x' = x-vt?

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

x' = x-vt?

Postby steve waterman » Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:50 pm UTC

Some time has passed since the somewhat epic thread "Pressures" was locked. In reflection of those over 5000 replies, I have just posted my first video to You Tube. It has no audio and is only two minutes long. I am hoping to get some feedback upon the logic as presented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TMQzHY-ow4
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: x' = x-vt?

Postby Zamfir » Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:46 pm UTC

Ah, it's a lot clearer now. I could never follow your arguments previously, but now they have a blue-and-black background.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: x' = x-vt?

Postby PolakoVoador » Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

[sarcarsm] Yeah, now that you put all in YouTube, and terribly squished your images, it all makes sense.[/sarcarsm]

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: x' = x-vt?

Postby eSOANEM » Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:12 pm UTC

Your conclusion is correct. Relativity does not obey galilean invariance because physics is genuinely not invariant under the galilean transformation. It is however lorentz invariant (and it is the the lorentz transform which replaces the galilean one in relativity).
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: x' = x-vt?

Postby steve waterman » Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:29 pm UTC

I had to re-post my video on YouTube due to a little technical problem about view counts...

Here is the proper url
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7d1FhvWUGM

Indeed, and coincidentally, I also noticed another quite recent Einstein comic at xkcd
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=103423

The science section seems far less observed and commented upon, so,
if you do have some math feedback about the video, please make those
comments there in the comic section and not here on this tiny-mini-thread. Thanks.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

Re: x' = x-vt?

Postby Schrollini » Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:02 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:The science section seems far less observed and commented upon, so,
if you do have some math feedback about the video, please make those
comments there in the comic section and not here on this tiny-mini-thread. Thanks.

Yeah, no. You've gotten to disrupt your one comic thread already. If you get a discussion, it'll be here. The mods may have something to say about this, though.

Anyway, as for math: You're still using your own idiosyncratic definitions and notations, so it's not surprising that you can produce a string of symbols that's different that what we get with standard definitions and notations. It's like defining E to mean elephant, m to mean marzipan, and c to mean cantaloupe, and then declaring that you've disproved E = mc2. If you'd like to learn the standard definitions and notations, there's plenty of capable people here to teach you. But I, at least, won't try until I hear that that's what you want to do.

On the other hand, you're welcome to keep working in your own private system. Just don't be surprised when no one else is interested.
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: x' = x-vt?

Postby steve waterman » Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:25 pm UTC

Schrollini wrote:Anyway, as for math: You're still using your own idiosyncratic definitions and notations, so it's not surprising that you can produce a string of symbols that's different that what we get with standard definitions and notations.

On the other hand, you're welcome to keep working in your own private system. Just don't be surprised when no one else is interested.

according to all at xkcd...the Galilean equation x' = x-vt means x' wrt A = x wrt A - vt,

whereas x' = x-vt mathematically means x' wrt B = x wrt A -vt, which is indeed, obviously, not true.

THE ONLY "idiosyncratic definitions and notations" used, is that I merely keep track of co-ordinates wrt which system they are in reference to!
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

Re: x' = x-vt?

Postby Schrollini » Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:13 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:according to all at xkcd...the Galilean equation x' = x-vt means x' wrt A = x wrt A - vt,

whereas x' = x-vt mathematically means x' wrt B = x wrt A -vt, which is indeed, obviously, not true.

Everything you just wrote there was using a notation that no one else uses. So, yes, idiosyncratic.

steve waterman wrote:THE ONLY "idiosyncratic definitions and notations" used, is that I merely keep track of co-ordinates wrt which system they are in reference to!

And this statement doesn't make much sense with the standard definition of a coordinate system, since coordinates are meaningless outside of a system. If it's meaningful with your definition, your definition must be idiosyncratic.

More importantly: according to the standard definitions, there's a separation between a manifold and the coordinate system describing it. According to yours, there isn't. So, yes, idiosyncratic.
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: x' = x-vt?

Postby Klear » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:09 am UTC

Oh, this thread is gonna be epic... bookmarking now.

User avatar
Dopefish
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:46 am UTC
Location: The Well of Wishes

Re: x' = x-vt?

Postby Dopefish » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:11 am UTC

You have far greater expectations for this threads survival than I have.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: x' = x-vt?

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:58 am UTC

It's not going to be epic, actually, because Mr. Waterman still seems incapable of using the same notation and definitions as everyone else in the world. As such, I don't think there's any reason to keep this thread open here.

Steve, if you intentionally want to communicate badly and then get pissy when people tell you you're not making any sense, you can do it in the General forum.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests