Minkowski SpaceTime diagrams re assigned

[marcospolo]

and here's another paradox for you, (a paradox is an unsolvable problem, like the twin paradox, still unsolved despite many weak attempts)

In the pic, from the development of the lorentz equation by Sal of Khan academy, but also as presented by many other uni professors...

Now because we also know that

x = ct

and also that

x' = ct' Because we set this up to be exactly like this)

Therefore these two equations end up proving that

0 = 0.

But I could have told you that in primary school

 

[marcospolo]

4 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

I don't see how y=1 here as you claim.

 

I think your problem is in arithmetic. And even if it was 1 it's being multiplied by c so it's still equal

 

"y" is the vertical axis correct? (just checking)

it was Time, but that was replaced with the Distance "ct", which we have set on our "y" axis scales to be equal to one unit of distance of the horizontal axis. so one unit on x distance is exactly the same as one unit on the "y" axis distance. That's why Light is at 45 degrees.

So "y" is one unit, and so is X one identical unit. 1:1 ratio.

 

[marcospolo]

3 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Because ct, or x, can't be zero. First of all because c is 299mill 

please work out the algebra, simplify these equations. the end result is simply 0=0

 

[marcospolo]

2 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

You're welcome

that does not help with the problem does it?

You are ignoring the issues and talking in circles.

Did you run those equations with real values? no.

Did you do the algebra on the other equations that end up proving that 0 = 0?

 No.

 

[marcospolo]

Just now, TheProdigalProdigy said:

You do know beta is like 8,000 something, right?

 

The proton electron mass ratio?

beta is NOT 8000 in this example, beta here is the ratio of the observers velocity over the velocity of light.

but even if it was 8000, it matters not, as it cancels itself out perfectly.

0 still = 0

DO THE ALGEBRA

[marcospolo]

3 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

What did you admit on the first post in this page? That where y=1 it actually equals c. Right? Which makes xy a 1:1 ratio in both pictures.

So again, you're welcome. The issue you had was a non issue.

Its still the same issue. Even if you DRAW the graph so that a division of one second on the y axis is the same physical length as a division on the x axis, which is 30000000meters, the unit of one second is NOT identical to a distance of 3 million meters. One is SECONDS, the other is Distance.

So on casual appearance, because you have set the distances between units on both axies as identical, which allowed you to substitute for one second, the distance of 3 million... this is going to cause a problem when your original equations all worked in seconds and meters, not on meters and meters.

You cant deduct a velocity from a distance. You can divide a distance by a velocity, giving time. But there is no valid equation that allows deducting a velocity from a distance.

[marcospolo]

8 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Remember what I said about philosophizing about the axiomatic nature of velocity or distance? 

I said it has no place in math.

you simply CANNOT deduct 3 miles per hour from 6 miles. Period, no philosophy involved.

[marcospolo]

7 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Also a rule there, velocity of observer < c. But that's already a rule because of time dilation. So that's why it's set up that way. Nice 

Here's why lorentz end up as zero according to the Khan academy derivation.

[marcospolo]

7 hours ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Already came to the same result. 

ok take the first equation, x' = gamma(x- beta*ct)

let x =10

rewrite x' = gamma ( 10 - beta 10)

let beta = 0.9 (can be anything less than 1)

x' = gamma 9

let gamma = 0.9 (can be anything less than 1)

x' = 8.1

NOW carry on with the second equation.

ct' = 0.9( 10  - 0.9 * 10)

x' = 10

So pick a result... is x' = 8.1 or does x'= 10?

[marcospolo]

18 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Neither, it's .9 & for ct'

crap i did it wrong again.

Using 90% light speed means that beta is 1.11111 and gamma is 2.294

Let x =10

NOW we do it with actual calculated values for gamma and beta and known distance for x

we get x' = minus 2.29

But x' was not going backwards! he was moving in the same direction as the light.

anyway, its true that both equations balance . the results are minus 2.29 for both equations. and so all you have proven is that minus 2.29 is equal to minus 2.29

which is not useful, as it could be any number, i.e, 42 = 42

But the number minus 2.29 is NOT the distance x' moved anyway! X' must be a positive distance.

