Lorentz's transformations have an unsolved mathematical problem

[xersan]

FIRST TIME ON THE WORLD (1)

Lorentz's transformations have an unsolved mathematical problem. This problem confuses human minds and the theory of SR can be alive for 100 years due to this mistake.

Human mind is lineer and convenient to confuse. And it is engaged to imbibe the postulates which attend to incite the passion of mysticism.

It ıs interesting that the world of science can not still perceive this problem and the confusions and discussions about SR are continued. Because somebody can catch an inapppropriateness.

I want to give a clue: There is a nuans between the formula and equation.

[EWright]

Originally Posted by xersan

FIRST TIME ON THE WORLD (1)

Lorentz's transformations have an unsolved mathematical problem. This problem confuses human minds and the theory of SR can be alive for 100 years due to this mistake.

Human mind is lineer and convenient to confuse. And it is engaged to imbibe the postulates which attend to incite the passion of mysticism.

It ıs interesting that the world of science can not still perceive this problem and the confusions and discussions about SR are continued. Because somebody can catch an inapppropriateness.

I want to give a clue: There is a nuans between the formula and equation.

How 'bout a clue in ENGLISH!!!!

[xersan]

Originally Posted by EWright

How 'bout a clue in ENGLISH!!!!

ONE STEP BEYOND (7)

I will work to explain that Lorentz’s transformations have not the scientific integrity.

In the well-known experiment of SR it is taken aim to obtain the same value of < c > in the train and on the perron. We will use this experiment also. If you wish you may take the world instead of the train. We measure the velocity of light on the world by the units kilometer and second. And its value is 300 000 km/s.

The train travels by the speed of < v >.

Lorentz’s equations transform the values of units. For example; if v = 60 % c

L’ = L.sqrt (1 –v2/c2) = 0.80 L

t’ = t (1 – v/c) / sqrt(1 – v2/c2) = 0.5 t

It means : One unit of meter in the train is 0.80 meter according to observer on the perron. And we must call the units according to its place (reference or relative system):

The unit of length in train = trainmeter ( = 0.80 railmeter ; for v = 0.60 c )
The unit of time in train = trainsecond (= 0.5 railsecond; for v = 0.60 c)

The unit of length on perron = railmeter ( = 1.25 trainmeter; for v = 0.60 c)
The unit of time on perron = railsecond ( = 2 trainsecond ; for v = 0.60 c)

Now we use Lorentz equations for t = 5 railsecond

x = c. t = 300 000 . 5 = 1 500 000 railkm ( c = 300 000 railkm/railsecond)

x’ = (x – vt) / sqrt (1 – v2/c2) = 600 000 / 0.80 = 750 000 trainkm
t’ = (t – vx/c2) / sqrt (1 – v2/c2) = 2 / 0.80 = 2.5 trainsecond

And our aim has obtained: c = x’ / t’ = 750 000 / 2.5 = 300 000 trainkm/trainsecond

It means we can assure the fixed value of the light’s speed by the units in relative system. We can calculate it by the units in reference system:

300 000 trainkm / trainsecond = 240 000 / 2 = 120 000 railkm / railsecond

What is this ? This is an evidence of the end of the theory SR. Because The units must be same to obtain the same fixed value of light’s velocity. This like that: If You give to your child every week 50 USD. After today you will may give him 50 japanese-yen according to Einstein.

[Jay-qu]

Originally Posted by xersan

This is an evidence of the end of the theory SR...

It may be 1am, i may be pissed, and i havent even finished high school! but i still think that it isnt the end for SR just yet... not at the hands of you at the least!

[UncleAl]

This problem confuses human minds and the theory of SR can be alive for 100 years due to this mistake.

Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers and with arithmetic.

You are horribly wrong - disproven by every particle accelerator plus the Global Positioning Satellite system and even large color TV's.

http://www-elsa.physik.uni-bonn.de/a...ator_list.html
accelerators
http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html
The distorted cube
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...iv/airtim.html
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com...clock_math.pdf
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment

Given any achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any finite lightspeed, the bound on the relative velocities of V1 and V2 as viewed by any inertial observer cannot exceed

(V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2]

This is transformation of velocities parallel to the direction of motion. For velocities at an arbitrary angle theta, Jackson gives

u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2)
u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2))

http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/~sou...402/sld011.htm

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...v/reldop2.html
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~rfield/PHY2...es/chp39_2.pdf
Relativistic doppler shift

Special Relativity is empirically true to the limits of experimental uncertainty - not a single instance of failure in 100 years of vigorous looking at any scale in any venue. You have nothing to replace it, and so are a crackpot by demonstration.

