Re: Teaching logic is urgent (the only reasonable transformatio

[pvalev <pvalev@BAS.BG>]

--- Bob Sciamanda <trebor@VELOCITY.NET> wrote:
> Pentcho,
> Ken included your statement  t' = (pv + q)t in his reply to my post:
> " . . . and a symmetric argument shows that t =
> gamma t' for events such that x' = 0 "
>
> Please carefully read the posts which answer your assertions!

I assume you would agree that an event such that x' = 0 could be the
movement of the front of a beam along the y'-axis. For this event, we
can substitute x = vt in Lorentz second equation and obtain indeed

t' = (1 / gamma)t          /1/

However take another event - the movement of the front of a beam
along the y-axis. For this event, x = 0, x' = -vt' and by
substituting these in Lorentz first equation we obtain

t' = gamma*t               /2/

The first event is slower in the primed (train) frame than in the
track frame, the second event is faster in the train frame than in
the track frame. In my view, the conclusion that, for some events,
time dilation in the primed frame turns into time constriction is
absurd. Since /1/ was obtained from Lorentz second and /2/ from
Lorentz first equation, the absurd conclusion implies that the two
Lorentz equations are incompatible. This can easily be checked - in a
previous posting, I expressed x from them:

x = (tc^2 - t'*c^2*sqrt)/v (second Lorentz)

x = vt + x'*sqrt   (first Lorentz)

I think it is obvious that in the second Lorentz x is almost
inversely proportional to v whereas in the first Lorentz x increases
almost linearly with v (the "almost" is due to the sqrt). I don't
know what other argument could show more convincingly that the two
Lorentz equations are incompatible.

Pentcho