math challenge of x' = x - vt

[Goldminer]

Firstly, if the origin of the "Moving System" moves to the right, so does everything within it. If point P is in the moving system, and to the right of the origin in the "Moving System" when both origins are aligned, it will still be to the right of the origin when the "Moving System" has moved. It will also be further to the right in the "Stationary System" by the same amount as the origin has moved.

Secondly, if point P is in the "Stationary System" the same distance from the origin as the above point, The "Moving System" will find the point to the left of where the point was when the origins were aligned, after the move.

The conventional story, as told by Woldemar Voigt, changes horses in the middle of the stream. He starts off the story as in the first scenario (above), but tells the aftermath as if the point under discussion were in the second scenario.

What say you?

[woldemar]

Why the Galilean Transformations are wrong !

Given two coincident frames,
with a point x at 11,0
so, that means there is also point x' at 11,0.

Move the movable grid to the right by 7,
keep the stationary grid, stationary.

X = 11
X' = 18

Galilean X' = 4

[StevenO]

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.

Yes, because first degree relativity is nothing else than the Doppler effect, which is symmetrical.

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.

Discussing math is useless if the physical concepts are incorrect. The origins do not move. If a train leaves the station, the station does not move with the train.

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 )

Same point, the origins do not move. The front and back of the train move once it has left the station.

S -2. All the people you quote

Who exactly please ?

Voigt, Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein.

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.

No, since it the first does not follow from the second.

[woldemar]

SO - " the origins do not move"

Then we part in our understanding. I am going to stick with the idea
that the movable frame, as given in the Galilean transformation equations
is movable.

SO -"All the people you quote [Voigt, Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein.] are mistaken regarding 1-dimensional relativity"

I agree.

1/(1+/-v/c) is wrong if x' = x- vt is wrong.
My eyesight is not very good...at first glance, i just thought it was the Lorentz factor.
So, i was commenting on the Lorentz factor....and so, I really have nothing to
say about 1/(1+/-v/c), nor do i wish to bring the Doppler effect into this.

Your response to my question.... So then what does Δx’ = Δx mean ?

S -Same point, the origins do not move. The front and back of the train move once it has left the station.

Yes, but all your would-be passengers have been abandoned on the platform.
Your train does NOT carry points/passengers.
Your train does however - magically, lets them off when your train arrives at the destination

Please mose. When the frames are coincident....if i have a point in one frame x,
there IS also a corresponding point in the other frame called x''.
The point x never moves, in the stationary frame.
The point x' does move wrt the stationary frame.


Okay SteveO. We have reached an impasse, between you and i. There is now way for
us to reach a compromise. i do appreciate your input Steve. However, with our current
stances...we will ( you and I ), just end up re-stating that stance over and over.

I hear what you are saying and disagree. You hear what i am saying and disagree.
So, I will mark you down in my "completely disagree and given their viewpoint" column.

RECAP - regarding the two given frames in the Galilean...
SO - " the origins do not move"
W - as opposed to the one called the stationary frame,
the one called the movable frame, moves.

[StevenO]

SO - " the origins do not move"

Then we part in our understanding. I am going to stick with the idea
that the movable frame, as given in the Galilean transformation equations
is movable.

The movable frame in a Galilean transformation is NOT described by x' = x-vt. That is modern post-Lorentz invention retrofitted to Galileo or a deliberate misrepresentation of history, depending how you look at it, to hide the conceptual mistakes in modern relativity.
The Galilean transformation could only be represented by x' = x-a, where a is a given distance or x'=-vt but then the Lorentz transformation does not resolve into the Galilean representation when lightspeed goes to infinity and people might start to ask the wrong questions.

SO -"All the people you quote [Voigt, Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein.] are mistaken regarding 1-dimensional relativity"

I agree.

I like it that we agree. But how are you doing on this?

1/(1+/-v/c) is wrong if x' = x- vt is wrong.
My eyesight is not very good...at first glance, i just thought it was the Lorentz factor.
So, i was commenting on the Lorentz factor....and so, I really have nothing to
say about 1/(1+/-v/c), nor do i wish to bring the Doppler effect into this.

Your response to my question.... So then what does Δx’ = Δx mean ?

Maybe another description would help:

α = alpha = 1/[1 - (v/c)] = 1 + (v'/c)
t' = t/α
x' = αx
v' = αv

S -Same point, the origins do not move. The front and back of the train move once it has left the station.

Yes, but all your would-be passengers have been abandoned on the platform.
Your train does NOT carry points/passengers.
Your train does however - magically, lets them off when your train arrives at the destination

Please mose. When the frames are coincident....if i have a point in one frame x,
there IS also a corresponding point in the other frame called x''.
The point x never moves, in the stationary frame.
The point x' does move wrt the stationary frame.

It's easier to analyze if you explicitly write that all physical distances are delta's, so you use Δx’ = Δx – vΔt. In any Galilean transform, Δx = Δx’. You also have to realize that most examples of relativity are second-degree relativity, in which the transforms have different formula's with three speeds in it.

Okay SteveO. We have reached an impasse, between you and i. There is now way for
us to reach a compromise. i do appreciate your input Steve. However, with our current
stances...we will ( you and I ), just end up re-stating that stance over and over.

I hear what you are saying and disagree. You hear what i am saying and disagree.
So, I will mark you down in my "completely disagree and given their viewpoint" column.

I think you should really spend some time at Miles Mathis' website to read about relativity. He has much more to say about it there than I could possible explain you in a few sentences.

[woldemar]

SteveO,

Please. Just a yes or no answer to these 5 questions.

