Thread: Proof there exists spherical light waves in the rest frame t

1. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by chinglu
So, just because you found some point not on any light cone,
Let's just focus on this. You cannot follow a mathematical argument. I'm not talking about any light cone, I'm talking about your argument. You take two contradictory assumtions, so you come to a contradiction. You assume that the time in the rest frame cannot go past a certain point, yet you are looking for a point that you state is after that given point.
Uh, the way you prove my math is a contradiction is to use reductio ad absurdum. You failed to do this.

Now, if you try to apply this to my argument, you will fail and then you need to come back here and confess you are wrong and retract your statements.

How long will this take?

2. Originally Posted by chinglu
How long will this take?
Forever, it seems.

May I ask you a simple question?

Why do you think that light is subject to time-dilation and length contraction?

3. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by chinglu
How long will this take?
Forever, it seems.

May I ask you a simple question?

Why do you think that light is subject to time-dilation and length contraction?
They are specific math calculations.

For example, for time dilation, it is calculated as follows.

A moving clock satisifies x = vt.

Use LT

t' = ( t - vx/c² )γ

Plug in the condition above.

t' = ( t - v(vt)/c² )γ

t' = t( 1 - v²/c² )γ

t' = t( 1/γ²)γ

t' = t/γ.

The above is Einstein's proof. See the middle of section 4.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

But, light does not satisify time dilation. Here is why.

Let a pulse be emitted. Yet y = k be some mark on the rest frame y axis.

When light stikes the k mark, t = k/c and LT calculates t' = (k/c) γ for the moving clock at that position.

Here is that calculation.

LT t' = ( t - vx/c² )γ

t = k/c and x = 0

t' = ( (k/c) - v(0)/c² )γ = (k/c) γ

That is a moving clock and it is false that t' = t/γ.

4. Originally Posted by chinglu
They are specific math calculations.

For example, for time dilation, it is calculated as follows.

A moving clock satisifies x = vt.

Use LT

t' = ( t - vx/c² )γ

Plug in the condition above.

t' = ( t - v(vt)/c² )γ

t' = t( 1 - v²/c² )γ

t' = t( 1/γ²)γ

t' = t/γ.

The above is Einstein's proof. See the middle of section 4.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
But the above is not Einstein's proof. You can't see that, but people who read this thread should know this. Einstein derives that

t' = t-(1-1/γ)t

Chinglu, if you are serious, you need to explain why you derive something different from Einstein.

5. Originally Posted by chinglu
They are specific math calculations.

For example, for time dilation, it is calculated as follows.

A moving clock satisifies x = vt.

Use LT

t' = ( t - vx/c² )γ
This step is invalid, so everything that follows is nonsense.

The LT describes the relationship between time and spatial coordinates between two inertial frames in relative motion with respect to one another. A moving clock in the unprimed frame does not measure the time, t, of the unprimed frame. So the relation x=vt is not descriptive of the stated vsituation.

In short, you have misapplied the Lorentz transformation.

6. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by chinglu
They are specific math calculations.

For example, for time dilation, it is calculated as follows.

A moving clock satisifies x = vt.

Use LT

t' = ( t - vx/c² )γ
This step is invalid, so everything that follows is nonsense.

The LT describes the relationship between time and spatial coordinates between two inertial frames in relative motion with respect to one another. A moving clock in the unprimed frame does not measure the time, t, of the unprimed frame. So the relation x=vt is not descriptive of the stated vsituation.

In short, you have misapplied the Lorentz transformation.
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Further, we imagine one of the clocks which are qualified to mark the time t when at rest relatively to the stationary system, and the time τ when at rest relatively to the moving system, to be located at the origin of the co-ordinates of k, and so adjusted that it marks the time τ. What is the rate of this clock, when viewed from the stationary system?Between the quantities x, t, and τ, which refer to the position of the clock, we have, evidently, x=vt and

( 1 / √ (1 - v²/c²) ) ( t - vx/c²) = ( t - vx/c²)γ
Therefore,

τ = t √ (1 - v²/c²) = t - ( 1 - √ (1 - v²/c²) )t = t/γ

whence it follows that the time marked by the clock (viewed in the stationary system) is slow by 1 - √ (1 - v²/c²) seconds per second, or--neglecting magnitudes of fourth and higher order--by (1/2)v²/c².

From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by (1/2)tv²/c²(up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

7. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by chinglu
They are specific math calculations.

For example, for time dilation, it is calculated as follows.

A moving clock satisifies x = vt.

Use LT

t' = ( t - vx/c² )γ

Plug in the condition above.

t' = ( t - v(vt)/c² )γ

t' = t( 1 - v²/c² )γ

t' = t( 1/γ²)γ

t' = t/γ.

The above is Einstein's proof. See the middle of section 4.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
But the above is not Einstein's proof. You can't see that, but people who read this thread should know this. Einstein derives that

t' = t-(1-1/γ)t

Chinglu, if you are serious, you need to explain why you derive something different from Einstein.
Geez.

Einstein derives that

t' = t-(1-1/γ)t
t' = t-(1-1/γ)t

t' = t - (t - t/γ)

t' = t - t + t/γ

t' = t/γ

8. Look like Dr Rocket has chosen to agree with the conclusions of the thread.

9. Originally Posted by chinglu
Look like Dr Rocket has chosen to agree with the conclusions of the thread.
Don't be so childish. Just because someone fails to respond, does not mean that you can claim some sort of victory on those grounds. If that's your mentality then quite frankly you haven't a hope of convincing actual scientists to hear you out. Grow up please.

10. More likely he's either busy or done trying to correct you.

11. Originally Posted by chinglu
Look like Dr Rocket has chosen to agree with the conclusions of the thread.
No I have simply decided that you are an uneducable fool who has no credibility left.

Quite frankly all that you have proved is that you are too damn dumb to understand a logical explanation of the facts -- or in fact even one of the many explanations that have been presented to you by me and others (You could include Einstein in that group since you have rejected his perfectly valid argument for spherical wavefronts in all inertial frames.)

Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Don't be so childish. Just because someone fails to respond, does not mean that you can claim some sort of victory on those grounds. If that's your mentality then quite frankly you haven't a hope of convincing actual scientists to hear you out. Grow up please.
I am an "actual scientist". Whet chinglu is arguing against has been so thoroughly studied that there is zero chance of his argument receiving any serious attention in any professional venue. If that trash were to be submitted to a reputable journal it would not even go out to a referee -- just directly to the round file.

12. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by chinglu
Look like Dr Rocket has chosen to agree with the conclusions of the thread.
No I have simply decided that you are an uneducable fool who has no credibility left.

Quite frankly all that you have proved is that you are too damn dumb to understand a logical explanation of the facts -- or in fact even one of the many explanations that have been presented to you by me and others (You could include Einstein in that group since you have rejected his perfectly valid argument for spherical wavefronts in all inertial frames.)

Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Don't be so childish. Just because someone fails to respond, does not mean that you can claim some sort of victory on those grounds. If that's your mentality then quite frankly you haven't a hope of convincing actual scientists to hear you out. Grow up please.
I am an "actual scientist". Whet chinglu is arguing against has been so thoroughly studied that there is zero chance of his argument receiving any serious attention in any professional venue. If that trash were to be submitted to a reputable journal it would not even go out to a referee -- just directly to the round file.
All I have done is provide a math proof.

All you have done is been unable to refute it.

I would consider myself worthless if I could not refute a math proof and yet claimed it is false.

If you are indeed a scientist, then you either accept a math proof or you refute it.

Now, there is a third choice which you seem to be taking, it is beyond your pay grade. Is this what you are confessing?

13. Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
More likely he's either busy or done trying to correct you.
Check his error above in which I corrected him.

Instead of talk, let's get down to proof. Can you do that?

14. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by chinglu
Look like Dr Rocket has chosen to agree with the conclusions of the thread.
Don't be so childish. Just because someone fails to respond, does not mean that you can claim some sort of victory on those grounds. If that's your mentality then quite frankly you haven't a hope of convincing actual scientists to hear you out. Grow up please.
Do you really believe actual scientists want to hear any evidence contrary to their beliefs?

Let's look at Dr Rocket. He has been unable to refute the proof.
Yet, he clings to his belief system regardless of being able to refute it.

A real scientist would leave it an open question if they could not prove it false.

In fact, if it refuted their basic "values", they would make it a priority to put the proof on trial one way or the other. I am not providing an opinion, I am providing a math proof.

To claim a proof is false without any ability to challenge it reminds me of flat earth dark age bigotry.

15. I think he's confessing it's pointless to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

16. Chinglu, perhaps you could suggest an experiment we could perform in order to test your hypothesis. What predictions does your addition to SR make, that we can test for?

17. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Chinglu, perhaps you could suggest an experiment we could perform in order to test your hypothesis. What predictions does your addition to SR make, that we can test for?

I placed marks on the primed yaxis to signal start and stop events.

We have already been through all this.

The LT output of the unprimed spherical light wave does not match the spherical light wave in the primed frame.

18. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
I think he's confessing it's pointless to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
who?

19. Originally Posted by DrRocket
I am an "actual scientist".
I know. I was including you in that category.

Originally Posted by DrRocket
Whet chinglu is arguing against has been so thoroughly studied that there is zero chance of his argument receiving any serious attention in any professional venue. If that trash were to be submitted to a reputable journal it would not even go out to a referee -- just directly to the round file.
I also know this- but chinglu doesn't. Before he can address that rather enormous issue (which I admit is practically insurmountable), he first needs to stop acting like a smug teenager. He reckons he has some ideas to communicate- he'll utterly fail in that modest goal if he carries on acting as he is.

Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by chinglu
Look like Dr Rocket has chosen to agree with the conclusions of the thread.
Don't be so childish. Just because someone fails to respond, does not mean that you can claim some sort of victory on those grounds. If that's your mentality then quite frankly you haven't a hope of convincing actual scientists to hear you out. Grow up please.
Do you really believe actual scientists want to hear any evidence contrary to their beliefs?
I believe that some people don't and that scientists are people. That's well accepted. However, a significant proportion of scientists are also willing to accept new ideas. If they were not, how can we explain scientific progress?

If you believe this is not true, then you are attempting to convince an audience you believe to be utter closed to new ideas. Which would make you either a masochist or a fool.

Originally Posted by DrRocket
To claim a proof is false without any ability to challenge it reminds me of flat earth dark age bigotry.
It reminds me of skepticism. To which all great scientific advances (and a far greater number of dead ends) have been quite appropriately subjected. If you would like a credulous audience, I suggest you visit a forum that doesn't have the word 'science' in the title.

20. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
I also know this- but chinglu doesn't.
Indeed. And, in all honesty, this is a sign of mental illness. If chinglu really has studied anything of relativity thoery, then chinglu should know this. If chinglu is serious about this subject, then chinglu should have studied relativity theory. chinglu, however, substitutes commitment for understanding.

21. Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Chinglu, perhaps you could suggest an experiment we could perform in order to test your hypothesis. What predictions does your addition to SR make, that we can test for?

I placed marks on the primed yaxis to signal start and stop events.

We have already been through all this.

The LT output of the unprimed spherical light wave does not match the spherical light wave in the primed frame.
Okay let's have another look.

Originally Posted by chinglu
First, on the rest frame time interval, say t1-t2, we know r1 = ct1 and r2 = ct2.

