Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
A question about the translated "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"
Replies:
3
Last Post:
Mar 13, 2013 11:16 PM




Re: A question about the translated "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"
Posted:
Mar 13, 2013 2:01 AM


Paul,
So, you think you understand gravitational red shift, eh? Here is the issue. As the eversohumble Koobee Wublee who has managed to kick Paul?s ass so hard in these recent encounters understands, the frequency transformation (please, be more professional and no more wave transforms, OK?) is not a simple tale of (1/dt) according to the Lorentz transform. According to the spacetime geometry described by the Schwarzschild metric, the only way to predict a gravitational red shift is through (1/dt) term. See the inconsistency? Please help to resolve this inconsistency. <shrug>
In the meantime, since Paul has refused to publish the results concerning the twins? paradox where both twins do travel away and reunite with the same acceleration profile, the following definitely would dash all hopes among the Einstein Dingleberries in trusting and believing in a divine resolution to the paradox itself. As Paul has demonstrated, it is a piece of cake to fudge the results in the asymmetrical case where only one twin travels (experiencing all the accelerations) away. The symmetrical case of the traveling twins proves to be much more elusive for the Einstein Dingleberries to brainstorm through. Naturally, Paul has found it to be a little bit challenging to fudge the results. That is why he remains ever so impotent when confronted with such excited revelation. <shrug>
The twins twins Paul Draper and Paul Andersen leave the earth at the same time with instruction telling each when to stop accelerating and when to start decelerating/accelerating to eventually reunite between Paul^2  the exact same acceleration profile. Given an arbitrary time period where there is no acceleration between these two buffoons, the mutual time dilation should relentlessly build up according to the Lorentz transform. Since the time period of the building up of mutual time dilation is arbitrary, there is no possible brainstorming that can fudge the results towards the mathemaGical realm of resolving the twins? paradox. <shrug>
<CHECKMATE>
Koobee Wublee will take lack of an answer as so. So, happy brainstorming, Paul, and don?t forget to chase after the chickens in your neck of the woods. :)
Ahahahaha..., Koobee Wublee
Reference:
On Mar 7, 12:20 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 6, 10:54 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...@somewhere.no> wrote: > > > Remember, phi is the angle observed in the source frame, > > so you have to put yourself at the source. > > So what do you see? > > Lets use the compass. > > > S  90 > > \ phi > > \ > > \ > > \ > > O > v > >  \ > > 180 160 > > It is very necessary to understand exactly what variable means. Let?s > reexamine the temporal transformation of the Lorentz transform. As > the usual, any transform (Galilean, the Voigt, Larmor?s, or the > Lorentz) is a tale of 3 points where Point #1 and Point #2 are > observing Point #3. > > ** dt_1 = (dt_2 + [B_12] * d[s_23] / c) / sqrt(1 ? B_12^2) > > Or > > ** dt_1 = (dt_2  [B_21] * d[s_23] / c) / sqrt(1 ? B_21^2) > > Or > > ** dt_2 = (dt_1 + [B_21] * d[s_13] / c) / sqrt(1 ? B_21^2) > > Or > > ** dt_2 = (dt_1  [B_12] * d[s_13] / c) / sqrt(1 ? B_12^2) > > Where > > ** dt_1 = Time at #3 as observed by #1 > ** dt_2 = Time at #3 as observed by #2 > ** [s_13] = Displacement vector from #1 to #3 > ** [s_23] = Displacement vector from #2 to #3 > ** [B_12] c = Velocity of #2 as observed by #1 > ** [B_21] c = Velocity of #1 as observed by #2 > ** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors > > When the direction of travel of either #1 or #2 is in parallel with > the observed displacement segment, the above simplifies into the > following familiar form. > > ** dt? = (dt ? v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 ? v^2 / c^2) > > Where > > ** dt? = dt_1 > ** dt = dt_2 > ** v^2 = B_21^2 c^2 > ** dx = d[s_23] > ** [B] * d[s] = sqrt(B^2 ds^2), [B] and d[s] in parallel > > Koobee Wublee wants the discussion to stay in the form first mentioned > since that form is more difficult for one to play mathemagic tricks > and try to pull a fast one through the humanity. > > Then, assuming the frequency is just the inverse of the time duration, > one can then write down the relativistic Doppler shift as the > following. > > ** f_1 = f_2 sqrt(1 ? B_12^2) / (1 + [B_12] * [B_23]) > > Where > > ** f_1 = 1 / dt_1 > ** f_2 = 1 / dt_2 > ** [B_23] c = d[s_23] / dt_2 > > When Point #3 is light itself, B_23^2 = 1, and ([] * []) becomes your > cosine thing. Well, the equation above is obviously wrong since it > predicts the exact opposite from the classical Doppler effect. Also, > if you attempt to derive the Doppler effect from the Galilean > transform using this (1/dt) thing, you will get no Doppler effect. To > derive the classical Doppler effect, you must hold the wavelength > invariant. > > So, how did Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar derive > the energy transformation from the Lorentz transform? If you don?t > know, you have no right to toss the equation around since you have no > way of controlling which parameter means what. <shrug> > > Hint: Using the Lagrangian method, the following can be derived in > which all are equivalent. <shrug> > > ** f_1 = f_2 (1 + [B_12] * [B_23]) / sqrt(1 ? B_12^2) > > Or > > ** f_1 = f_2 (1  [B_21] * [B_23]) / sqrt(1 ? B_21^2) > > Or > > ** f_1 = f_2 sqrt(1 ? B_21^2) / (1 + [B_21] * [B_13]) > > Or > > ** f_1 = f_2 sqrt(1 ? B_12^2) / (1  [B_12] * [B_13])