1 So you agree with me when I say x' = x - vt is wrong ?

2 And you agree when Miles says x' = x - vt is wrong ?

3 Do you think speed is an essential component to x' = x' = x -vt, when we substitute distance for vt ?

4 Do You think delta x' (postiive) = delta x (positive) with the equation x' = x -vt ?

5 Do think delta x' (postiive) = delta x (negative) with the equation x' = x - vt ?

re - second degree relativity ?

I just googled it....what a surprise - not.
http://www.wbabin.net/mathis/prel4.htm

He has an observer and a w factor etc. i totally, absolutely disagree.
There is no Physics issues here, as I have mentioned already so many many times.
There are no observers, velocity, time, motion, nor the like.
THIS IS A MATH ISSUE ONLY.

However, you do not agree that THIS IS A MATH ISSUE ONLY., obviously.
Therefore, as I said before....you will keep your stance
and i mine. Discussion is futile between us.

I am talking about the one dimensional coordinate transformation.

The only thing, to my knowledge, that Miles and agree upon is that x' = x -vt is wrong.
The whys and how for that - well, we completely disagree.

You turn me towards Miles every time you write. Each time I disagree.

So, please do not send me more of Miles' work, nor links...i have all I ever want now.
I only want a simple yes or no to those 5 questions.

That is, i want to conclude our discussion, with the understanding that both sides will not budge.

[StevenO]

Rehashing does'nt add any value. It makes no sense to discuss math if we do not agree on the physical assumptions. First degree relativity using constant speed photons equals the Doppler equations. If you add more velocities to the equation, you get the w or v'' or cosines when observing at an angle, but the principles remain the same. We should get to agreement on that or not. I could show you a proof IMHO if you are interested.

[woldemar]

You did not answer any one of the 5 yes/no questions.


This is a math challenge.

No, No, No I do NOT want to continue this discussion with you. Certainly
not since you want to talk about other than x' = x - d.

Start your own thread if you want to about banter anything BUT the MATH of x' = x- d..

This is not Miles's thread...it is strictly a math thread. If you cannot
stick to math, then it does NOT belong on this thread. I guess i have to
say this again. This thread is not about...

time, light, energy, wave-fronts, observers, motion, velocity, speed,
time delay, signals, or trains. So, if you have something to say about
these....please do not.....they have absolutely nothing what-so-ever
to do with this MATHEMATICAL ONLY argument.

Please answer the 5 yes/no questions.

[StevenO]

I do not want to discuss just math without the physics. Discussing only math is the reason that current physics is messed up beyond recognition. In think you will find very little math oriented people on Thunderbolts. Consider it more a meeting of similar souls.

[junglelord]

I do not want to discuss just math without the physics. Discussing only math is the reason that current physics is messed up beyond recognition. In think you will find very little math oriented people on Thunderbolts. Consider it more a meeting of similar souls.

You got that right. Black holes, dark energy and everything....where are the unicorns...sing me some violins, for the math only thread which excludes everything.

[Goldminer]

If you want to see where this "strictly math" thread will lead, check out Steve Waterman's site: http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/

He has spent plenty of time and study on plenty of subjects. He independently discovered the system used in the "GPS" called "multilateration"

His insistence in getting an answer to the logic he is presenting here is merely to get others to see the paradox in this basic "foundation" of relativity. If you want to include all the other baggage, you will miss his point.

My opinion of what happens in one's thinking through this "math" is that for some reason there is a short circuit in the abstract consideration of the two frames of reference.

[StevenO]

If you want to see where this "strictly math" thread will lead, check out Steve Waterman's site: http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/

He has spent plenty of time and study on plenty of subjects. He independently discovered the system used in the "GPS" called "multilateration"

His insistence in getting an answer to the logic he is presenting here is merely to get others to see the paradox in this basic "foundation" of relativity. If you want to include all the other baggage, you will miss his point.

My opinion of what happens in one's thinking through this "math" is that for some reason there is a short circuit in the abstract consideration of the two frames of reference.

But that is exactly my point. Discussing the math is just obfuscation.

Physics trained people always start to talk about "an object moving in a frame of reference". That is absurd. According to the postulates of Einstein SR, each observer is allowed to assume that his frame of reference is at rest. So, they are already talking about two frames of reference here. Then they start to compare how that would be observed in another frame of reference, so you will end up with a transform containg three velocities. Lorentz only contains two and is just mistaken, it is neither a description of the Doppler effect nor a correct transformation of a velocity between two observers observed in a third frame of reference.

Physicists have even changed the description of Galilean relativity to make it appear that Lorentzian relativity would resolve into Galilean relativity when lightspeed goes to infinity. It is a deliberate misrepresentation of history.

People should wake up and see through the mathematical smoke and mirrors. Physicists are a merely a poor bunch of illusionists. The real progress since Tesla has come from engineers, not advances in physical theory.

[junglelord]

If you want to see where this "strictly math" thread will lead, check out Steve Waterman's site: http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/

He has spent plenty of time and study on plenty of subjects. He independently discovered the system used in the "GPS" called "multilateration"

His insistence in getting an answer to the logic he is presenting here is merely to get others to see the paradox in this basic "foundation" of relativity. If you want to include all the other baggage, you will miss his point.

My opinion of what happens in one's thinking through this "math" is that for some reason there is a short circuit in the abstract consideration of the two frames of reference.

We already know that relativity, both GR and SR are both flawed. We do not need to be taught that....it is something we already accept being part of the EU. Indeed since Tesla was given the shaft and Einstein was preached to the masses, they need instruction, not us...we already know that Einstein has no legs in a EU....NONE.

[woldemar]

Here is my first video attempt. "Relativity challenge of October 2009"...just 2 1/2 minutes long.
http://watermanpolyhedron.com/videoforweb101.html

[StevenO]

Here is my first video attempt. "Relativity challenge of October 2009"...just 2 1/2 minutes long.
http://watermanpolyhedron.com/videoforweb101.html

I really like the music.