[xersan]

<Unnecessary long quote removed.>

Thanks for your additions. My aim is never to provoke anybody. I am thinking by a different format.
And I have strong keys to resolve space time. My new paradigm for light kinematics is concistent and serviceable for cosmology.

I prefer always to solve step by step. Usually most brains have blinker as some axioms. And it is diffucult to pass over this false axioms under influence of general agreement.

I want to present to you a key (clue) from my format: The source is never the fırst reference system for the light. If you accept that the source is the first reference system. It is a false axiom like the axiom of <the world is flat>. The source flashes the flashlight at the moment of To and the source goes to anywhere by independence from light. The velocity of light according to its source is not significant.

[xersan]

Congratulations for your interest. The mistakes of SR are at degree of primary school. If you wish you may analyse my this claim under the thread of < Time dilation on football game>. The light begin to travel from the point of So at the moment of To. And it is perceived on the point of O1 at the moment of T1. The light travels between So and O1 for the time t = T1 - To. This explanation is authentic. But the theory takes the point of S1 by the beginning of light instead of So. It is very simply. And you please think that the light is a flashlight like a point in this procedure.

[xersan]

ONE STEP BEYOND (8)

If the value of < c > was obtained 750 000 trainkm/trainsecond (by these units) this value would become equivalent to the value of 300 000 railkm/ railsecond.

C = 300 000 railkm/railsecond = 750 000 trainkm/trainsecond

It like that: 1 kilometer = 0.6214 statemile = 0.5396 nautmile

If the units differ, the amount must be changed to obtain same characteristic. 300 000 trainkm/ trainsecond is never the value of light’s velocity.

Lorentz’s equations were derived by considering that any object takes place at only one point at the moment of Ti. Lorentz had neglected to distinguish the nuans between formula and equation. Formulas consider the units, also the units of formula are consistent. But equations are not interested by the units.

Is there a formula to transform the units ? No. Because, the units of parameters in any formula must be consistent by itself. It is an unsolved problem of math-phy.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by xersan

If the value of < c > was obtained 750 000 trainkm/trainsecond (by these units) this value would become equivalent to the value of 300 000 railkm/ railsecond.

C = 300 000 railkm/railsecond = 750 000 trainkm/trainsecond

It like that: 1 kilometer = 0.6214 statemile = 0.5396 nautmile

If the units differ, the amount must be changed to obtain same characteristic. 300 000 trainkm/ trainsecond is never the value of light’s velocity.

Usually the units of measurement are chosen for c = 1. Not 1 times a unit of length over a unit of time but plain pure 1.

Originally Posted by xersan

Lorentz’s equations were derived by considering that any object takes place at only one point at the moment of Ti.

Nope.

In SR an event is a point of space-time but a particle is not. A particle is represented by a world line.

Originally Posted by xersan

Lorentz had neglected to distinguish the nuans between formula and equation.

Which nuance?

You would need to make your meaning clearer. I understand you aren't writing in your native tongue, but you must make a better effort if you make claims such as these. Ordinarily these boards are meant for discussing science which is quite accepted or perhaps proposing plausible innovations. For other cases there is the Strange Claims Forum. If you can't support your claim soon enough it will be moved there.

[xersan]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Which nuance?

You would need to make your meaning clearer. I understand you aren't writing in your native tongue, but you must make a better effort if you make claims such as these. Ordinarily these boards are meant for discussing science which is quite accepted or perhaps proposing plausible innovations. For other cases there is the Strange Claims Forum. If you can't support your claim soon enough it will be moved there.

I had explained the nuance before. I am writing again for you. I beg your pardon for my poor English.

The parameters have their units ( *) in formulas; but, it is not required to have units for parameters in an equation.

( *) And these units must be consistent for the result of procedure. The values of results are significant with their units. Every number of < 300 000 > is not the velocity of light. But Lorentz and Einstein had aimed to assure the number of 300 000. You will see it if you try. You may test by numerical examples. You wıll be amazed.

Lorentz’s equations can not obtain consistency for units, because his equations are responsible for transforming the units. There is an unsolved mathematical problem at this point.

Are you a judge for Galileo’s judgment?

If a claim is strange for you, it is your personal problem. The wrong is wrong even if 99 persons of 100 persons say that < It is right>. You must like your strange ideas. Remember, everybody had said that < the sun turns around the world>. Probably I submit the reality, you can not know. But If you wish you follow me.

I believe that you have consciousness of toleration..

I am sorry because failures of SR are very simple, it requires only neutral vision.