Pyrotex Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 ...He simply has no grasp of what he presumes to criticize. It would therefore be pointless to expect him to admit to a proof against him,...I looked at the paper purportedly refuting Relativity. The logic leaps around in the fashion of "pulpit logic". For example, he starts with a well accepted equation, W = (u+v)/(1 + uv/c^2).This is (correctly) analogized with the classical passenger on a train with a stationary ground observer: u is the speed of the train, v is the speed of the passenger on the train, w is the speed of the passenger observed by the stationary person standing by the tracks. Okay so far. Then he says (correctly) that the equation could just as easily be defined with u and v reversed. Of course. Look closely and you will see the equation is entirely "symetrical" with respect to u and v. But the author's conclusion is: "Needless to say, this mathematical result means that any passenger must possess the speed of light, but no other value of speed, with respect to the ground observer, as long as any light ray moving along the same line as the passenger is detected by the ground observer." This ridiculous leap of pseudo-logic is unwarranted, undefended, unexplained, undetermined and totally unconvincing. He accepts the equation when expressed with "u and v". He rejects the equation when expressed with "v and u".In other words, he re-interprets (incorrectly) the equation merely because we have switched the symbols used to represent the moving principals in the model. This is BOGUS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 This ridiculous leap of pseudo-logic is unwarranted, undefended, unexplained, undetermined and totally unconvincing. He accepts the equation when expressed with "u and v". He rejects the equation when expressed with "v and u".In other words, he re-interprets (incorrectly) the equation merely because we have switched the symbols used to represent the moving principals in the model. Is he perhaps using matrix multiplication here? As in Dirac and early '20s QM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Is he perhaps using matrix multiplication here? As in Dirac and early '20s QM?My judgement is, No, he is not. Certainly speeds (scalars) could also be considered velocities (vectors), which would require matrix math. But in the described model (train, passenger, etc) all the relevant speeds are assumed to be all in one line. Colinear. Which means they would add and subtract just like scalars even if you DID use matrix math. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 The Lorentz transformations, like all coordinate transformations, are indeed matrices. Nothing to do with QM, just simply the use of a same tool. This ridiculous leap of pseudo-logic is unwarranted, undefended, unexplained, undetermined and totally unconvincing.That's exactly why there's no hope of cashing in the dough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.