Relativity or something [Split from "Pressures"]

[steve waterman]

ADDED ( on November 14, 2012 )
I was inspired by this xkcd comic by Randall Munroe -

and I launched the following post

a little background info..

Woldemar Voigt, a fellow German of Albert Einstein, originated/published the base formula for "Einstein's Relativity" in the late 1880's. Voigt's work was apparent "borrowed" by Einstein...stuff like, tensors, x' = x-vt, and the speed of light being constant...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldemar_Voigt

Infinitely more amazing, is that Voigt's equations, used by Einstein, were wrong in 1887 when Voigt used them, and continue to be the sole basis of Relativity, via 1905, "Einstein's version", to this very day. The essence of this failure, is due their practice of relocating one of two coincident Cartesian systems, without carrying along its' inherent coordination ( nor selected points ) .

Mathematically, the equation that Einstein "borrowed" from Voigt , x' = x -vt...is invalid/wrong...as x' ( in its' system ) = x ( in its' system ) !!

This is so, because...[ my axiom ] ...origin relocation does not alter fixed coordinate point locations/values nor fixed selected point locations/values...
wrt the system in which they reside. The Galiean/Voigt Transformation violate this mathematical truth.

I have several related pages dedicated to this one issue at my site...there is a 3 question quiz...re coordinates...got an opinion ?
http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/gg2012.html
http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/FCWOOO_THEORY.html
here are three original related poems ...inspired by 3 xkcd comics...
http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/art1.html
http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/art2.html
http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/art3.html

[gmalivuk]

got an opinion?

Yes, but you probably wouldn't like it.

[steve waterman]

got an opinion?

Yes, but you probably wouldn't like it.

I would, if it be criticism of the math presented, and would not, if it be a personal one.
Do you have a math comment(s) ?

In your opinion, do Cartesian coordinates values stay affixed to a system, if that system is moved/relocated ? ....anyone ?

[J Thomas]

got an opinion?

Yes, but you probably wouldn't like it.

I would, if it be criticism of the math presented, and would not, if it be a personal one.
Do you have a math comment(s) ?

In your opinion, do Cartesian coordinates values stay affixed to a system, if that system is moved/relocated ? ....anyone ?

I don't understand your objection. The idea you object to, to me just looks like a function. x'=x-vt

So you find out where x' is in the x coordinate system. Of course x' is at x' in its own coordinate system, but the point of the function is to provide a relationship between the two.

Maybe I could see better what you're trying to do if you show how to do it right, instead of just saying that relativity is done wrong.

"You're doing it wrong" is certainly a pervasive meme, but it lacks a certain something....

[jpers36]

In your opinion, do Cartesian coordinates values stay affixed to a system, if that system is moved/relocated ? ....anyone ?

How is it possible to move or relocate an abstract idea?

[steve waterman]

got an opinion?

Yes, but you probably wouldn't like it.

I would, if it be criticism of the math presented, and would not, if it be a personal one.
Do you have a math comment(s) ?

In your opinion, do Cartesian coordinates values stay affixed to a system, if that system is moved/relocated ? ....anyone ?

I don't understand your objection. The idea you object to, to me just looks like a function. x'=x-vt

So you find out where x' is in the x coordinate system. Of course x' is at x' in its own coordinate system,
but the point of the function is to provide a relationship between the two.

Maybe I could see better what you're trying to do if you show how to do it right, instead of just saying that relativity is done wrong.

"You're doing it wrong" is certainly a pervasive meme, but it lacks a certain something....

Thanks for the math comments, they are appreciated.

My objection is that, no other coordination values for x' can be allowed. x' is defined as the distance from its origin in the abscissa direction.
Assigning x' as x-vt...when in fact x' = x, as you appear to agree with above, let's x' = x'-vt...which obviously cannot be true.