This means, by the Pythagorean theorem, the t1 light sphere will hit the moving frame y axis at the location y1 = r1/γ and the t2 light sphere will hit the moving frame y axis at the location y2 = r2/γ. This is a well established method of deriving time dilation.

Both frames agree on this.

So, both frames can agree on an "agreed upon" interval determined by using y1 and y2 markings as the start/stop events.
"Both frames agree on this." is not good enough, I'm afraid. You have to show that both frames agree on this.

You have not yet explained exactly how you set up a simultaneity convention between the frames.

As you must know if you understand SR as you say you do, the start and stop events on the primed yaxis will not translate to the unprimed frame in any absolute manner, due to the relativity of simultaneity. So, you have to set up a simultaneity convention between the two frames, which will, by definition, be arbitrary.

Do you not remember the result of the train and embankment gedankenexperiment? The lightning flashes are both simultaneous, and not simultaneous, depending on the frame of reference, and both frames are correct. The difference in simultaneity is not due to the light travel time between the event and the observer (the events are both simultaneous and not simultaneous after calculating out the light travel time), it is due to the constancy of c to both observers.

There is no absolute simultaneity for events separated by space (your start/stop events) when frames involved are in relative motion. So, how does your experiment deal with this?

22. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by DrRocket
"]To claim a proof is false without any ability to challenge it reminds me of flat earth dark age bigotry.
It reminds me of skepticism. To which all great scientific advances (and a far greater number of dead ends) have been quite appropriately subjected. If you would like a credulous audience, I suggest you visit a forum that doesn't have the word 'science' in the title.
I am sure the mistake was innocent, but the words you are addressing are chinglu's not mine.

23. Originally Posted by chinglu
Let's look at Dr Rocket. He has been unable to refute the proof.
Yet, he clings to his belief system regardless of being able to refute it.

A real scientist would leave it an open question if they could not prove it false.

In fact, if it refuted their basic "values", they would make it a priority to put the proof on trial one way or the other. I am not providing an opinion, I am providing a math proof.

To claim a proof is false without any ability to challenge it reminds me of flat earth dark age bigotry.
I did refute your proof, with real mathematics. In fact you also refuted it. The refutation is very simple using the Minkowski spacetime metric from which the Lorentz transformations arise (they preserve the metric).

The difficulty is simply that you lack sufficient undersanding of mathematics to understand the refutation. You also lack sufficient understanding of relatvity to understand the other points that were brought up regarding your misapplication of the Lorentz transformtions.

The problem is not bigotry. The problem lies with your understanding, or lack thereof.

Lack of rationality on your part contributes to the problem. You are nuts.

24. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
It reminds me of skepticism. To which all great scientific advances (and a far greater number of dead ends) have been quite appropriately subjected. If you would like a credulous audience, I suggest you visit a forum that doesn't have the word 'science' in the title.
It is curious a math proof is offered to the mainstream against its main branch that it cannot refute.

Yet, the mainstream automagically claims the proof is invalid because it does not agree with its scriptural writings.

I thought science was based on math and proof. Looks like you and I disagree.

25. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
"Both frames agree on this." is not good enough, I'm afraid. You have to show that both frames agree on this.

You have not yet explained exactly how you set up a simultaneity convention between the frames.

As you must know if you understand SR as you say you do, the start and stop events on the primed yaxis will not translate to the unprimed frame in any absolute manner, due to the relativity of simultaneity. So, you have to set up a simultaneity convention between the two frames, which will, by definition, be arbitrary.

Do you not remember the result of the train and embankment gedankenexperiment? The lightning flashes are both simultaneous, and not simultaneous, depending on the frame of reference, and both frames are correct. The difference in simultaneity is not due to the light travel time between the event and the observer (the events are both simultaneous and not simultaneous after calculating out the light travel time), it is due to the constancy of c to both observers.

There is no absolute simultaneity for events separated by space (your start/stop events) when frames involved are in relative motion. So, how does your experiment deal with this?
You are confused. When two events HAVE DIFFERENT X COORDINATES, then the relativity of simultaneity applies.

26. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by chinglu
Let's look at Dr Rocket. He has been unable to refute the proof.
Yet, he clings to his belief system regardless of being able to refute it.

A real scientist would leave it an open question if they could not prove it false.

In fact, if it refuted their basic "values", they would make it a priority to put the proof on trial one way or the other. I am not providing an opinion, I am providing a math proof.

To claim a proof is false without any ability to challenge it reminds me of flat earth dark age bigotry.
I did refute your proof, with real mathematics. In fact you also refuted it. The refutation is very simple using the Minkowski spacetime metric from which the Lorentz transformations arise (they preserve the metric).

The difficulty is simply that you lack sufficient undersanding of mathematics to understand the refutation. You also lack sufficient understanding of relatvity to understand the other points that were brought up regarding your misapplication of the Lorentz transformtions.

The problem is not bigotry. The problem lies with your understanding, or lack thereof.

Lack of rationality on your part contributes to the problem. You are nuts.
Nope, this is not a refutation.

Recall, SR requires that the LT mapping of the spherical light wave in the rest frame is that of the one in the moving frame.

I demonstrated using two marks on the y axis of the moving frame that LT and and the primed light postulate disagree on light spheres between those two marks.

So, LT does not match the primed spherical light wave. That proves SR is false.
So, you failed.

27. Originally Posted by chinglu
You are confused. When two events HAVE DIFFERENT X COORDINATES, then the relativity of simultaneity applies.
Yeah, and you can't have a sphere withouth different x coordinates. For some reason, you continually forget this.

28. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by chinglu
You are confused. When two events HAVE DIFFERENT X COORDINATES, then the relativity of simultaneity applies.
Yeah, and you can't have a sphere withouth different x coordinates. For some reason, you continually forget this.
I don't forget that.

I let SR tell me.

That is the same SR based on x that says the primed frame does not see one light sphere and on the other hand sees an infinite number of light spheres.

29. Let me tell you what I am doing.

Oh, there is nothing SR can do.

Einstein claimed time dilation is absolute. That means for every time interval at the origin of a frame, the origin of the other frame will be time dilated.

This is absolute.

Now, what is time dilation. It is a light beam moving from the origin of a frame to the y-axis of the other frame.

I then place the relativity of simultaneity which is a relative concept against time dilation which is an absolute concept between the frames.

The absolute time dilation ( 2 y-axis marks) allows me to connect the frames in an absolute way.

The relativity of simultaneity allows me to show on that absolute time interval the two frames cannot agree on light spheres.

If you have a theory of relativity, then all conclusions must be relative or the theory must contradict itself. It cannot have any absolutes likes time dilation.

30. Originally Posted by chinglu
Einstein claimed time dilation is absolute. That means for every time interval at the origin of a frame, the origin of the other frame will be time dilated.

This is absolute.
No it is not absolute and Einstein never claimed it to be. In SR, time-dilation is relative, rather than absolute. This is why Einstein claims that time-dilation is symmetrical between inertial frames of reference.

Originally Posted by chinglu
Now, what is time dilation. It is a light beam moving from the origin of a frame to the y-axis of the other frame.
No, time-dilation has nothing to do with the movements of a light beam. In SR, time-dilation is due to the movement of a frame of reference, relative to another frame. With relative movement between frames, there is time-dilation between those frames.

Originally Posted by chinglu
I then place the relativity of simultaneity which is a relative concept against time dilation which is an absolute concept between the frames.
Whilst it is true that time-dilation and the relativity of simultaneity are separate issues, the time-dilation is only an "absolute concept between the frames" if the frames share start and end points. The relativity of simultaneity is required whenever frames are in relative motion, which is the case in your scenario.

Originally Posted by chinglu
The absolute time dilation ( 2 y-axis marks) allows me to connect the frames in an absolute way.
There is no absolute way to connect the frames unless their paths cross in two places, which is not the case in your scenario. And even if the paths cross in two places, the results are only "absolute" between the frames involved - in any other frames, whose paths only cross the frames in question once, the results are by no means absolute.

Originally Posted by chinglu
The relativity of simultaneity allows me to show on that absolute time interval the two frames cannot agree on light spheres.
The relativity of simultaneity precludes an absolute time interval in your scenario.

Originally Posted by chinglu
If you have a theory of relativity, then all conclusions must be relative or the theory must contradict itself. It cannot have any absolutes likes time dilation.
Well it is lucky for us, but not for you, that time-dilation is relative, rather than absolute then, isn't it?

Back to the drawing board for you.

31. Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by TheBiologista
It reminds me of skepticism. To which all great scientific advances (and a far greater number of dead ends) have been quite appropriately subjected. If you would like a credulous audience, I suggest you visit a forum that doesn't have the word 'science' in the title.
It is curious a math proof is offered to the mainstream against its main branch that it cannot refute.

Yet, the mainstream automagically claims the proof is invalid because it does not agree with its scriptural writings.
Skepticism dictates that resistance to new ideas must be proportional to the implications of acceptance of the new idea. You're proposing that we overturn our fundamental understanding of the universe on the basis of a few lines of formulae written anonymously on an internet message board. The implications are enormous, the resistance must also be significant. By balking at this, you're demonstrating a profound lack of familiarity with the scientific method. Do your credibility a massive favor. Stop whining that nobody will accept your ideas, pull yourself together and convince them. Do that, or just stop trying.

Originally Posted by chinglu
I thought science was based on math and proof. Looks like you and I disagree.
Science is based on a great many things. Proof has never been one of them.

32. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by chinglu
Einstein claimed time dilation is absolute. That means for every time interval at the origin of a frame, the origin of the other frame will be time dilated.

This is absolute.
No it is not absolute and Einstein never claimed it to be. In SR, time-dilation is relative, rather than absolute. This is why Einstein claims that time-dilation is symmetrical between inertial frames of reference.
You did not understand what I meant. I mean, there is no possible way the frames will disagree on the order of events on marks on the primed frame y-axis.

Since time translation is then simple time dilation, then this is absolute.

Originally Posted by chinglu
Now, what is time dilation. It is a light beam moving from the origin of a frame to the y-axis of the other frame.
No, time-dilation has nothing to do with the movements of a light beam. In SR, time-dilation is due to the movement of a frame of reference, relative to another frame. With relative movement between frames, there is time-dilation between those frames.
Here is some simple high school physics to help you understand time dilation and light beams.
http://home.fnal.gov/~bugel/rel.html

Originally Posted by chinglu
I then place the relativity of simultaneity which is a relative concept against time dilation which is an absolute concept between the frames.
Whilst it is true that time-dilation and the relativity of simultaneity are separate issues, the time-dilation is only an "absolute concept between the frames" if the frames share start and end points. The relativity of simultaneity is required whenever frames are in relative motion, which is the case in your scenario.
I assume you have a point to make.

Originally Posted by chinglu
The absolute time dilation ( 2 y-axis marks) allows me to connect the frames in an absolute way.
There is no absolute way to connect the frames unless their paths cross in two places, which is not the case in your scenario. And even if the paths cross in two places, the results are only "absolute" between the frames involved - in any other frames, whose paths only cross the frames in question once, the results are by no means absolute.
Wrong. The frames cannot disagree on the order of events on the y-axis and the both frames conclude for any t, t' = t/γ for the position on the y axis. Run it through LT and you will see I am correct instead of making all these false statements.

