixing those now and working on the second paper, which will show proof from NASA of my contention.
............................................................................................................................

and an except from a letter I wrote to miles on sept 9 2008

re x = x' + vt

Like myself, I wonder if you must have given up on others trying to accept that this
challenge could possibly be valid....so, documented it, by virtue of placing
an article on your internet site........and then just moved on...
How long has this article been posted ?....I wonder, if ours thoughts were
derived simultaneously....I know for me, that my longer challenge article is dated june 1999,
do you recall when you were doing this work.
...................................................................................................................

[junglelord]

Words of wisdom from the music of the spheres...

Math is lost on most people, as the math they teach is lost. The math community holds together like the astrological community....false premis! I think its great that you have a passion to point out the ovbious. However most care little for real physics, let alone paper math. I think that your call to glory should be re-directed. Your own self revelation is great and really all that matters.

To try to get others to see the light, although nobel, is like banging your head on the wall. I have learned, that those who come are called and chosen. I do not try to point out the ovbious to anyone else.

So if no one else comes, then do not be disappointed, those who came, were called. You have commfirmation, what else do you need? To change the world? Good luck. I want to change the world too, however it does not want to change with me.


How many people truly comphrend the universe properly>?
I think out of 7 billion, maybe 1500 to 10,000.
The majority of them work for the industrial military complex....good luck getting them to admit the secrets of their black programs and the proper math subsets that are involved.


Those independent people who have created magic like John Hutchison cannot get funding for heaven sakes.
He has real life technology, way more important then the math behind it, yet where is he?>

Your a smart guy, and ambitious and passionate, so go and get it published in a peer review where those who are in need of correction, should see it. That would be more germain to your efforts by the looks of it.

Cheers

[woldemar]

j - Your a smart guy, and ambitious and passionate, so go and get it published in a peer review

There is no such place.

j - where those who are in need of correction, should see it.

So, you mean everybody who has ever heard of Einstein then.

That would be more germain to your efforts by the looks of it.

Dude, this is the perpetual motion machine syndrome.
They will not even give you a patent for one...because...
it had been determined to be impossible. Imagine, my gaul,
to challenge, um, the inner workings of the Genius of the
Century. Same problem. Not in their scope of possibilities.
Thus mostly dismissed without consideration ( reading it ).

Tell a friend or bring the printed out article to your local school.
The math shall win eventually. Who might have some clout that would
dare to read it through ? Who knows...perhaps even make a small
video for You tube ? I have avoided that so far, as just not right
to foist it there....unless i shave my head and do a dance too.

Still no objections.

[StevenO]

Steve,

I read your paper, but to be honest, I have two problems with it:

1. Whether it is x' = x - vt or x' = x + vt is symmetrical, that just depends on speed in outward or inward direction wrt. to the observer. However the whole assumption behind this formula is incorrect as is described by Miles. The correct formula is Δx’ = Δx.

2. All the people you quote are mistaken regarding 1-dimensional relativity (as is suggested by just using the x-coordinate in the formula's). First degree relativity is just the Doppler effect given by the 1/(1+/-v/c) transformations.

Regards,
Steven

[woldemar]

Steven,
Thanks for sharing your opinion on the article.

S - 1. Whether it is x' = x - vt or x' = x + vt is symmetrical,

Not part of the article. This is not a symmetry issue.

S - that just depends on speed in outward or inward direction wrt. to the observer.

Then you completely missed the point. This is strictly a math issue. There is no speed
and no observer involved at all. The two framew are compared AFTER all motion has been gone vt.
i am saying that even without any Physics components...the math does not work.

S- However the whole assumption behind this formula is incorrect as is described by Miles. The correct formula is Δx’ = Δx.

I disagree, Δx’ = Δx. Is that supposed to mean that both points moved moved by vt ?
Perhaps you can explain what Miles means....using some numbers.

Coincident frames have a point at 11,0. (called x)
One frame is moved to the right by 7 (vt) while the other remains in place.

So then what does Δx’ = Δx mean ?

The correct relationship, as stated in my paper is Δ origins = Δ points ( coordinates )

S -2. All the people you quote

Who exactly please ?

S - are mistaken regarding 1-dimensional relativity (as is suggested by just using the x-coordinate in the formula's). First degree relativity is just the Doppler effect given by the 1/(1+/-v/c) transformations.

1/(1+/-v/c) is wrong if x' = x- vt is wrong.

[junglelord]

To be honest I think Einstein was wrong about both GR and SR. So you have a lot of support.
Perpetual motion, no you will get no patent, they may kill you for making one.
Watch your back if you develop the technology from your math.

[woldemar]

I have your who agree and GoldMiner, with SteveO who does not and relies on Miles Mathis, believing that delta x' = delta x, is somehow the underlying key to transformations nor does the name Woldemar Voigt seem to be mentioned anywhere in his work, so far. I await a reply to the meaning of delta x' = delta x, and perhaps a comment why delta origins = delta points ( coordinates ) is wrong, from SteveO.

Not exactly a ground swell. How difficult can it be....is x' = to 4 or 18 ?

Does the feedback end with just three people who any opinion what-so-ever ? Where's the beef ?