( from answering "no" to question 3... on this page this page
http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/gg2012.html

...how a proper selected point transformation should be done...
http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/gg3n.html

[steve waterman]

In your opinion, do Cartesian coordinates values stay affixed to a system, if that system is moved/relocated ? ....anyone ?

How is it possible to move or relocate an abstract idea?

Cartesian coordinate systems are mathematical constructs.
Mathematically speaking, one can relocate the system, by imagining that the origin is relocated from 0,0,0 to say 2,0,0.... (wrt itself )
and the system carries with it, all of the original coordinate values/distances.

math versus physical...
http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/MATHVS.html

[J Thomas]

In your opinion, do Cartesian coordinates values stay affixed to a system, if that system is moved/relocated ? ....anyone ?

How is it possible to move or relocate an abstract idea?

Cartesian coordinate systems are mathematical constructs.
Mathematically speaking, one can relocate the system, by imagining that the origin is relocated from 0,0,0 to say 2,0,0.... (wrt itself )
and the system carries with it, all of the original coordinate values/distances.

Yes, exactly. If you relocate the origin to -vt and carry all the original coordinate values/distances with it, then you can use x'=x-vt to translate from one system to the other. Where did the point 2,2 go? It went to 2-vt, 2 in the x system, and its value will be 2,2 in the x' system.

You're either saying something profound that I don't quite get, or else you're somehow confused. If there's something profound here I don't see it yet.

math versus physical...
http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/MATHVS.html

[gmalivuk]

Cartesian coordinate systems are mathematical constructs.

They are not, however, the ones we use for space-time in relativity.

[steve waterman]

In your opinion, do Cartesian coordinates values stay affixed to a system, if that system is moved/relocated ? ....anyone ?

JT - How is it possible to move or relocate an abstract idea?

Cartesian coordinate systems are mathematical constructs.
Mathematically speaking, one can relocate the system, by imagining that the origin is relocated from 0,0,0 to say 2,0,0.... (wrt itself )
and the system carries with it, all of the original coordinate values/distances.

JT - Yes, exactly. If you relocate the origin to -vt and carry all the original coordinate values/distances with it, then you can use x'=x-vt to translate from one system to the other.

Yes...quite true.
There is a problem here, however, in that, if we are given a point P in system A at ( 2,0,0 ) and a point P' in B at (2,0,0)...and A and B coincident...
then for example point P in A should transform to point P in B...not to point Q in B. Likewise, point Q in B should transform to point Q in A.
The Galilean transformation only has coordinate point x in A and coordinate point Q in B.

JT - Where did the point 2,2 go? It went to 2-vt, 2 in the x system, and its value will be 2,2 in the x' system.

btw, There is no point 2,2 ?...you need three values like (2,0,0).
So if point Q in B is at (2,0,0) at coincidence...(the assigned distance of 2, from its origin) ...transforms to Point Q in B at (2-vt).???...
and GENERATES this....the transformed point Q at (2-vt,0,0) in B... is located at / DEFINED as the distance of 2 from its origin...which, of course...is NOT true....I realize that this will not be all that clear, likely...why this creates an inequality.

JT - You're either saying something profound that I don't quite get,

Understandable, it is not easy to get this. A large portion of trouble is due to the equation in question NOT having ANY notification/label as to what system a point is in.... x' in B = x in A -vt to B. You would agree then that x in A is ALWAYS = x' in B...if there were once both coincident systems?

Indeed, they say x' is always only in one system...I say that x' in say, system B, transforms to x' in system A...not to x in A, as the Galilean portends to be correct. So, they have no transformed coordinate point called x' in A, nor do they have a transformed point CALLED x in B...which is mathematically required.

[jpers36]

Cartesian coordinate systems are mathematical constructs.
Mathematically speaking, one can relocate the system, by imagining that the origin is relocated from 0,0,0 to say 2,0,0.... (wrt itself )
and the system carries with it, all of the original coordinate values/distances.