Originally Posted by chinglu
The relativity of simultaneity allows me to show on that absolute time interval the two frames cannot agree on light spheres.
The relativity of simultaneity precludes an absolute time interval in your scenario.
It sure does. But time dilation does not. So, you are wrong again. If you are correct, then the picture I posted is false and my proof is false. But, you already agreed the proof is correct. Perhaps you should think before posting.

Originally Posted by chinglu
If you have a theory of relativity, then all conclusions must be relative or the theory must contradict itself. It cannot have any absolutes likes time dilation.
Well it is lucky for us, but not for you, that time-dilation is relative, rather than absolute then, isn't it?

Back to the drawing board for you.
I will tell you what. You can be the champion. All you have to do is prove for marks on the y-axis at y1 and y2, that the frames disagree on the times at those positions.

Once you figure out you are wrong, you can come here and admit it.

Both frames agree on the order of y1 and y2 and both frames agree time for the rest frame for light to strikes those points is t1 = y1γ/c and t2 = y2γ/c and the moving frame time is t1' = y1/c and t2' = y2/c.

That is as absolute as you can get.

33. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by TheBiologista
It reminds me of skepticism. To which all great scientific advances (and a far greater number of dead ends) have been quite appropriately subjected. If you would like a credulous audience, I suggest you visit a forum that doesn't have the word 'science' in the title.
It is curious a math proof is offered to the mainstream against its main branch that it cannot refute.

Yet, the mainstream automagically claims the proof is invalid because it does not agree with its scriptural writings.
Skepticism dictates that resistance to new ideas must be proportional to the implications of acceptance of the new idea. You're proposing that we overturn our fundamental understanding of the universe on the basis of a few lines of formulae written anonymously on an internet message board. The implications are enormous, the resistance must also be significant. By balking at this, you're demonstrating a profound lack of familiarity with the scientific method. Do your credibility a massive favor. Stop whining that nobody will accept your ideas, pull yourself together and convince them. Do that, or just stop trying.

Originally Posted by chinglu
I thought science was based on math and proof. Looks like you and I disagree.
Science is based on a great many things. Proof has never been one of them.

Science is based on a great many things. Proof has never been one of them.

Math is. Is math science?

34. Originally Posted by chinglu

Science is based on a great many things. Proof has never been one of them.

Math is. Is math science?
No.

35. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by chinglu

Science is based on a great many things. Proof has never been one of them.

Math is. Is math science?
No.
Yea, well I am a little confused how you have a phd in math and yet refuse to operate by proof. That is odd to me.

36. Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by chinglu

Science is based on a great many things. Proof has never been one of them.

Math is. Is math science?
No.
Yea, well I am a little confused how you have a phd in math and yet refuse to operate by proof. That is odd to me.
Who said a PhD in mathematics would fail to deal in terms of proof? That's beside the point, which is that mathematics is not a science. It's a tool often used in science, which is an important distinction. You can prove all you like within the context of that tool, but whether a proof actually functions as a model of reality is subject to science, not mathematics. The concept of proof is not applicable to science.

37. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by chinglu

Science is based on a great many things. Proof has never been one of them.

Math is. Is math science?
No.
Yea, well I am a little confused how you have a phd in math and yet refuse to operate by proof. That is odd to me.
Who said a PhD in mathematics would fail to deal in terms of proof? That's beside the point, which is that mathematics is not a science. It's a tool often used in science, which is an important distinction. You can prove all you like within the context of that tool, but whether a proof actually functions as a model of reality is subject to science, not mathematics. The concept of proof is not applicable to science.
I have been nice. He is not a PHD in math.

As to your "proof opinion", here is Einstein.

The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible

The word shows means proves. you can look at his paper with the math for the proof to determine that.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

In fact, this is the proof I am attacking.

He tried to claim a point to point mapping was sufficient to show the rest frame spherical light wave mapped by LT is the moving frame spherical light wave.

I showed that proof failed and why.

So, proof is part of science.

38. Originally Posted by chinglu
I have been nice. He is not a PHD in math.
.
Wrong.

39. Originally Posted by chinglu
I showed that proof failed and why.

So, proof is part of science.
No, you did show that Einstein's proof failed. You showed that you failed to understand his proof.

Proof is not part of science. It is part of mathematics and mathematics is not science. There are mathematically consistent theories that do not describe nature. Newtonian mechanics at arbitrary speeds is such a theory.

Special relativity is science precisely because it has been shown BY EXPERIMENT to describe nature.

Special relativity is also a mathematically consistent theory, whether you believe it or not. So there is a place for mathematical theorems and proofs within the context of special relativity.

You have been shown why Einstein's proof is correct, and therefore why your proof is incorrect. That you do not understand that demonstration is your own personal shortcoming.

So, we now have one side chinglu. On the other side we have everyone else including Dr, Rocket all the authors of mainstream papers and texts that include special or general relativity -- Albert Einstein, Wolfgang Rindler, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, C.F.R. Ellis, Steven Weinberg, Robert Wald, Charles Misner, Kip Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler, Richard Feynman, Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat, P.A.M. Dirac, Richard Tolmam, Subramyan Chandrasekhar, Edward Witten, Shing-Tung Yau, ...

I think I'll stay on this side.

40. Originally Posted by chinglu
I have been nice. He is not a PHD in math.
Are you? I suspect that DrRocket has a PhD in mathematics or physics, but that's not really relevant here. What's relavant is whether you can refute the arguments he makes. Please don't make the mistake of pushing ad hominems (or appeals to authority for that matter).

Originally Posted by chinglu
As to your "proof opinion", here is Einstein.

The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible

The word shows means proves. you can look at his paper with the math for the proof to determine that.
Please don't play silly semantic games. To "show" something is to "demonstrate" it- not to prove it. To prove something is to eliminate all doubt- and that's contrary to the principle of falsifiability to which Einstein was an adherent.

Originally Posted by Einstein
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Proof has a place in mathematics and law. It has no place in the building of scientific theories.

41. Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by chinglu
Einstein claimed time dilation is absolute. That means for every time interval at the origin of a frame, the origin of the other frame will be time dilated.

This is absolute.
No it is not absolute and Einstein never claimed it to be. In SR, time-dilation is relative, rather than absolute. This is why Einstein claims that time-dilation is symmetrical between inertial frames of reference.
You did not understand what I meant. I mean, there is no possible way the frames will disagree on the order of events on marks on the primed frame y-axis.
If I did not understand what you meant, that is your fault for not expressing yourself clearly. You use standard terms in a non standard manner, without explaining yourself.

The relativity of simultaneity is not simply about the order of events, it deals with how different frames calculate the timing of events, which is what we are talking about here, although you still cannot seem to understand this.

42. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by chinglu
I showed that proof failed and why.

So, proof is part of science.
No, you did show that Einstein's proof failed. You showed that you failed to understand his proof.

Proof is not part of science. It is part of mathematics and mathematics is not science. There are mathematically consistent theories that do not describe nature. Newtonian mechanics at arbitrary speeds is such a theory.

Special relativity is science precisely because it has been shown BY EXPERIMENT to describe nature.

Special relativity is also a mathematically consistent theory, whether you believe it or not. So there is a place for mathematical theorems and proofs within the context of special relativity.

You have been shown why Einstein's proof is correct, and therefore why your proof is incorrect. That you do not understand that demonstration is your own personal shortcoming.

So, we now have one side chinglu. On the other side we have everyone else including Dr, Rocket all the authors of mainstream papers and texts that include special or general relativity -- Albert Einstein, Wolfgang Rindler, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, C.F.R. Ellis, Steven Weinberg, Robert Wald, Charles Misner, Kip Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler, Richard Feynman, Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat, P.A.M. Dirac, Richard Tolmam, Subramyan Chandrasekhar, Edward Witten, Shing-Tung Yau, ...

I think I'll stay on this side.
First off, I could care less who believes in whatever.

In addition, on one hand you claim SR is consistent and then claim math proof is not important to science. Logical consistent requires math and logic.

So, you have failed to refute my prove against SR's logical consistency. Einstein had a flaw in the proof. Instead of looking at the proof and deciding mathematically and logically one way of the other, you read SR scripture instead and accept dogma on blind faith without any ability to undestand conclusions one way or the other.

Why not just tell the truth here and admit you have no idea what you are talkiing about and you appeal to higher authorities on the SR scripture for you thought processes rather than your own.

43. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by chinglu
As to your "proof opinion", here is Einstein.

The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible

The word shows means proves. you can look at his paper with the math for the proof to determine that.
Please don't play silly semantic games. To "show" something is to "demonstrate" it- not to prove it. To prove something is to eliminate all doubt- and that's contrary to the principle of falsifiability to which Einstein was an adherent.
Well, I proved Einste's proof had an error. No one can redute that. Say whatever else you want.

Originally Posted by Einstein
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Proof has a place in mathematics and law. It has no place in the building of scientific theories.
[/quote]

I came up with a thought experiment in which I proved SR contradicted itself. Logical contradiction is sufficient as an experiment that proves SR wrong.

44. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by chinglu
Einstein claimed time dilation is absolute. That means for every time interval at the origin of a frame, the origin of the other frame will be time dilated.

This is absolute.
No it is not absolute and Einstein never claimed it to be. In SR, time-dilation is relative, rather than absolute. This is why Einstein claims that time-dilation is symmetrical between inertial frames of reference.
You did not understand what I meant. I mean, there is no possible way the frames will disagree on the order of events on marks on the primed frame y-axis.
If I did not understand what you meant, that is your fault for not expressing yourself clearly. You use standard terms in a non standard manner, without explaining yourself.

The relativity of simultaneity is not simply about the order of events, it deals with how different frames calculate the timing of events, which is what we are talking about here, although you still cannot seem to understand this.
It is fine that the frames disagree on time I do not care.

The prove is the vectors is a set. That set of vectors produced by the light postulate in the primed frame is different from the set produced by LT based on unbprimed frame data.

Now, if different x coordinates are involved, we have the simultaneity shift plus time dilation.

This is the normal relativity of simultaneity. When we are dealing with the same y-axis, we are only dealing with time dilation since x'=0 for both.

Anyway, from the event of y1 to y2 on the moving axis, two different set of vectors are constructed, one for the primed frame and one for the primed frame based on unprimed frame data.

They are not the same set and yet both frames agree on the start/stop events.

Hence, the output of LT is not the primed frame spherical light wave.

45. OK, looks like prove proof is not something for this forum.
So, let me try something simpler.

Again, assume two marks on the moving frame y axis, y1', y2'. There will be the start/stop events.

Now, between the marks, the primed frame calculates time of y1'/c and y2'/c for the spherical light wave.
'
Now, let's look at the unprimed frame. When the light beam is at y2', the light beam is also at y2 = y2'/γ on the rest frame y axis in the context of the rest frame.

Let's now apply LT.
x = 0 and t = y2/c
t' = ( t - vx/c² ) γ
t' = ( y2'/c - v(0)/c² ) γ
t' = y2'γ/c.

Check it out. When the light beams hit the moving frame y axis coordinates y1', y2', the primed frame light postulate claims time only reaches y2'/c.

Yet, between those same two marks, the unprimed frame calculates a primed frame clock with y2'γ/c which is in the future vs any primed frame clock based on the light postulate in the primed frame.