If x' moved backwards, the input value for x should have been minus x.

The whole math was set up for both light and x' moving in the same direction.

Also, I'm no mathematician, im figuring it out myself here, so mistakes are possible.

But im right about Lorentz being crap and so too is Einstein.

If I get stuck with the math, (so far Im ok) I can just ask my x wife, who is a Maths Professor in a Chinese University, or my son who is following in her footsteps.

The upshot so far regarding any equation that just states that x=x is that its a useless equation.

Which is exactly what we have with x' = gamma(x - beta *ct)

a useless equation that just says that x=x.

 

 

 

[marcospolo]

1 hour ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Neither, it's .9 & for ct'

The error that Sal makes is when he substitutes ct for x, and ct' for x'  in the first equations picture.

He did this because he said that x=ct and x'=ct'

BUT this is ONLY true in a special case, that is referring to LIGHT, AND the graph has light at 45degrees.

If you draw a graph with light at any some other angle, by having different scale factors (which is more logical) then x can not = ct, and x' can not = ct'.

Plugging ct into the equation replacing x is a massive error. Because the x in this case refers to the location of the observer who is NOT doing light speed, so his x can never equal ct.

 

[marcospolo]

Great, so you don't have an answer, so you resort to this personal attack.

Is there some problem with my math this last time?

What is incorrect with this statement, "Plugging ct into the equation replacing x is a massive error. Because the x in this case refers to the location of the observer who is NOT doing light speed, so his x can never equal ct. "

 

 

 

[marcospolo]

5 hours ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

The observer is (0,0)

Excellent, but as the claim is ALSO made that x' +ct', so the the stationary observer and the MOVING observer are STILL at 0,0, and time is zero.

So nothing has occurred, but they use that particular time, when nothing has occurred in the experiment, to come up with the result that Time has shrunk for the guy how might move one day?

[marcospolo]

2 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

c will still race ahead of an observer at ~300mill m/s no matter how close to the speed of light that observer gets to.

and that statement has nothing whatever to do with what I just asked you.

I said that t, t', x, x' must all be set to zero, meaning that the experiment has not commenced, so there is no  data to run through you equation.

At least this is the condition that you gave to counter my argument. Your "solution" to negate my claim that its wrong to use x = ct, was to set t and x to zero. So lights not going anywhere either, not that that would change anything, the equations for Lorentz are still nonsense as i explained.

 

[marcospolo]

1 hour ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

c will still race ahead of an observer at ~300mill m/s no matter how close to the speed of light that observer gets to.

And that claim, that light always goes at c regardless of the speed of the one measuring it, is unsupported by either logic or experiment.  That's the postulate of einstein's hypothesis, so its only a guess until his hypothesis is at least shown to make some sense! which it clearly does not.

using x = ct and x' = ct' is nonsense

 

[marcospolo]

10 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

The cancelling is just rise over run taking you to zero. There is still a rise and a run from zero, to negative x, ct. You have a lot to learn. I pity your comprehension powers.

But the Minkowsky spacetime diagram is probably the most useful invention since Edison invented electrify! Denial of Minkowski space spells imminent treason and dishonor

What the hell is this?

Can you at least TRY to respond to my criticism?

Hoping sideways is not getting around the problem i raised.

 

[marcospolo]

2 hours ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Final warning 

 

You're treading on thin ice whilst entering dangerous territory allegatiins online that 🛂You must CHOSE your next words carefully✍️

 

 

Should you spend so much time playing video games? Its messing with your brain.

Minkowski's diagram is a load of rubbish, Lorentz transform is also math nonsense, but together, Einstein has combined them both into the biggest load of steaming crap ever to come from a small hatted one. And they collectively have put ot some real zingers.

Anyway, nothing you have said has solved the problem I raised about the failure of the development of the lorentz equation, so lets just agree that I'm correct, and pop pseudo science (mainstream science) is baseless nonsense.