Again, we're dealing with an abstract idea. Moving the system and its frame of reference the same distance in the same direction is exactly the same as doing nothing at all (to be more blunt, it's nonsense). There's no supersecret "true" frame of reference.

[steve waterman]

Cartesian coordinate systems are mathematical constructs.
Mathematically speaking, one can relocate the system, by imagining that the origin is relocated from 0,0,0 to say 2,0,0.... (wrt itself )
and the system carries with it, all of the original coordinate values/distances.

Again, we're dealing with an abstract idea. Moving the system and its frame of reference the same distance in the same direction is exactly the same as doing nothing at all (to be more blunt, it's nonsense). There's no supersecret "true" frame of reference.

So you agree with me then....
Mathematically speaking, one can relocate the system, by imagining that the origin is relocated from 0,0,0 to say 2,0,0.... (wrt itself )
and the system carries with it, all of the original coordinate values/distances...and ALL SELECTED POINTS.

Why, one would want to relocate a system ?...well, it is what the Galilean transformation scenario encompasses.

[gmalivuk]

But with relativity you're not just sliding things around, you're also skewing the whole grid in the direction of motion. This *does* change distances and angles, even if just translating everything wouldn't.

[steve waterman]

I would like to ask...

given this scenario...Red and Blue coincident systems...with a selected point P and Q


is the depiction below the results that one mathematically achieves?....
if we merely relocate ( in the x direction) either Red left 3 or Blue right 3.



If you said yes, ( which is correct,btw ), then what would YOU say is the correct transformation of point P and point Q ?

P in Red transforms to... ?
btw, the Galilean says ...Q in Blue, which is wrong.
Q in Blue transforms to... ?
btw, the Galilean says ...P in Red, which is wrong.

I have P in Red at (2,0,0) ...transforms to P in Blue at (-1,0,0)...and simultaneously
I have Q in Blue at (2,0,0)...transforms to Q in Red at (5,0,0)

Note...it is oh so true that x in Red = x' in Blue
and that x in Red = x in Blue - vt
and that x' in Blue = x' in Red +vt

It is not true that x' in Red = x in Blue -vt...because, x in Red = x' in Blue.

[J Thomas]

I would like to ask...

given this scenario...Red and Blue coincident systems...with a selected point P and Q


is the depiction below the results that one mathematically achieves?....
if we merely relocate ( in the x direction) either Red left 3 or Blue right 3.



If you said yes, ( which is correct,btw ), then what would YOU say is the correct transformation of point P and point Q ?

P in Red transforms to... ?
btw, the Galilean says ...Q in Blue, which is wrong.
Q in Blue transforms to... ?
btw, the Galilean says ...P in Red, which is wrong.

I have P in Red at (2,0,0) ...transforms to P in Blue at (-1,0,0)...and simultaneously
I have Q in Blue at (2,0,0)...transforms to Q in Red at (5,0,0)

Note...it is oh so true that x in Red = x' in Blue
and that x in Red = x in Blue - vt
and that x' in Blue = x' in Red +vt

It is not true that x' in Red = x in Blue -vt...because, x in Red = x' in Blue.

It looks to me like everything you say is true except when you say what a galilean transform will do.

Also, if you start with x in your red system then when you find x' you're finding the value in the red system that equals x in the blue system, namely x + 3.

It's like you have a function f(x)=x+3 only instead of naming the function f(x) you name it x'. x'=x+3

You want to say not to do that transformation, but why not? I have the impression you think that a mistake is being made. But it does what people want it to do. If there's a mistake here it's wanting to do that. And I don't see how that's a wrong thing to want.

[steve waterman]

JT - It looks to me like everything you say is true except when you say what a galilean transform will do.

This is exactly why, I asked the above questions...which were ignored. Please, i am trying to walk you through my proof...however, I need to you answer
the scant few questions i am asking....from above...

1 is the depiction below the results that one mathematically achieves?....
if we merely relocate ( in the x direction) either Red left 3 or Blue right 3.