So, with this simple experiment, SR claims LT calculates a future primed clock that the primed frame light postulate claims did not yet happen.

Therefore, LT is not the same as the spherical light wave in the moving frame.

46. Originally Posted by chinglu
OK, looks like prove proof is not something for this forum.
So, let me try something simpler.

Again, assume two marks on the moving frame y axis, y1', y2'. There will be the start/stop events.

Now, between the marks, the primed frame calculates time of y1'/c and y2'/c for the spherical light wave.
'
Now, let's look at the unprimed frame. When the light beam is at y2', the light beam is also at y2 = y2'/γ on the rest frame y axis in the context of the rest frame.

Let's now apply LT.
x = 0 and t = y2/c
t' = ( t - vx/c² ) γ
t' = ( y2'/c - v(0)/c² ) γ
t' = y2'γ/c.

Check it out. When the light beams hit the moving frame y axis coordinates y1', y2', the primed frame light postulate claims time only reaches y2'/c.

Yet, between those same two marks, the unprimed frame calculates a primed frame clock with y2'γ/c which is in the future vs any primed frame clock based on the light postulate in the primed frame.

So, with this simple experiment, SR claims LT calculates a future primed clock that the primed frame light postulate claims did not yet happen.

Therefore, LT is not the same as the spherical light wave in the moving frame.
Huh... I thought every frame of reference was a rest frame... go figure.

47. Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
Originally Posted by chinglu
OK, looks like prove proof is not something for this forum.
So, let me try something simpler.

Again, assume two marks on the moving frame y axis, y1', y2'. There will be the start/stop events.

Now, between the marks, the primed frame calculates time of y1'/c and y2'/c for the spherical light wave.
'
Now, let's look at the unprimed frame. When the light beam is at y2', the light beam is also at y2 = y2'/γ on the rest frame y axis in the context of the rest frame.

Let's now apply LT.
x = 0 and t = y2/c
t' = ( t - vx/c² ) γ
t' = ( y2'/c - v(0)/c² ) γ
t' = y2'γ/c.

Check it out. When the light beams hit the moving frame y axis coordinates y1', y2', the primed frame light postulate claims time only reaches y2'/c.

Yet, between those same two marks, the unprimed frame calculates a primed frame clock with y2'γ/c which is in the future vs any primed frame clock based on the light postulate in the primed frame.

So, with this simple experiment, SR claims LT calculates a future primed clock that the primed frame light postulate claims did not yet happen.

Therefore, LT is not the same as the spherical light wave in the moving frame.
Huh... I thought every frame of reference was a rest frame... go figure.
You fail to understand, LT is suppsed to translate to the other frame. I note you failed to understand this with my post.

48. Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
Originally Posted by chinglu
OK, looks like prove proof is not something for this forum.
So, let me try something simpler.

Again, assume two marks on the moving frame y axis, y1', y2'. There will be the start/stop events.

Now, between the marks, the primed frame calculates time of y1'/c and y2'/c for the spherical light wave.
'
Now, let's look at the unprimed frame. When the light beam is at y2', the light beam is also at y2 = y2'/γ on the rest frame y axis in the context of the rest frame.

Let's now apply LT.
x = 0 and t = y2/c
t' = ( t - vx/c² ) γ
t' = ( y2'/c - v(0)/c² ) γ
t' = y2'γ/c.

Check it out. When the light beams hit the moving frame y axis coordinates y1', y2', the primed frame light postulate claims time only reaches y2'/c.

Yet, between those same two marks, the unprimed frame calculates a primed frame clock with y2'γ/c which is in the future vs any primed frame clock based on the light postulate in the primed frame.

So, with this simple experiment, SR claims LT calculates a future primed clock that the primed frame light postulate claims did not yet happen.

Therefore, LT is not the same as the spherical light wave in the moving frame.
Huh... I thought every frame of reference was a rest frame... go figure.
You fail to understand, LT is suppsed to translate to the other frame. I note you failed to understand this with my post.
You didn't get the point.... It's all good though.

49. Originally Posted by chinglu
'
Now, let's look at the unprimed frame. When the light beam is at y2', the light beam is also at y2 = y2'/γ on the rest frame y axis in the context of the rest frame.

Let's now apply LT.
x = 0 and t = y2/c
t' = ( t - vx/c² ) γ
t' = ( y2'/c - v(0)/c² ) γ
t' = y2'γ/c.
Wrong.

Since you have the two reference frames in standard orientation, as shown by your equation t' = ( t - vx/c² ) γ, with relative motion along the x and x' axes, your statement that y2 = y2'/γ is incorrect, and the proper relation is simply y=y'. There is no length contraction transverse to the direction of relative motion.

In short, as always, you don't know what in the hell you are talking about.

50. Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by chinglu
I showed that proof failed and why.

So, proof is part of science.
No, you did show that Einstein's proof failed. You showed that you failed to understand his proof.

Proof is not part of science. It is part of mathematics and mathematics is not science. There are mathematically consistent theories that do not describe nature. Newtonian mechanics at arbitrary speeds is such a theory.

Special relativity is science precisely because it has been shown BY EXPERIMENT to describe nature.

Special relativity is also a mathematically consistent theory, whether you believe it or not. So there is a place for mathematical theorems and proofs within the context of special relativity.

You have been shown why Einstein's proof is correct, and therefore why your proof is incorrect. That you do not understand that demonstration is your own personal shortcoming.

So, we now have one side chinglu. On the other side we have everyone else including Dr, Rocket all the authors of mainstream papers and texts that include special or general relativity -- Albert Einstein, Wolfgang Rindler, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, C.F.R. Ellis, Steven Weinberg, Robert Wald, Charles Misner, Kip Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler, Richard Feynman, Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat, P.A.M. Dirac, Richard Tolmam, Subramyan Chandrasekhar, Edward Witten, Shing-Tung Yau, ...

I think I'll stay on this side.
First off, I could care less who believes in whatever.

In addition, on one hand you claim SR is consistent and then claim math proof is not important to science. Logical consistent requires math and logic.

So, you have failed to refute my prove against SR's logical consistency. Einstein had a flaw in the proof. Instead of looking at the proof and deciding mathematically and logically one way of the other, you read SR scripture instead and accept dogma on blind faith without any ability to undestand conclusions one way or the other.

Why not just tell the truth here and admit you have no idea what you are talkiing about and you appeal to higher authorities on the SR scripture for you thought processes rather than your own.
No dogma has been accepted. I showed you a rigorous, and very simple proof why Einstein was right and you are completely wrong.

So we have come down to two possibilities:

1. Chinglu is right and everyone else is wrong. Chinglu is the smartest person on the planet.

2. Chinglu is insane.

I'm going with #2.

51. Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by chinglu
As to your "proof opinion", here is Einstein.

The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible

The word shows means proves. you can look at his paper with the math for the proof to determine that.
Please don't play silly semantic games. To "show" something is to "demonstrate" it- not to prove it. To prove something is to eliminate all doubt- and that's contrary to the principle of falsifiability to which Einstein was an adherent.
Well, I proved Einste's proof had an error.
Which would make it a falsified theory, not a proof. You don't seem to have a particularly good handle on how the scientific method works.

Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by Einstein
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Proof has a place in mathematics and law. It has no place in the building of scientific theories.
I came up with a thought experiment in which I proved SR contradicted itself. Logical contradiction is sufficient as an experiment that proves SR wrong.
You have misunderstood what Einstein meant in that quote, and the point I was making by posting it. Of course a logical contradiction may show something to be incorrect. The point was that no scientist deals in proof. A good theory must have falsifiable elements. So when you keep harping on about proof, you're making yourself look naive.

52. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by chinglu
As to your "proof opinion", here is Einstein.

The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible

The word shows means proves. you can look at his paper with the math for the proof to determine that.
Please don't play silly semantic games. To "show" something is to "demonstrate" it- not to prove it. To prove something is to eliminate all doubt- and that's contrary to the principle of falsifiability to which Einstein was an adherent.
Well, I proved Einste's proof had an error.
Which would make it a falsified theory, not a proof. You don't seem to have a particularly good handle on how the scientific method works.
Well, I don't know why I am doing this but, the scientific method is based on reproducibility.

Now, what does that mean.

That means it is not the case from A you get to B from A you get to ~B.

Now, if you understand logic this is material implication.

In first order mathematical logic, this is modus ponens.

And for your latin folks of early Greek times, this is not reductio ad absurdum.

Anyway, if a science theory can be forced to conclude from A, B and also from A ~B, then the theory cannot possibly satisfy the scientific method.

I can tell you are way behind me on this but this should give you a key in modern logical thought.

Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by Einstein
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Proof has a place in mathematics and law. It has no place in the building of scientific theories.
I came up with a thought experiment in which I proved SR contradicted itself. Logical contradiction is sufficient as an experiment that proves SR wrong.
You have misunderstood what Einstein meant in that quote, and the point I was making by posting it. Of course a logical contradiction may show something to be incorrect. The point was that no scientist deals in proof. A good theory must have falsifiable elements. So when you keep harping on about proof, you're making yourself look naive.
[/quote]

What you fail to understand is SR is an axiomatic theory. You biology people would just get confiused by that.

Anyway, since SR is an axiomatic theory (2 postulates), it must obey the rules of mathematical logic.

I proved it does not.

So, you are wrong.

53. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by chinglu
I showed that proof failed and why.

So, proof is part of science.
No, you did show that Einstein's proof failed. You showed that you failed to understand his proof.

Proof is not part of science. It is part of mathematics and mathematics is not science. There are mathematically consistent theories that do not describe nature. Newtonian mechanics at arbitrary speeds is such a theory.

Special relativity is science precisely because it has been shown BY EXPERIMENT to describe nature.

Special relativity is also a mathematically consistent theory, whether you believe it or not. So there is a place for mathematical theorems and proofs within the context of special relativity.

You have been shown why Einstein's proof is correct, and therefore why your proof is incorrect. That you do not understand that demonstration is your own personal shortcoming.

So, we now have one side chinglu. On the other side we have everyone else including Dr, Rocket all the authors of mainstream papers and texts that include special or general relativity -- Albert Einstein, Wolfgang Rindler, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, C.F.R. Ellis, Steven Weinberg, Robert Wald, Charles Misner, Kip Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler, Richard Feynman, Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat, P.A.M. Dirac, Richard Tolmam, Subramyan Chandrasekhar, Edward Witten, Shing-Tung Yau, ...

I think I'll stay on this side.
First off, I could care less who believes in whatever.

In addition, on one hand you claim SR is consistent and then claim math proof is not important to science. Logical consistent requires math and logic.

So, you have failed to refute my prove against SR's logical consistency. Einstein had a flaw in the proof. Instead of looking at the proof and deciding mathematically and logically one way of the other, you read SR scripture instead and accept dogma on blind faith without any ability to undestand conclusions one way or the other.

Why not just tell the truth here and admit you have no idea what you are talkiing about and you appeal to higher authorities on the SR scripture for you thought processes rather than your own.
No dogma has been accepted. I showed you a rigorous, and very simple proof why Einstein was right and you are completely wrong.

So we have come down to two possibilities:

1. Chinglu is right and everyone else is wrong. Chinglu is the smartest person on the planet.

2. Chinglu is insane.

I'm going with #2.
Let's do something foreign to you and remain under mathematical logic.

You did not provide a proof that I am wrong.

You provided an Argumentum ad Populum.

That is not a proof.

So, you are wrong.

Let me give you a hint, you cannot stop my proof. You might as well give up.

54. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by chinglu
'
Now, let's look at the unprimed frame. When the light beam is at y2', the light beam is also at y2 = y2'/γ on the rest frame y axis in the context of the rest frame.

Let's now apply LT.
x = 0 and t = y2/c
t' = ( t - vx/c² ) γ
t' = ( y2'/c - v(0)/c² ) γ
t' = y2'γ/c.
Wrong.

Since you have the two reference frames in standard orientation, as shown by your equation t' = ( t - vx/c² ) γ, with relative motion along the x and x' axes, your statement that y2 = y2'/γ is incorrect, and the proper relation is simply y=y'. There is no length contraction transverse to the direction of relative motion.

In short, as always, you don't know what in the hell you are talking about.
You are going to get another training session.

Apply LT with x = vt. (This is the location of the moving origin/y-axis)

t' = ( t - vx/c² )γ

t' = ( t - tv²/c² )γ

t' = t( 1 - v²/c² )γ

t' = t/γ

Substitute t = y/c

t' = y/(cγ)

And, using the light postulate, ct' = y/ γ, or y / \gamma
Thus y' ≠ y.

So, you are wrong.

55. Originally Posted by chinglu
Well, I don't know why I am doing this but, the scientific method is based on reproducibili<snip>

So, you are wrong.
You can write all you like about the rules of inference and about how logic and proof work within mathematics. The problem is that a mathematical model may be proven by those rules and yet it will not matter to a scientist for the simple reason that the fit of that model to observations of the world is the final word. As DrRocket has already said, a proven model is not necessarily one which describes reality. So obviously, an accepted working model's status as 'proven' is not relevant to how that model is treated within science, as it may still be falsified by evidence. Within the tool that is mathematics, a tool that scientists use, proof has it's purpose. But it is not relevant to science.

56. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by chinglu
Well, I don't know why I am doing this but, the scientific method is based on reproducibili<snip>

So, you are wrong.
You can write all you like about the rules of inference and about how logic and proof work within mathematics. The problem is that a mathematical model may be proven by those rules and yet it will not matter to a scientist for the simple reason that the fit of that model to observations of the world is the final word. As DrRocket has already said, a proven model is not necessarily one which describes reality. So obviously, an accepted working model's status as 'proven' is not relevant to how that model is treated within science, as it may still be falsified by evidence. Within the tool that is mathematics, a tool that scientists use, proof has it's purpose. But it is not relevant to science.
You can write this all you want and you did not understand my previous to you.

If I can make a science theory deduce A and ~A, then this experiment will fail in the lab.

No such experiment I provided has been performed.

Further, Einstein is the one that proposed thought experiments as equally valid to real experiments as long as they follow the rules of logic. Mine does.

So, in this SR theory your comments are wrong and not applicable.

And for the rest of science theories, if the theory can be forced into a logical contradiction and the followers still cling to their beliefs, that is no longer science, that is something else

57. ACTUALLY BRYANT SHOWED THAT EINSTEIN'S SPHERICAL WAVE PROOF DOES INDEED FAIL...THIS PAPER WAS PRESENTED AT THE npa 2010

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/p...of.NPA2010.pdf

58. Originally Posted by chinglu
Since this post is in this forum, I need to provide more background.Einstein claimed the theory of relativity is true because the spherical light wave in the rest frame is the same exact spherical light wave in the moving frame.If this statement is false, then relativity is false.So, I proved a long time interval in the rest frame that does not make one single light sphere in the moving frame. Yet, the moving frame claims it is always viewing a light sphere at an time t'.This means relativity cannot prove it own assertions and is thus false.
Hi Chinglu , first of all I don't have a clue regarding your math proof , I don't speak high math , hence I need a 'natural' explanation . In other words , are you fighting Relativity with math OR with the natural principle that can be described in plain English ( and that the math describes ) ? .......... Here is my 'natural' take : Einstein could not find the absolute reference frame which should be the Substance that we all are made of , atoms included ( see the UPN ) . He can't even explain what Light is never mind "waves" of light but he is Sure that light GENERATED in a fastER moving frame is subjected to the Same viscosity generated Resistance as in a slower moving frame ! The Viscosity is universal due to the universal presence of 'somethingness' that makes up the Universe ( since 'nothigness' can not exist as the name implies ! ) . Hence , according to Einsten , Light is Speciall , not being affected by whatever makes it that also makes the entire Universe and also provides an universal viscosity ( the Cosmic Background Radiation , see the UPN ) ..... To that I add two things , the protest from my Pink Unicorn , and the observation that Einstein never explained what light is never mind what the Universe is made of ! Right , ONLY the UPN explains perfectly the Double Slit experiment and the Wave-Particle conundrum that Einstein/Quantum theory can not . So why support the theory of Relativity ??..... As you see , it is much easier to dismiss Relativity in plain English , no math required because the Thought foundation is erroneous ..... Relativity is a Cancer to science , forcing mis-interpretations of instruments output such as in the 'expansion' of the Universe and gravity related experiments .......I invite you to colaborate with me on the Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) posted here ( Pseudo science ) under " A timid atempt .... " . .... Sorry for not being able to format my text here but I have being punished by the Einstein Lovers who are taking science to a Political level hoping that we will not notice ! LOL !! .....

59. Originally Posted by SCRIVENS345
ACTUALLY BRYANT SHOWED THAT EINSTEIN'S SPHERICAL WAVE PROOF DOES INDEED FAIL...THIS PAPER WAS PRESENTED AT THE npa 2010http://www.relativitychallenge.com/p...of.NPA2010.pdf
Well , well , my Pink Unicorn just opened another Heinek to celebrate !Let's get out of this Relativity dead-end , let's face it , if the Theory can not explain the reality than why do we bother paying attention to it ? Politics ?

60. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by chinglu
Well, I don't know why I am doing this but, the scientific method is based on reproducibiliSo, you are wrong.
..... As DrRocket has already said, a proven model is not necessarily one which describes reality. ......
......... WOW !! Biologista , you floored me with that 'logic' : if a 'model' is proven it should describe the reality unless we work in Hollywood film making ! To say that we accept a model as 'proven' but not being sure if represents reality is pure snake-oil logic .No wonder you people support the theory of Relativity . No wonder none of you "moderators" could prove my UPN wrong , not being able to prove wrong one single line of logic in it ....... Yet you dismiss it thanks to your pure snake-oil logic ......When the theory of Relativity and the Quantum theory can not explain the Double Slit experiment that involves light ( ! ) HOW do you expect to have any credibility ? ...................Let's not forget that most of the formulas today are derived from empirical/experimental observations NOT from Theory . In other words the present usage of science is based on observations rather than an Understanding of what we observe ...... My UPN predicts all without any math OR experimentation !

61. Originally Posted by SCRIVENS345
ACTUALLY BRYANT SHOWED THAT EINSTEIN'S SPHERICAL WAVE PROOF DOES INDEED FAIL...THIS PAPER WAS PRESENTED AT THE npa 2010

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/p...of.NPA2010.pdf
Well, it does not fail for the reason stated.

The paper forgets the relativity of simultaneity.

You must map the radius of the light beam and then its mapped time.

You will get r'/t' = c.

62. Originally Posted by Urod
Originally Posted by chinglu
Since this post is in this forum, I need to provide more background.Einstein claimed the theory of relativity is true because the spherical light wave in the rest frame is the same exact spherical light wave in the moving frame.If this statement is false, then relativity is false.So, I proved a long time interval in the rest frame that does not make one single light sphere in the moving frame. Yet, the moving frame claims it is always viewing a light sphere at an time t'.This means relativity cannot prove it own assertions and is thus false.
Hi Chinglu , first of all I don't have a clue regarding your math proof , I don't speak high math , hence I need a 'natural' explanation . In other words , are you fighting Relativity with math OR with the natural principle that can be described in plain English ( and that the math describes ) ? .......... Here is my 'natural' take : Einstein could not find the absolute reference frame which should be the Substance that we all are made of , atoms included ( see the UPN ) . He can't even explain what Light is never mind "waves" of light but he is Sure that light GENERATED in a fastER moving frame is subjected to the Same viscosity generated Resistance as in a slower moving frame ! The Viscosity is universal due to the universal presence of 'somethingness' that makes up the Universe ( since 'nothigness' can not exist as the name implies ! ) . Hence , according to Einsten , Light is Speciall , not being affected by whatever makes it that also makes the entire Universe and also provides an universal viscosity ( the Cosmic Background Radiation , see the UPN ) ..... To that I add two things , the protest from my Pink Unicorn , and the observation that Einstein never explained what light is never mind what the Universe is made of ! Right , ONLY the UPN explains perfectly the Double Slit experiment and the Wave-Particle conundrum that Einstein/Quantum theory can not . So why support the theory of Relativity ??..... As you see , it is much easier to dismiss Relativity in plain English , no math required because the Thought foundation is erroneous ..... Relativity is a Cancer to science , forcing mis-interpretations of instruments output such as in the 'expansion' of the Universe and gravity related experiments .......I invite you to colaborate with me on the Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) posted here ( Pseudo science ) under " A timid atempt .... " . .... Sorry for not being able to format my text here but I have being punished by the Einstein Lovers who are taking science to a Political level hoping that we will not notice ! LOL !! .....
I can put both into words.

1) As far as SR, it proves light beams that measure c in the rest frame will measure c when mapped by LT. That means the space time interval is invariant. It succeeeds at this.

2) My proof showed a time interval in the rest frame carefull selected. Now, SR claims LT maps to the spherical light wave in the moving frame. But, but mapping every single light beam on this interval, I do not get one single complete light sphere in the moving frame.

Here is a webpage that shows SR claims that the spherical light wave remains centered at the origin of each frame.

Now, if the spherical light wave remains centered at the origin of each frame and LT is supposed to give the spherical light wave in the moving frame, then on some time interval in the rest frame, the spherical light wave is not centered at the origin of the moving frame because not one single light sphere exists by LT.

The Twin Paradox is one of the most well known and debated paradoxes associated with Relativity theory. Opponents challenge Relativity theory on the grounds that the Twin Paradox reveals an underlying flaw
in the theory. Such opponents feel that the existence of a paradox, in and of itself, is sufficient to disqualify the
theory. Supporters explain the paradox by introducing the concept of acceleration into the theory, thus limiting
the interpretation to the twin that was undergoing the force of acceleration. However, both interpretations fail
to explain why Relativity requires the paradox, which is actually the result of using a length based model to interpret wavelength based observations. Here we show the proper use and interpretation of wavelength based
observations using wavelength based equations, and how the mistaken use of length based equations results in
time dilation, length contraction, and the Twin Paradox.
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/p...x.20110519.pdf

64. People who think that the twin paradox is a paradox are people who fail to understand relativity theory. It's a pretty basic test. Indeed, it is almost a basic test of mental health.

65. Originally Posted by PhysBang
People who think that the twin paradox is a paradox are people who fail to understand relativity theory. It's a pretty basic test. Indeed, it is almost a basic test of mental health.
Here I devised an experiment that placed the relativity of time dilation (twins pardox) up against the absoluteness of the clock sync under SR.
Therefore, I forced SR to confess an absolute standard under the rules of relativity which forces it into a contradiction.