2 If you said yes, ( which is correct,btw ), then what would YOU say is the correct transformation of point P and point Q ?
P in Red transforms to... ? Q in Blue transforms to... ?

[gmalivuk]

He already answered that question: the rest of your argument looks right. Your misunderstanding comes from what you think Galilean relativity concludes.

And again, remember that Lorentz transformations don't just slide the origin around, they actually skew the whole lattice in the direction of motion.

[steve waterman]

He already answered that question: the rest of your argument looks right.

SW - I do not see any answer to either of my two questions...

Your misunderstanding comes from what you think Galilean relativity concludes.

SW - You have already concluded that I possess a misunderstanding here...yet ..i have yet to present my proof/walk through?
I had hoped to present my evidence before any premature conclusion: that i am misunderstanding what the Galilean does.

And again, remember that Lorentz transformations don't just slide the origin around, they actually skew the whole lattice in the direction of motion.

SW - Indeed, this Lorentz conclusion/derivation also uses the same bogus equation, x' = x-vt...and then uses c, instead of v. Relativity could only work IF the math of x' = x-vt is valid.

So, still no answer to my 2 questions....let me ask them one a time then...hoping to get a direct answer, please...given...

then Blue moves/relocates right 3 along x....do we get
selected point P in Red is at (2,0,0) and selected point P in blue is at (2,0,0) ?

[gmalivuk]

SW - Indeed, this Lorentz conclusion/derivation also uses the same bogus equation, x' = x-vt...and then uses c, instead of v. Relativity could only work IF the math of x' = x-vt is valid.

It doesn't use c instead of v, it's just that expressing v as a fraction of c makes the most sense, because then permitted velocities are less than 1 and the light cone opens at 45 degrees from the time axis.

[eran_rathan]

steve -

if relativity is wrong, please explain frame dragging, relativistic length, time and mass dilation, and gravitational lensing.

[steve waterman]

steve -

if relativity is wrong, please explain frame dragging, relativistic length, time and mass dilation, and gravitational lensing.

SW - First i want to discuss the math. First, i need someone to answer a question or two...so that i can do a little walk-through of the/my math logic.

Can you answer/give an opinion upon either of my two questions, please?

I am amazed by how many educated people have actually refused to answer this first question, over the years Indeed, people have basically ignored me, at this point...never really got an answer...and then, traditionally, only personal attacks, when I press for an answer. That is, I do not get a chance to even begin to show a simple walk-through. This is now well over a decade of behavior. Why is this question so hard to merit a simple mathematical opinion {{rhetorical}? I just need someone to play along for like, a few easy steps...step 1...just give me an answer to question 1...

[eran_rathan]

steve -

if relativity is wrong, please explain frame dragging, relativistic length, time and mass dilation, and gravitational lensing.

SW - First i want to discuss the math. First, i need someone to answer a question or two...so that i can do a little walk-through of the/my math logic.

Can you answer/give an opinion upon either of my two questions, please?

a question in response: why aren't you taking into effect the Lorentzian contractions?

a transformation from one coordinate system to another requires scale, rotation, translation: you are only taking into account one of those factors.

[steve waterman]

steve -

if relativity is wrong, please explain frame dragging, relativistic length, time and mass dilation, and gravitational lensing.

SW - First i want to discuss the math. First, i need someone to answer a question or two...so that i can do a little walk-through of the/my math logic.

Can you answer/give an opinion upon either of my two questions, please?

a question in response: why aren't you taking into effect the Lorentzian contractions?

SW - I am challenging the Galilean math. This math x' = x-vt...for Lorentz...uses x' = x-ct. If the math of the galilean is improper..then so too, will be the lorentz, time dilation and length contraction. If the Galilean were right, then i would have zero problem with those conclusions...including the "light cone",
whereas, for me, the universe shares a common now.

a transformation from one coordinate system to another requires scale, rotation, translation: you are only taking into account one of those factors.