Procedure
1. All set their clocks to 0 and O instantly acquires v relative to O'.
2. O and O' are in relative motion for some agreed up time t' on the clock of O'.
3. After time t', O' will acquire v in precisely the same way as O in precisely the same direction.
4. At the same instant O' acquires v, O' enters the frame of O and O' sends a light pulse to O and records this as the end of the experiment at time t'.
5. O' receives the light pulse and records the time as te.
6. Since, O and O' are again in the same frame, O performs with O' the round trip speed of light calculation using a time trial to calculate the distance between the two. Let D be that distance. O then subtracts D/c from te and determines its proper for when O' entered the frame to determine the correct end of the experiment which will match the end for O'. Let this time be t.

Conclusions of O
Based on time dilation, O concludes the elapsed time for O' is t/γ
Conclusions of O'
Based on time dilation, O' concludes the elapsed time for O' is t'/γ
So, by reciprocal time dilation, each believes the other is younger.

7. Finally, O and O' perform the SR clock synchronization method to determine the ordinality of the two clocks.
In keeping with the notation of Einstein, the A time will be the time of O and the B time will be the time of O'. Therefore, the two clocks are synchronized, if tB = ½ ( tA' + tA).

http://www.fourmilab...in/specrel/www/

Based on the reciprocal time dilation above, the conclusions are as follows:

Conclusions of O
tB < ½ ( tA' + tA).
Conclusions of O'
tB > ½ ( tA' + tA).

Since both observers are in the same frame, this a contradiction. to the clock synchronization method. However, Einstein wrote:
We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

Therefore, reciprocal time dilation contradicts the clock synchronization method. But, since the clock synchronization method is only valid in a frame and not frame to frame, then the clock synchronization method is a consequence of the light postulate in the frame.
Hence, if reciprocal time dilation is true, then the light postulate is false in the frame.

On the other hand, reciprocal time dilation is a consequence of the relativity postulate for the relative motion phase. Thus, if the clock synchronization method is valid between O and O', then it must be the case that reciprocal time dilation is false, based on the fact that it is false tB < ½ ( tA' + tA). and tB > ½ ( tA' + tA) since the clock synchronization method is free from contradictions and hence the relativity postulate is false.

As such, for this thought experiment, it is impossible for the light postulate to be true and the relativity postulate to be true.
Consequently, the two SR postulates are not compatible and hence, Special Relativity is logically inconsistent.

66. There is no such thing as TA. Try again.

67. Originally Posted by PhysBang
There is no such thing as TA. Try again.
Wrong, check Einstein's clock sync method.

68. I joined awhile ago but never posted and then yesterday I got an email notice of the new management and policies that encourages people to come back and participate, so I will do that as a small contribution toward the new managements hopes for the future of the forum.

This thread seems familiar to several I have followed in different forums. I would like to mention two options that I think pertain to the issue of SR and this discussion. The two statements address what some might say about SR and “reality”, reality being akin to the foundational truth or the invariant laws of the universe, and some might stop short of that but say the SR is mathematically correct but does not correspond precisely to reality, :go figure:.

1) The math of SR works perfectly but then it should since it relates motion as observed in two inertial reference frames by using the speed of light as the common denominator in the Lorentz adjustment equations to calculate the variables (length and time) in each frame relative to those same variables in the other frame.

2) The math of SR works perfectly because it is a quantification of the foundational truth or “reality” of the universe. The light sphere that emanates from a single event and that is observed by different observers, one in each frame, will be observed as spherical and will expand at the speed of light in each frame, but the spheres in each frame will not be congruent in absolute space due to the relativity of simultaneity, i.e. there is no absolute space or absolute rest frame in “reality”.

Would the current participants or other viewers mind saying if they believe that #1 is true, #2 is true, or both are true, or false?

69. Originally Posted by Dark Speculator
I joined awhile ago but never posted and then yesterday I got an email notice of the new management and policies that encourages people to come back and participate, so I will do that as a small contribution toward the new managements hopes for the future of the forum.

This thread seems familiar to several I have followed in different forums. I would like to mention two options that I think pertain to the issue of SR and this discussion. The two statements address what some might say about SR and “reality”, reality being akin to the foundational truth or the invariant laws of the universe, and some might stop short of that but say the SR is mathematically correct but does not correspond precisely to reality, :go figure:.

1) The math of SR works perfectly but then it should since it relates motion as observed in two inertial reference frames by using the speed of light as the common denominator in the Lorentz adjustment equations to calculate the variables (length and time) in each frame relative to those same variables in the other frame.

2) The math of SR works perfectly because it is a quantification of the foundational truth or “reality” of the universe. The light sphere that emanates from a single event and that is observed by different observers, one in each frame, will be observed as spherical and will expand at the speed of light in each frame, but the spheres in each frame will not be congruent in absolute space due to the relativity of simultaneity, i.e. there is no absolute space or absolute rest frame in “reality”.

Would the current participants or other viewers mind saying if they believe that #1 is true, #2 is true, or both are true, or false?
In my view, this is an excellent post.

2 is where I would like to focus.

Your statement about how SR views truth is correct. Be careful about declaring SR absolute truth, I hope you understand this.

Anyway, each frame believes the spherical light wave remains centered at the light emission point in the frame.

The next SR truth is that time is homogeneous, which means if you have a time interval in your frame, then I have some time interval in my frame. They do not need to be the same.

Finally, the last SR truth is that LT perfectly describes the behavior of the spherical light wave in the other frame.

Now, for any time interval in a frame, the spherical light wave will be a concentric set of spheres.

OK, let's add this all together.

1) A light pulse propagates from the light emission point in the frame at c in all directions.
2) Any time interval in one frame translates to some time interval in another frame.
3) LT perfectly describes the view of the other frame.

The proof showed given some time interval in a rest frame, (this assumes 1), then LT should describe a spherical light wave in the other frame. (This assumes 2 and 3). SR completely fails at this.

So, on one hand, SR should map a spherical light wave to a spherical light wave.

On the other hand, based on the relativity of simultaneity, SR should not map a spherical light wave to a spherical light wave and thus a time interval does not translate to a time interval by LT as required by homogeneous time (time dilation).

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time.

70. I don't really understand the arguments presented, but I just read elsewhere that Gauss's law for magnetism is incompatible with spherical symmetry.

71. Chinglu, Thank you for the words focusing on #2 and for the caution not to declare SR absolute truth . I don’t.

What I think is that some of those who accept the mathematical soundness of SR will also say that they believe that SR is in fact the reality, thus selecting both #1 and #2 from my two choices. Of course those people are not scientists since to science "reality" is a philosophical concept and under the scientific method one of the important strengths of science is tentativeness.

I accept #1 and not #2.

As you point out in your focus on #2, the Lorentz transformations should plot out a spherically expanding light wave front in the other frame because the observers in both frames are supposed to see the light expanding at c in all directions, i.e. the spherical wave front.

I would like to say that if I were to see a spherical light wave front expanding from a point of emission in my frame, which I will consider the rest frame, then I could easily imagine that the same event that causes the emission of my light sphere, if observed from the moving frame would appear as an oblate spheroid light wave front in the moving frame. Obviously this will violate Special Relativity because it would require a variable speed of light in the moving frame and that violates the postulates.

So in order for SR to be reality, and in order for there to be a light sphere expanding in both frames, the point of emission must move with the frame. So the logic and reason used to imagine that my frame’s light sphere would appear as an oblate spheroid in the other frame is in error and I must imagine instead that the universe does not care what I think is logical. The point of emission is dependent on the relative motion of the inertial frames according to the math that reconciles the two SR postulates, i.e. according to Lorentz transformation.

That is why I say that the reason that the math works perfectly is because the length and time variables are transformed using the speed of light as the common denominator. You could get perfect math by using the speed of a zephyr if we knew what speed zephyrs fly and if we could assume that all zephyrs fly at the same speed (just being facetious).

{edit}As was pointed out in another forum when I joked about the speed of a zephyr working as well as the speed of light to produce math for SR, it wouldn't hold Maxwell's equations invariant and wouldn't work too well for things traveling as fast or faster than the zephyr, but then we don't know the speed of a zephyr so who's to say, lol.

I wonder if we could slip zephyr speed into Maxwell's equations and get it to work with the SR math that uses zephyr speed as the common denominator?

72. Originally Posted by Dark Speculator
Chinglu, Thank you for the words focusing on #2 and for the caution not to declare SR absolute truth . I don’t.

What I think is that some of those who accept the mathematical soundness of SR will also say that they believe that SR is in fact the reality, thus selecting both #1 and #2 from my two choices. Of course those people are not scientists since to science "reality" is a philosophical concept and under the scientific method one of the important strengths of science is tentativeness.

I accept #1 and not #2.

As you point out in your focus on #2, the Lorentz transformations should plot out a spherically expanding light wave front in the other frame because the observers in both frames are supposed to see the light expanding at c in all directions, i.e. the spherical wave front.

I would like to say that if I were to see a spherical light wave front expanding from a point of emission in my frame, which I will consider the rest frame, then I could easily imagine that the same event that causes the emission of my light sphere, if observed from the moving frame would appear as an oblate spheroid light wave front in the moving frame. Obviously this will violate Special Relativity because it would require a variable speed of light in the moving frame and that violates the postulates.

So in order for SR to be reality, and in order for there to be a light sphere expanding in both frames, the point of emission must move with the frame. So the logic and reason used to imagine that my frame’s light sphere would appear as an oblate spheroid in the other frame is in error and I must imagine instead that the universe does not care what I think is logical. The point of emission is dependent on the relative motion of the inertial frames according to the math that reconciles the two SR postulates, i.e. according to Lorentz transformation.

That is why I say that the reason that the math works perfectly is because the length and time variables are transformed using the speed of light as the common denominator. You could get perfect math by using the speed of a zephyr if we knew what speed zephyrs fly and if we could assume that all zephyrs fly at the same speed (just being facetious).

{edit}As was pointed out in another forum when I joked about the speed of a zephyr working as well as the speed of light to produce math for SR, it wouldn't hold Maxwell's equations invariant and wouldn't work too well for things traveling as fast or faster than the zephyr, but then we don't know the speed of a zephyr so who's to say, lol.

I wonder if we could slip zephyr speed into Maxwell's equations and get it to work with the SR math that uses zephyr speed as the common denominator?
I appreciate what you have written, but you do not understand my argument.

In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time.

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

Now, what does this mean.

Well, in the case of space, that means the transformations must preserve the direction of motion.

With the homogeneity of time, that means if I have an time interval that flows from past to present, then you also have a time interval that flows from past to present.

My proof showed a time interval for me where I viewed a spherical light wave. However, during my time interval, you did not see one single light sphere based on the transformations. So a time interval for me is not preserved by the transformation for a time interval for you.

Therefore, the transformations did not preserve the homogeneity of time as required.

73. Originally Posted by chinglu
I appreciate what you have written, but you do not understand my argument.

In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time.

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

Now, what does this mean.

Well, in the case of space, that means the transformations must preserve the direction of motion.

With the homogeneity of time, that means if I have an time interval that flows from past to present, then you also have a time interval that flows from past to present.

My proof showed a time interval for me where I viewed a spherical light wave. However, during my time interval, you did not see one single light sphere based on the transformations. So a time interval for me is not preserved by the transformation for a time interval for you.

Therefore, the transformations did not preserve the homogeneity of time as required.
Well, I know that something is amiss between SR and reality, lol.

I may even understand your argument, i.e. that the linear transformations where different time intervals must exist between frames cannot define a sphere in both frames.

You might also see that my two options, i.e. the math works perfectly as far as describing length contraction and time dilation under SR, but the math does not correspond to reality, can be considered to imply the same failure of SR vs. reality that you have pointed out. I mentioned the oblate spheroid because that is the shape that logic might tell us that the light emission will have in the other frame if there is a light sphere in the rest frame. Do me a favor and comment on that logic.

Also, when the Lorentz transformations are calculated, and we know they don't define a light sphere in the "other" frame, what shape do they define according to your math?

Also, for the benefit of those who have argued their case against you, I will note that no one said that they agreed with both of my statements from Post #168, i.e. no one yet has come forward to insist that SR corresponds precisely with reality.

74. [QUOTE=Dark Speculator;281019]
Originally Posted by chinglu
Also, for the benefit of those who have argued their case against you, I will note that no one said that they agreed with both of my statements from Post #168, i.e. no one yet has come forward to insist that SR corresponds precisely with reality.
Why would anyone not ignorant of the science claim that SR perfectly matches reality? We know that it fails in areas of significant gravitational effects.

75. If the light is not spherical within a moving frame as Chinglu seems to proof or interpret this is not saying that it may not seem spherical. Offcourse it seems spherical if all white walls reflect it and the walls are spherical all around....time for s pherical cup of tea in a spherical biology capsule.

The real consekwence of Chinglu,s idea (as how I understand) is that one white wall would be more lightened then the opposite white wall. This is simple to construkt with Einstein ; give a referenceframe to two opposite walls of a spaceship cabin construkted with walls that act as planes (instead of regarding as hollow shape).

One wall then moves towards the lightsignal where the other moves from with both in the same frame of reference not moving to each other.

This will translate to a different produkt x.t within the ref.frame for different directions and possibly different relation m/s. with m/s in one direction a factor n (not ecqual 1) higher then the other . Meter to sec ratio doesn,t change from such a factor as it would be for both the meters and the seconds.

Regard M/s as velocity and velocity as scalar and vector produkt. The distances wall to wall (a to B or B to A), and the distance lightsource to both walls as vectordistance. in seconds. with the meassured meterdistance this gives a ratio m/s. Then C as scalar quotient is derived from these in different directions but not real distances. Different quotients for both scalar and ratio for geometrical time distances and lengths in different directions within one frame of reference with keeps of the same the produkt velocity =velocity-scalar * (delta) velocity-vector is perfectly possible then.

76. Originally Posted by chinglu
Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by chinglu
You are simply not getting this and you have fixated on confusion.

We are talking at t' based on LT and t' based on the light postulate in the primed frame.

When talking about the relativity of simultaneity, you are comparing two or more t's with the corresponding t primes calculated by LT. If the t's are the same with different x coordinates, then the t primes will not be simultaneous.

That is not at all what I am doing.

I am comparing the output of LT which is supposed to correctly represent the primed frame to the light postulate in the primed frame. To do this, I allow light to hit (0,y1,0) and (0,y2,0) in the coordinates of the primed frame.

I then compare the results based on LT for the primed frame and the results based on the light postulate for the primed frame. LT gets it wrong.
Where are you doing the comparison?

First you wrote, "x'² + y² + z² = c² tp'²"

Which is crazy talk, since it should be "x'² + y'² + z'² = c² tp'²"

But you are relying on the fact that y'=y and z'=z. So this means that you are relying on any differnce in your results to be along the x and x' axes. This means that you are comparing points on these axes and along these axes there is relativity of simultaneity.

In your original post there is an evern stupider error, however.

You wrote: "t < (c+v(xp))/(c(c-v))"

If we make this assumption, then we find that not only is there a point not on the light sphere, this point is not on the light sphere in any frame! If you define the sphere by t=(c+v(xp))/(c(c-v)), then every point before that time in the t frame will not be on the sphere! It shouldn't then be surprising that these points are also not on the sphere in any other frame!
First,

z = z' and y = y' because I said I was using the standard configuration.
Lorentz transformation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you wasted your time there.

Yes, all frames in the universe agree on the light cone. Hence, they will agree this point has not been acquired by the light cone.

But, that solves nothing.

By pinning the light wave between the moving frame coordinates (0,y1,0) and (0,y2,0) non inclusive, the LP in the moving frame claims to have viewed a consecutive set of light spheres.

Yet, LT concludes the moving frame saw no light spheres at all.

So, just because you found some point not on any light cone, you have done absolutely nothing but state the obvious under relativity, that any point in the future light cone of one frame is in the future light cone of all frames.
Light cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My proof and logic still stands, LT contradicts the conclusions of the moving frame LP.

Therefore, SR has calculations that refute the light postulate and hence is logically inconsistent.
chinglu : For the rest frame, the observer will see what appears to be a spherical wave. For the moving frame, the observer will see a distorted spherical light wave since the vectors are not the same as those of the rest frame. This is exactly what Einstein claimed. The moving observer will see a distorted picture of his surroundings as his velocity approaches the speed of light. This is because all of the velocity vectors to the spherical wave do not have the same velocity.

However, hard as it may be to believe, electromagnetic waves are not truly spherical, which does tend to contradict Einstrein's theory of relativity. There is hard evidence of this fact that has gone unnoticed.

77. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by Dark Speculator
Also, for the benefit of those who have argued their case against you, I will note that no one said that they agreed with both of my statements from Post #168, i.e. no one yet has come forward to insist that SR corresponds precisely with reality.
Why would anyone not ignorant of the science claim that SR perfectly matches reality? We know that it fails in areas of significant gravitational effects.
PhysBang, I claim to be a pea brain as far as knowledge of "reality" is concerned, but my limited experience on SR threads is that there is a category of participants who challenge any criticism of SR with such fervor that it is clear they don't accept it as part of the body of scientific knowledge that falls under the "tentativeness" umbrella. Scientists on science: tentativeness
You don't seem to be one of those but I have come across them in these SR threads and I know they exist. From what you say, I agree with you about the part that Lorentz invariance seems to end where gravity reaches the maximum limits, like in a black hole or at the instant of a Big Bang. Do those words correspond with your thinking?

I would point out that those words are not part of the SR discussion because there is no Gravity in the SR equations.

78. Originally Posted by Dark Speculator
my limited experience on SR threads is that there is a category of participants who challenge any criticism of SR with such fervor that it is clear they don't accept it as part of the body of scientific knowledge that falls under the "tentativeness" umbrella.
Sometimes, that fervour is there because they are dealing with misconceptions about, or misapplications of the theory, rather than justified concerns, as is the case with this particular thread.

79. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by Dark Speculator
my limited experience on SR threads is that there is a category of participants who challenge any criticism of SR with such fervor that it is clear they don't accept it as part of the body of scientific knowledge that falls under the "tentativeness" umbrella.
Sometimes, that fervour is there because they are dealing with misconceptions about, or misapplications of the theory, rather than justified concerns, as is the case with this particular thread.
OK, you're not one of those with such fervor. The reason I am attracted to SR threads like this is that those with the "fervour" say things like there is experimental proof of SR; not proof that the math works perfectly, but proof in the form of experiments and that people who question SR are "too dumb" to understand that such experiments prove SR.

Are there any of you who have an interest in this thread who believe that SR has been proven experimentally?

80. There is no such thing as "proven". There is only the failure to "disprove".

81. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
There is no such thing as "proven". There is only the failure to "disprove".
Exactly. That is not to say that the failure to disprove means SR is or is not "reality", but you would probably agree with me that 100 years of failure to disprove is not proof either, I hope.

82. Originally Posted by chinglu
Proof there exists spherical light waves in the rest frame that are not spherical light waves in the moving frame.

The motivation for this proof is that at any instant in any frame, that frame is viewing a light sphere. On any time interval in the frame, that frame views a set of concentric light spheres or a spherical wave.

Einstein contended that LT mapped the spherical wave from the view of the rest frame to the spherical wave in the view of the moving frame as shown below.

Einstein picked a point on the light wave in the rest frame mapped it with LT and claimed to prove LT provides the view of the light wave in the moving frame.

At the time t = τ = 0, when the origin of the co-ordinates is common to the two systems, let a spherical wave be emitted therefrom, and be propagated with the velocity c in system K. If (x, y, z) be a point just attained by this wave, then

x² + y² + z² = c² t²

Transforming this equation with the aid of our equations of transformation we obtain after a simple calculation

ξ² + η² + ς² = c² τ²

The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

As with Einstein, I chose to pick a point just attained by the spherical light wave in the view of the rest frame. I choose this point to be (-xp,0,0) where xp > 0.

I am going to prove, on the rest frame time interval [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ) not one single light sphere is built by LT for the moving frame.

Based on the light postulate in the rest frame, on any time interval, the spherical wave is a set of concentric set of light spheres. Therefore, on the rest frame time interval, [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ), there is a spherical wave in the rest frame.
Hence, in the view of the rest frame, the rest frame is viewing a spherical wave.

Calculate the moving frame time on the clock at (-xp,0,0) t = xp/c for the time the spherical wave meets that point in the moving frame.
Next tp' is calculated with LT.
tp' = ( t - vx/c² )γ = (xp/c + vxp/c²)γ

Determine the light sphere in the moving frame that will contain the moving frame point LT(xp/c,-xp,0,0) = (tp', -c tp', 0, 0)
A light sphere of radius ctp' then in the moving frame includes all the points such that
x'² + y² + z² = c² tp'²

Prove the moving frame coordinate (c tp', 0, 0) is not hit by the spherical wave in the view of the rest frame on the rest frame time interval [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ).

The moving frame coordinate (tp', c tp', 0, 0) is struck from the light wave in the context of the rest frame based on the LT equation,
t = ( t' + vx'/c² )γ
t = ( tp' + v(c tp')/c² )γ
t = tp' γ(c + v)/c

Substitute tp' = (xp/c + vxp/c²)γ from above.
t = ((xp/c + vxp/c²)γ) γ(1 + v/c)
t = xp/c((1 + v/c)) γ²*(1 + v/c)
t = (xp/c) γ²*(1 + v/c)² = (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v))

Since the tine interval in the rest frame is [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ), then t = (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) is not in the time interval, hence (tp', c tp', 0, 0) was not hit by the light wave.

Thus there is a point on the light sphere of radius c tp' in the moving frame not hit by the spherical light wave from the rest frame on the rest frame time interval [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ).

Now, we know a light sphere of radius c tp' is not part of the LT mapping of the spherical light wave on the rest frame on the time interval [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ).

Two more possible light spheres must be eliminated, a larger light sphere could have been completed on that rest frame time interval or a smaller one could have been completed.

First, a larger light sphere in the moving frame could not have been completed on that rest frame time interval since if (tp', c tp', 0, 0) was not struck by the rest frame light wave, then (tp'+Δh, c (tp'+Δh), 0, 0) is further from the rest frame origin and thus could not have been struck by the rest frame light wave.