SW - Actually, the faulty Galilean only deals with one dimensional math...whereas what i propose is 3d math...including all the above factors.
The Galilean cannot handle multiple selected points..whereas, my transformation process/logic can.

i wish to stay on focus, noting that there are a kazillion side topics here. I ask that you answer my first question...That is, please let me do my silly walk-through first and then i am happy to respond to side-topic issues.

Y'all seem to all miss the significance of using "named systems" for point designation...as would be...noting the distinction between
P in Red transforms to P in Blue ( me )
P in Ped transforms to Q in Blue (galilean)

my beef....Q in B was assigned at coincidence at (2,0,0)...the galilean manifests a second value for Q in Blue as (2-vt,0,0)...which unwittingly, generates this inequality....Q in Blue = (2,0,0) =(2-vt,0,0)! for example, let vt = 3...then 2 = -1. For the galilean, they "slide" one system, but DO NOT carry the selected point with it...which, i am saying, is mathematically required.

i hope i have not side-tracked things by stating my beef...i am determined/hoping to get a couple of answers/opinions, if possible...

[steve waterman]

SW - Indeed, this Lorentz conclusion/derivation also uses the same bogus equation, x' = x-vt...and then uses c, instead of v. Relativity could only work IF the math of x' = x-vt is valid.

It doesn't use c instead of v, it's just that expressing v as a fraction of c makes the most sense, because then permitted velocities are less than 1 and the light cone opens at 45 degrees from the time axis.

Sw - I have particular objection to the "light cone"., also completely contingent upon the challenged Galilean x' = x-vt.
For me, it is simultaneously the same now everywhere...always. noting that movement is futile to alter this reality.
Even if one went 100 times the speed of light...the universe still ticks off the same second...and this is a certainty,...well, for me it is.

[eran_rathan]

SW - Indeed, this Lorentz conclusion/derivation also uses the same bogus equation, x' = x-vt...and then uses c, instead of v. Relativity could only work IF the math of x' = x-vt is valid.

It doesn't use c instead of v, it's just that expressing v as a fraction of c makes the most sense, because then permitted velocities are less than 1 and the light cone opens at 45 degrees from the time axis.

Sw - I have particular objection to the "light cone"., also completely contingent upon the challenged Galilean x' = x-vt.
For me, it is simultaneously the same now everywhere...always. noting that movement is futile to alter this reality.
Even if one went 100 times the speed of light...the universe still ticks off the same second...and this is a certainty,...well, for me it is.

I think that you don't really understand what you are saying.

Time dilation is measurable.

EDIT: Yes, its the same 'now' everywhere - but you can't necessarily interact with everywhere simultaneously. And the length of a second is shorter or longer depending on how fast you are going, in regards to an external reference frame.

EDIT2: saying '100 times the speed of light' tells me you really don't understand what you are proposing.

[steve waterman]

SW - Indeed, this Lorentz conclusion/derivation also uses the same bogus equation, x' = x-vt...and then uses c, instead of v. Relativity could only work IF the math of x' = x-vt is valid.

It doesn't use c instead of v, it's just that expressing v as a fraction of c makes the most sense, because then permitted velocities are less than 1 and the light cone opens at 45 degrees from the time axis.

Sw - I have particular objection to the "light cone"., also completely contingent upon the challenged Galilean x' = x-vt.
For me, it is simultaneously the same now everywhere...always. noting that movement is futile to alter this reality.
Even if one went 100 times the speed of light...the universe still ticks off the same second...and this is a certainty,...well, for me it is.

I think that you don't really understand what you are saying.

Time dilation is measurable.

EDIT: Yes, its the same 'now' everywhere - but you can't necessarily interact with everywhere simultaneously. And the length of a second is shorter or longer depending on how fast you are going, in regards to an external reference frame.

So, is that your justification for not answering my math question? You are sure I am wrong, prior to showing you my logic...your choice for dismissal
Time dilation is measurable....rather than go down this road, explaining time dilation mechanics, I see this as off-topic for now...um,
indeed, anything that is not the question response...is felt to be most counter-productive in allowing me to show you my short math proof.

Still not a single answer to either simple math question....for you, nor other xkcd poster....
amazing, disappointing, surprising, unfortunately anticipated, perplexing.

[gmalivuk]

Then your certainty is wrong, by abundant experiments verifying relativity if not by contradicting relativity itself, and my original opinion is confirmed: you are pretty much a physics crank.

[eran_rathan]

So, is that your justification for not answering my math question? You are sure I am wrong, prior to showing you my logic...your choice for dismissal
Time dilation is measurable....rather than go down this road, explaining time dilation mechanics, I see this as off-topic for now...um,
indeed, anything that is not the question response...is felt to be most counter-productive in allowing me to show you my short math proof.

Still not a single answer to either simple math question....for you, nor other xkcd poster....
amazing, disappointing, surprising, unfortunately anticipated, perplexing.

Steve -

It is the difference between recognizing that pi=3.14159.... and thinking that "gee, would't it be easier if pi=3?"

If your theory does not accurately predict observable evidence, it is false. Period. End of discussion.

Science: it works, bitches!

[steve waterman]

So, is that your justification for not answering my math question? You are sure I am wrong, prior to showing you my logic...your choice for dismissal
Time dilation is measurable....rather than go down this road, explaining time dilation mechanics, I see this as off-topic for now...um,
indeed, anything that is not the question response...is felt to be most counter-productive in allowing me to show you my short math proof.

Still not a single answer to either simple math question....for you, nor other xkcd poster....
amazing, disappointing, surprising, unfortunately anticipated, perplexing.

Steve -

It is the difference between recognizing that pi=3.14159.... and thinking that "gee, wouldn't it be easier if pi=3?"

If your theory does not accurately predict observable evidence, it is false. Period. End of discussion.

Science: it works, bitches!

So, you also refuse to answer my question nor allow me show a walk-through and decide end the discussion without giving an answer, asked over and over and always simply ignored. I am not even asking for an open mind, dude...have whatever existing notion you may have. Why is it that, you refuse to answer this ever so simple math question...are you scared to answer?..or is it that you just have no intelligent response,that you deem me worthy of enough, to state? This is not Science, btw, this is Math...I do indeed challenge the Math used by Physics...hence I challenge Relativity mechanics/conclusions. If their math is wrong, so too is their Relativity. If their Math is right, so too is their Relativity.

Yup, discussion closed then... since you refuse to answer my simple math question.

[gmalivuk]

Their physics is (mostly) right by observation. If your math predicts different observations, you're either doing the math wrong or giving it the wrong inputs.

They might *also* be doing their math wrong, and end up with correct predictions by coincidence, but no amount of justification from you will lead to any reasonable person accepting that you're doing everything right when your conclusions are contradicted by simple observations.

[J Thomas]

So, still no answer to my 2 questions....let me ask them one a time then...hoping to get a direct answer, please...given...

then Blue moves/relocates right 3 along x....do we get
selected point P in Red is at (2,0,0) and selected point P in blue is at (2,0,0) ?

OK, I'll do it. When you do x'=x+3, where x is in the red frame and x' is the location on the red frame that has the label x in the blue frame,
the point P in Red at (2,0,0) transforms to the point (5,0,0) in Blue.

Doing the inverse transformation, the point (2,0,0) in Blue transforms to the point (-1,0,0) in Red. Since it's linear, the inverse transformation is guaranteed to work everywhere.

if relativity is wrong, please explain frame dragging, relativistic length, time and mass dilation, and gravitational lensing.

He hasn't explained his theory to replace relativity. He's saying there's something wrong with the way the math is usually done. If he was right about that then the question would be how to fix the math to get answers that work right. But we haven't gotten that far.

Saying "I have test cases where my formulas get the right answer" is not enough to prove that your formulas are right. (Though it's a lot better than test cases where they're wrong!)

I don't see where steve waterman is heading and I doubt that he has found a flaw in the math or its application, but if he's worth talking to at all isn't it worth finding out what he's saying? Is it worth replying "Relativity is right and therefore you are wrong" one more time?

This is important! Another physics crank has claimed that relativity is wrong on the internet!

[eran_rathan]

So, you also refuse to answer my question nor allow me show a walk-through and decide end the discussion without giving an answer, asked over and over and always simply ignored. I am not even asking for an open mind, dude...have whatever existing notion you may have. Why is it that, you refuse to answer this ever so simple math question...are you scared to answer?..or is it that you just have no intelligent response,that you deem me worthy of enough, to state?(1) This is not Science, btw, this is Math...I do indeed challenge the Math used by Physics...hence I challenge Relativity mechanics/conclusions. If their math is wrong, so too is their Relativity. If their Math is right, so too is their Relativity.(2)

Yup, discussion closed then... since you refuse to answer my simple math question.

(1) http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
(2) http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

I am perfectly willing to allow you a walk-through. I am even perfectly willing to entertain that you may be right. However, for a theory to have utility, it must be based on evidence.

"One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority." -R.A. Heinlien

[steve waterman]

this is a simple math question

This is not about physics, nor relativity, transformations, time, space, observers, dilation, etc, etc

given coincident red and blue Cartesian coordinate system with a selected point at (2,0,0) in each

If we move the Blue system,

does selected point Q move with the Blue system?

or does selected point Q in Blue stay right there, opposite of point P in Red
as the Blue system is "relocated" underneath point Q in Blue?

I would hugely appreciate any opinion...without talking about non-math stuff, would be ever more so desired.

[eran_rathan]

this is a simple math question

This is not about physics, nor relativity, transformations, time, space, observers, dilation, etc, etc

given coincident red and blue Cartesian coordinate system with a selected point at (2,0,0) in each

If we move the Blue system,

does selected point Q move with the Blue system?

or does selected point Q in Blue stay right there, opposite of point P in Red
as the Blue system is "relocated" underneath point Q in Blue?

I would hugely appreciate any opinion...without talking about non-math stuff, would be ever more so desired.

Q and P should be coincident, so even if you redefine Blue to another origin and rotation (assuming it is scale-invariant), Q and P will remain coincident.

[steve waterman]

So, you also refuse to answer my question nor allow me show a walk-through and decide end the discussion without giving an answer, asked over and over and always simply ignored. I am not even asking for an open mind, dude...have whatever existing notion you may have. Why is it that, you refuse to answer this ever so simple math question...are you scared to answer?..or is it that you just have no intelligent response,that you deem me worthy of enough, to state?(1) This is not Science, btw, this is Math...I do indeed challenge the Math used by Physics...hence I challenge Relativity mechanics/conclusions. If their math is wrong, so too is their Relativity. If their Math is right, so too is their Relativity.(2)

Yup, discussion closed then... since you refuse to answer my simple math question.

(1) http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
(2) http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

I am perfectly willing to allow you a walk-through.

SW - I would love the opportunity...thank you.

I am even perfectly willing to entertain that you may be right.

SW - Let the proof be determined by the math...I just want a chance...

However, for a theory to have utility, it must be based on evidence.

SW - Great...I have that...I want to show that...that is why I am asking the question that I have...

"One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority." -R.A. Heinlien

SW - This is math only...at this point...is has zip, at this point, to do with anything but straight forward acceptable math....there is no "theory" here...this is 100 percent MATH...as such...is evidence, for my proof/walk-through...

[steve waterman]

this is a simple math question

This is not about physics, nor relativity, transformations, time, space, observers, dilation, etc, etc

given coincident red and blue Cartesian coordinate system with a selected point at (2,0,0) in each

If we move the Blue system,

does selected point Q move with the Blue system?

or does selected point Q in Blue stay right there, opposite of point P in Red
as the Blue system is "relocated" underneath point Q in Blue?

I would hugely appreciate any opinion...without talking about non-math stuff, would be ever more so desired.

Q and P should be coincident, so even if you redefine Blue to another origin and rotation (assuming it is scale-invariant), Q and P will remain coincident.

Good man...appreciate the input. I happen to believe the opposite.
It would seem then, that you are moving an coordinates only system, and all selected points, from both systems remain stationary ?

Given say, two or more selected points in each system, would not allowing the alignment possible in this one point in each system example. i have consensus upon the concept that selected points move WITH their system. it would be nice to have another opinion or two as of right now, it is one to one.

What is the purpose of moving all the coordinate locations, as an empty system?? So, you are consistent here...in what the galilean process actually does...which, I am saying is wrong because the selected points do carry along, as they mathematically must.

[gmalivuk]

Then the question is what you're attaching your label to. If it's that physical ball you made, then the point 2,0,0 in Q will move to 5,0,0 in P.

What is your point? Do you think anyone is getting this part wrong? Because by now it's been answered a few times.

[eran_rathan]

Good man...appreciate the input. I happen to believe the opposite.
It would seem then, that you are moving an coordinates only system, and all selected points, from both systems remain stationary ?

Given say, two or more selected points in each system, would not allowing the alignment possible in this one point in each system example. i have consensus upon the concept that selected points move WITH their system. it would be nice to have another opinion or two as of right now, it is one to one.

What is the purpose of moving all the coordinate locations, as an empty system?? So, you are consistent here...in what the galilean process actually does...which, I am saying is wrong because the selected points do carry along, as they mathematically must.

No, they should not. Just because station 1 is at (5000,5000,100) in your local coordinate system does not mean that it is not also at (407830.9283,803307.4078,328.6058) in Maine State Plane NAD83(2007)/NGVD29 (for example).

EDIT: this also assumes that both coordinate systems are orthometric and rectilinear.

[Monika]

Good man...appreciate the input. I happen to believe the opposite.
It would seem then, that you are moving an coordinates only system, and all selected points, from both systems remain stationary ?

Given say, two or more selected points in each system, would not allowing the alignment possible in this one point in each system example. i have consensus upon the concept that selected points move WITH their system. it would be nice to have another opinion or two as of right now, it is one to one.

What is the purpose of moving all the coordinate locations, as an empty system?? So, you are consistent here...in what the galilean process actually does...which, I am saying is wrong because the selected points do carry along, as they mathematically must.

Here's the next opinion: You are wrong. Moving a coordinate system always means just moving the empty system, not moving the points or objects in that system. If P and Q are the same point before, they must be the same point after. If there is a point R (5,6,7) in a coordinate system and you move that coordinate system in direction +1 of the x-axis, the point does not move along, it's not (5,6,7) anymore, but it becomes (4,6,7) in the new/moved coordinate system.
I think you got confused by the mathematical notion of "moving a coordinate system". Translate this to "define a new coordinate system with the following origin/axes in terms of the first coordinate system | with the coordinates moved/rotated/stretched|shrinked in terms of the first coordinate system". It's really just a way of defining two coordinate systems and telling you how they are located to each other. It's not about moving points or things.

Also, this comic is relevant to this discussion: http://xkcd.com/808/

[steve waterman]

Okay, I know see that I can avoid asking that initial question and get more directly to proof.

The naming of points and associating that name with their system.

transformation takes the selected points in one system and places them into the opposite system.


Sooo, given this depiction of a point P and Q...what would be the a proper coordinate transformation between systems....

P in Red...transforms to what in what ?
Q in Blue...transforms to what in what ?

[ my error, you can forget that i asked the "motion" question...so no answer requested ].
So, just this one diagram...just this set of two questions, please.