That just leaves the possibility that a smaller moving frame light sphere could have been completed on the rest frame time interval [xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ). However, the vector (tp'-Δh, -c (tp'-Δh), 0, 0) will be missing from the mapped set on the rest frame time interval because (-c (tp'-Δh), 0, 0) is hit prior to t=xp/c in the rest frame time and is thus not mapped by the rest frame time interval [xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ).

On any time interval in any frame, that frame views a spherical light wave. Based on the rest frame time interval [xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ), there is a spherical wave in the rest frame.

However, by using all the LT mapped 4-D vectors from that rest frame time interval, not one light sphere is completed for the moving frame and hence, a spherical light wave is not in the set of LT mapped vectors.

So, if an experiment was conducted on the rest frame time interval [xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ), the rest frame would conclude it is impossible for the moving frame to view a spherical light wave.

Yet, for any time interval in the moving frame, it would report a spherical light wave.

One may claim the relativity of simultaneity explains all this. But, the relativity of simultaneity is not an excuse for the results of one experiment in one frame to contradict the results of another for the same exact light wave.
If you utilize vectors from a point in the rest frame to the expanding spherical waves, it is easy to show that a moving object will view a distorted sphere. The direct vector has zero angle, while the other vectors have finite angles, and therefore the time/distance is the cosine of those vectors. When the moving frame is moving towards the fixed frame, the sphere will appear narrowed, while it will appear flattened in the other case. Does this help?

83. Originally Posted by sharpsword
If you utilize vectors from a point in the rest frame to the expanding spherical waves, it is easy to show that a moving object will view a distorted sphere. The direct vector has zero angle, while the other vectors have finite angles, and therefore the time/distance is the cosine of those vectors. When the moving frame is moving towards the fixed frame, the sphere will appear narrowed, while it will appear flattened in the other case. Does this help?
It would help if you could prove it physically.

Also, the shape would be an oblate spheroid if you are thinking the same object as I am.

84. do i understand this correctly? ... just for my own clarification - because 90% of the posts are out of my world :/

i'm noticing a light of, let's say, a car that passes/passed me, at one time, from a distance.
the driver of the car of course keeps on seeing the light, the car sends out. but it isn't the same light i've seen, because the car keeps on driving and has passed the point, where we both experienced the same light.

and now chinglu tried to prove the point, there was no light from the lights view, instead of my view?

if i got that right, how can a event prove it's a event?
doesn't it need an observer to do so?

i'm really not trying to question or criticize, i just want to know if i understood it?

85. Chinglu's points can be ignored, on the basis that he never supported a single thing he said and is in disagreement with the scientific concensus.

I'm not really sure what you're asking, so I'd suggest you read about Einstein's train thought experiment: Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

86. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
Chinglu's points can be ignored, on the basis that he never supported a single thing he said and is in disagreement with the scientific concensus.

I'm not really sure what you're asking, so I'd suggest you read about Einstein's train thought experiment: Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
i've seen it in the special relativity primer thread, and i understand the meaning (well i understood it, after being on that site).

as for chinglu, since i can't really keep up with the math, i tried to put what i read in a picture. and what i got was:

2 objects - the car and me. the car being in some distance from me having his lights on, while passing by. so at 1 point, the car and me will both experience the same light at the same time.

then the car is out of my view, and therefore the light will be also.
but the light will still be there for the car, but it's not that same light ray/beam or flash, that i have seen when it went past me.

so it can only be me to prove that 1 event of light from my point of view, using my position to determine it.

and to me it looked like chinglu tried to prove the light source by using the light source to prove the light source.

87. Originally Posted by curious mind
2 objects - the car and me. the car being in some distance from me having his lights on, while passing by. so at 1 point, the car and me will both experience the same light at the same time.
I'm not sure what you mean by "experience the same light at the same time"; the car will never "experience" the light as it is moving away from it at c.

88. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
2 objects - the car and me. the car being in some distance from me having his lights on, while passing by. so at 1 point, the car and me will both experience the same light at the same time.
I'm not sure what you mean by "experience the same light at the same time"; the car will never "experience" the light as it is moving away from it at c.

but the car has its lights turned on, i'm not talking about the train experiment by the way.

89. Originally Posted by curious mind
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
2 objects - the car and me. the car being in some distance from me having his lights on, while passing by. so at 1 point, the car and me will both experience the same light at the same time.
I'm not sure what you mean by "experience the same light at the same time"; the car will never "experience" the light as it is moving away from it at c.

but the car has its lights turned on, i'm not talking about the train experiment by the way.
But what do you mean by "experience". The light from the cars headlights is moving away from the car at c.

Basically, I'm just not sure what you are asking and so don't really know how to answer it. Do you want to try rephrasing the question?

(And, to reinforce what was said earlier, just about every single thing chinglu said is wrong.)

90. but, when you're driving the car with its light on, you will see the light?

91. Originally Posted by curious mind
but, when you're driving the car with its light on, you will see the light?
Normally you will only see reflected light (from the road, other cars, mist/dust in the air, etc) - and that just complicates matters. I suppose the car driver could lean out of the window and see the headlight directly, but I'm not sure if that is relevant...

If you try and follow chinglu's "logic" you will only get confused!

You might be better off asking a new question of your own if there is something you are not clear about (maybe start a new thread in the Physics forum).

92. is there anything like a beginners section lol?

94. What nobody will do, though, is explain Chinglu's argument rationally. His maths was wrong, and his arguments were nonsensical.

95. Hence, the moving could not view a spherical wave front.
There is no requirement for that same wave front to appear spherical in both frames of reference, in fact that is impossible due to relativity of simultaneity. The only requirement is that all observers see the same laws of electrodynamics, i.e. that Maxwell's equations are valid in all inertial frames and are thus invariant under Lorentz transformations.

Consider the continuity equation for the current density

We now re-write this as a Lorentz vector

so that the continuity equation now becomes

Since is a covariant vector, j is a kontravariant 4-vector, and thus the above equation is invariant under Lorentz transformations.
Now we introduce the electric and magnetic fields through their potentials as

With that the Maxwell equations become

and

Since is a covariant vector, and F is a tensor, it is immediately clear that the Maxwell equations in this form are invariant under Lorentz transformations, i.e. valid in all frames of reference. It is hereby entirely irrelevant whether a sphere in one frame is seen as a sphere in another, so long as the laws governing the electromagnetic wave are the same - which is what I have shown above.

Therefore, this proves a case in which the rest frame viewed a spherical wave front but the moving frame did not contradicting Einstein's conclusion that the moving frame always views a spherical wave front based on the spherical light wave in the rest frame and calculations of LT.
That is not what Einstein claimed - you are intentionally misrepresenting the theory. Einstein claimed only that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, i.e. that Maxwell's equations are valid in all inertial frames. We know that this is true through empirical evidence, and you find the theoretic proof above as well.

96. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Hence, the moving could not view a spherical wave front.
There is no requirement for that same wave front to appear spherical in both frames of reference, in fact that is impossible due to relativity of simultaneity. The only requirement is that all observers see the same laws of electrodynamics, i.e. that Maxwell's equations are valid in all inertial frames and are thus invariant under Lorentz transformations.

Consider the continuity equation for the current density

We now re-write this as a Lorentz vector

so that the continuity equation now becomes

Since is a covariant vector, j is a kontravariant 4-vector, and thus the above equation is invariant under Lorentz transformations.
Now we introduce the electric and magnetic fields through their potentials as

With that the Maxwell equations become

and

Since is a covariant vector, and F is a tensor, it is immediately clear that the Maxwell equations in this form are invariant under Lorentz transformations, i.e. valid in all frames of reference. It is hereby entirely irrelevant whether a sphere in one frame is seen as a sphere in another, so long as the laws governing the electromagnetic wave are the same - which is what I have shown above.

Therefore, this proves a case in which the rest frame viewed a spherical wave front but the moving frame did not contradicting Einstein's conclusion that the moving frame always views a spherical wave front based on the spherical light wave in the rest frame and calculations of LT.
That is not what Einstein claimed - you are intentionally misrepresenting the theory. Einstein claimed only that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, i.e. that Maxwell's equations are valid in all inertial frames. We know that this is true through empirical evidence, and you find the theoretic proof above as well.
There is no requirement for that same wave front to appear spherical in both frames of reference, in fact that is impossible due to relativity of simultaneity.

That's correct and that is SR.

Are you claiming that if a frame sees a light sphere, then some other frame does not see a light sphere for that same object?

Read Einstein, both frames must see a spherical object.

So, you are wrong.

97. Einstein: "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible"

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

So, SR is commanded to produce 2 light spheres in the view of each frame centered at the origin of the frame. If not, then SR is false. Therefore, the lorentz transformations are required to produce 2 spherical light waves or SR is false.

Here, this mainstream website proves this.

98. Originally Posted by chinglu
There is no requirement for that same wave front to appear spherical in both frames of reference, in fact that is impossible due to relativity of simultaneity.
That's correct and that is SR.
Are you claiming that if a frame sees a light sphere, then some other frame does not see a light sphere for that same object?
Read Einstein, both frames must see a spherical object.
So, you are wrong.
How many times...?
Both observers see light spheres in their own frames, regardless of their state of motion. However, because of relativity of simultaneity, they do not see the same events at the same times - only when you adjust for that effect both of them see spheres when looking at one another. This only works if you use Lorentz transformations, because light speed is finite.
Without Lorentz transformations both observers would see different speeds of light, contrary to empirical evidence.

Btw, would you care to explain how both observers can possibly see the same wave ?

QUOTE]Einstein: "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible"
[/QUOTE]

Please quote to us the two sentences and equations before this as well. And then tell us please what the propagation speed of those wave fronts is. And then tell us also how you get from one relation to the other.

Refer also here : http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/cla...entztrans.html

I quote :

"Imagine the light shell as O′ sees it—at the instant t′ she sees a sphere of radius r′, in particular she sees the light to have reached the spots +r′ and –r′ on the x′ axis. But from O′’s point of view the expanding light sphere does not reach the point +r′ at the same time it reaches –r′! (This is just the old story of synchronizing the two clocks at the front and back of the train one more time.) That is why O does not see O′’s sphere: the arrival of the light at the sphere of radius r′ around O′ at time t′ corresponds in S to a continuum of different events happening at different times. "

99. I am awaiting your mathematical refutation of post 195.

100. Originally Posted by chinglu
So, SR is commanded to produce 2 light spheres in the view of each frame centered at the origin of the frame. If not, then SR is false. Therefore, the lorentz transformations are required to produce 2 spherical light waves or SR is false.

Here, this mainstream website proves this.

What the website says is this :

"The inevitable conclusion is that Cerulean must measure space and time along axes which are skewed relative to Vermilion's. Events which happen at the same time according to Cerulean happen at different times according to Vermilion; and vice versa. Cerulean's hypersurfaces of simultaneity are not the same as Vermilion's."

and also

"Most of the apparent paradoxes of special relativity arise because observers moving at different velocities relative to each other have different notions of simultaneity. "

So, the very source you referenced explaines clearly and unambiguously that any paradox one might suspect exists is only apparent, because the observers do not have the same notion of simultaneity.
All that is proved here is your ignorance of these concepts, and your inability to even study these sources properly. I would urge you to very carefully read through that entire site, it will explain all your confusions.

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
 Bookmarks
Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement