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

Proof there exists spherical light waves in the rest frame that are not spherical light waves in the moving frame.

As with Einstein, I chose to pick a point just attained by the light sphere. 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.

In the view of the rest frame, clearly, we have a spherical wave because xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) > xp/c. Hence, in the view of the rest frame, the spherical wave translates to a light cone or a concentric set of light spheres.

Next tp' is calculated with LT.
tp' = ( t - vx/c² )γ = (xp/c + vxp/c²)γ
A light sphere of radius ctp' then in the moving frame includes all the points such that
x'² + y² + z² = c² tp'²

It is now proven, one point is missing from the moving frame light sphere of radius ctp' based on the rest frame time interval [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ).

So, we have t < (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) and assume y=z=0, hence x = ct.
When z=y=0,
t' = ( t - vx/c² )γ = ( t - v(ct)/c² )γ = ( t - vt/c )γ = t ( 1 - v/c )γ

By assumption
t < (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v))

Multiply both sides by ( 1 - v/c )γ
t' = t ( 1 - v/c )γ < (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v))( 1 - v/c )γ
t' < (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v))( (c - v)/c )γ
t' < ( xp(c+v))/c² )γ = ( xp/c + vxp/c² )γ = tp'

Hence, t' < tp' .

Hence, a point was found that is not yet on the light sphere of radius ctp' in the moving frame even though the rest frame elapsed time on the interval [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ).

So, obviously, the rest frame time interval proves a spherical light wave.

However, as proven above, not one light sphere of radius ctp' was completed by LT. Obviously, a larger radius light sphere in the moving frame could not have been built. Hence, on the rest frame time interval, [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ) the moving frame did not view even one complete light sphere. Hence, the moving could not view a spherical wave front.

Hence, the rest frame viewed a spherical wave front on the time interval [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ) but the moving frame did not.

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.

In case you SR folks did not realize it, this proof forces SR into a flat earth theory.

In case you folks don't realise it, chinglu is wrong. He is mixing frames of reference without keeping account of the transformations required.

Chinglu, you can post this on as many forums as you like, and you will still get the same answer, unless you post it on a forum where nobody understands relativity and your intention is to fool the uneducated that you are on to something.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

In case you folks don't realise it, chinglu is wrong. He is mixing frames of reference without keeping account of the transformations required.

Chinglu, you can post this on as many forums as you like, and you will still get the same answer, unless you post it on a forum where nobody understands relativity and your intention is to fool the uneducated that you are on to something.

Mixing frames?

Nope. Here is what I did in simple terms.

It is claimed because the light wave and the LT mapped light wave contain the same 4-D vectors, then the LT mapped light wave for the primed frame is in fact the light wave viewed in the primed frame according to the light postulate.

I show this is insufficient to claim the LT version is exactly the same as the primed frame version.

1) So, I set up a time interval in the unprimed frame.
2) I then collected all the 4-D vectors in the unprimed frame that were struck by the light wave in the unprimed frame on the time interval.
3) I then mapped all of these light struck 4-D vectors with LT and formed a vector space for the primed frame.
4) I then proved inside that mapped vector space, there does not exist one single light sphere, just a bunch of vectors.
5) Since at any time t' in the primed frame, the primed observer is viewing a light sphere, I am able to conclude the mapped set of vectors does not provide the spherical light wave in the primed frame. It is quite simple.

That is zero frame mixing.

And, this was placed in only one forum in which I was banned for being as rude to others as they were to me. No one there was able to refute this proof as no one on the planet can refute it.

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.

Originally Posted by chinglu

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.

Your problem is based in your own erroneous interpretation. The distinction you are making is quite subtle - you suggest that both observers, according to Einstein, should see exactly the same spherical wavefront, and thus should be seeing exactly the same sphere, but this was never the claim, however much you think it is. Your proposal is a classic "straw man".

Einstein claimed that light always propagates in a sphere centred on the observer, whatever that observers motion relative to the source. He claimed that two observers in relative motion will both see the light from a single event propagate from a place that is at rest in relation to themselves, and thus the spherical wave reaches the same places at different times, depending on the observer, due to the relativity of simulaneity.

Originally Posted by chinglu

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.

It is never claimed that both observers see "one single sphere". Both observers see a light sphere, based on the same spherical wave, but it is not the same sphere, due to the relativity of simultaneity.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

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.

Your problem is based in your own erroneous interpretation. The distinction you are making is quite subtle - you suggest that both observers, according to Einstein, should see exactly the same spherical wavefront, and thus should be seeing exactly the same sphere, but this was never the claim, however much you think it is. Your proposal is a classic "straw man".

Einstein claimed that light always propagates in a sphere centred on the observer, whatever that observers motion relative to the source. He claimed that two observers in relative motion will both see the light from a single event propagate from a place that is at rest in relation to themselves, and thus the spherical wave reaches the same places at different times, depending on the observer, due to the relativity of simulaneity.

I never said they would see the same light sphere. But, they view the same wave front using different clocks and different measurements.

So, no violation on my part.

Now, Einstein is the one that claimed LT maps the wave front in the rest frame to the wave front in the moving frame. If this does not map. then SR is immediately false.

Next, as you stated yourself, each frame observer should be at the center of the one wavefront. At any time t in the frame, the observer is viewing a light sphere.

When we take a specific time interval in any rest frame and map all the 4-D vectors, the moving frame does not view a single light sphere during that interval.
Yet, any frame is always viewing a light sphere.

So, SR is left the problem that the moving observer is always viewing a light sphere at any time t', yet LT is not able to supply the 4-D vectors to satisify that requirement under the theory.

Since LT does not supply the required 4-D vectors, for the moving frame, clearly a curious mind would wonder where the moving frame is getting them from, magic?

And, you have the order wrong. The Relativity of simultaneity follows from the light postulate in each frame and LT, not the other way around. So, you can't use the Relativity of simultaneity to explain LT. LT and the light postulates must stand on their own.

For example, assume we have points at (-1,0,0) and (1,0,0) and light is pulsed when the origins are the same. Based on the light postulate, these points will be hit simultaneously in the rest frame. Since the other origin moves, again based on the light postulate on the moving frame, (1,0,0) moved closer to the moving origin and (-1,0,0) moved further, hence in the view of the moving frame, (1,0,0) is struck before (-1,0,0). Note the relativity of simultaneity follows from the light postulate.

Originally Posted by chinglu

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.

It is never claimed that both observers see "one single sphere". Both observers see a light sphere, based on the same spherical wave, but it is not the same sphere, due to the relativity of simultaneity.

I never said they see the same light sphere at the same time. But, I made the valid point that if LT maps the rest frame wave front to the moving frame wave front, it must be able to do the job and prove the moving frame at least sees one light sphere since the moving frame is always viewing a light sphere.

SR does not prove its assertions.

chinglu, could you retype your "proof" so that it makes some sense? It is almost unreadable. I'm not simply talking about the obvious typos, I mean that it is unclear to what you are referring to from sentence to sentence. You do not give us the coordinates of the transformed sphere in the second rest frame, though you try to invoke a coordinate transformation. You have seemingly identified two points, yet you haven't given the the coordinates of these points. You have seemingly identified a figure, but you haven't given us a robust means to identify the coordinates of that figure.

I little help would be nice.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

chinglu, could you retype your "proof" so that it makes some sense? It is almost unreadable. I'm not simply talking about the obvious typos, I mean that it is unclear to what you are referring to from sentence to sentence. You do not give us the coordinates of the transformed sphere in the second rest frame, though you try to invoke a coordinate transformation. You have seemingly identified two points, yet you haven't given the the coordinates of these points. You have seemingly identified a figure, but you haven't given us a robust means to identify the coordinates of that figure.

I little help would be nice.

Certainly.

If the 2nd version is still unclear, please let me know.

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


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.

What does "[ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) )" mean? This is introduced without any definition of "v". Even assuming that "v" is the traditional difference between two reference frames along the x axis, it is not clear what this collection of symbols is supposed to represent.

Please explain why should we care about the following: "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)) )."

As it stands, the rather loose way of using coordinates (sometimes three places, sometimes four) is confusing.

Originally Posted by chinglu

One may claim the relativity of simultaneity explains all this.

Yes, and I am glad you at least accept this.

Originally Posted by chinglu

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.

Yes it is. That is pretty much exactly what the relativity of simultaneity is. It explains how events can be simultaneous when calculated from one frame, but not simultaneous when calculated from another frame, and shows how the results, although different, are both correct, for the same exact light wave.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

What does "[ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) )" mean? This is introduced without any definition of "v". Even assuming that "v" is the traditional difference between two reference frames along the x axis, it is not clear what this collection of symbols is supposed to represent.

Please explain why should we care about the following: "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)) )."

As it stands, the rather loose way of using coordinates (sometimes three places, sometimes four) is confusing.

1) What does "[ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) )" mean?
It is a rest frame time interval. Let t1 = xp/c and t2 = (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)). It is a real number interval [t1, r2).

2) This is introduced without any definition of "v" v is the relative motion between the frames. This is the standard configuration.

3) Please explain why should we care about the following: Prove the moving frame coordinate (c tp', 0, 0) is not hit by the spherical wave in the view of the rest frame.

This moving frame coordinate is not struck by the spherical light wave in the rest frame on the time interval [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ). This proves there is one point on the moving frame light sphere of radius c tp' that is missing based on mapping all the coordinates met by the spherical light wave in the rest frame on the rest frame time interval [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ).

It is my goal to prove on that rest frame time interval above, all the LT mapped vectors to the moving frame do not produce one complete light sphere in the moving frame and that is what I proved.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

One may claim the relativity of simultaneity explains all this.

Yes, and I am glad you at least accept this.

Originally Posted by chinglu

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.

Yes it is. That is pretty much exactly what the relativity of simultaneity is. It explains how events can be simultaneous when calculated from one frame, but not simultaneous when calculated from another frame, and shows how the results, although different, are both correct, for the same exact light wave.

Yes, that is what the relativity of simultaneity says. But, that has nothing to do with this proof.

As I said, on the stated rest frame time interval, the rest frame claims not one light sphere is made using all the LT mapped vectors. Assuming an observer is located at the origin of the moving frame, a clock and observer at that location would translate that rest frame time interval into a corresponding time dilated moving frame time interval.

On that moving frame time interval, the moving frame contends it views a set of concentric light spheres i.e. a spherical light wave.

The rest frame contends not one light sphere was seen in the moving frame on the rest frame time interval.

Hence, SR contradicts itself on light spheres for the moving frame.

So, my point was that the relativity of simultaneity is not an excuse for a logical contradiction in the theory.

Originally Posted by chinglu

The rest frame contends not one light sphere was seen in the moving frame on the rest frame time interval.

Hence, SR contradicts itself on light spheres for the moving frame.

Err... you do know that SR proves that time and space are relative, don't you?

Why, if time and space are relative, is it a surprise that the rest frame cannot calculate a light sphere seen in the moving frame when using the rest frame time interval? This is what I meant when I said you are mixing frames. The moving frame sees a light sphere when using its own moving frame time interval, as you put it.

SR does not contradict itself, it proves that time and space are relative, rather than absolute. That was kind of the point of the whole thing.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

The rest frame contends not one light sphere was seen in the moving frame on the rest frame time interval.

Hence, SR contradicts itself on light spheres for the moving frame.

Err... you do know that SR proves that time and space are relative, don't you?

Why, if time and space are relative, is it a surprise that the rest frame cannot calculate a light sphere seen in the moving frame when using the rest frame time interval? This is what I meant when I said you are mixing frames. The moving frame sees a light sphere when using its own moving frame time interval, as you put it.

SR does not contradict itself, it proves that time and space are relative, rather than absolute. That was kind of the point of the whole thing.

No, we need to prove all the vectors required by the moving frame are supplied by the rest frame using LT.

You already agreed the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave.

Yet, we agree the rest frame light wave combined with LT does not supply them.

Now, of course we can chant various incantations from SR, but that still does not supply the needed light beams for the moving frame to complete its light spheres.

The problem that cannot be solved by the mainstream is where these mysterious light beams come from to make the light wave spherical in the moving frame since I have proven they do not come from the rest frame spherical light wave.

Originally Posted by chinglu

1) What does "[ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) )" mean?
It is a rest frame time interval. Let t1 = xp/c and t2 = (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)). It is a real number interval [t1, r2).

But why do you choose "t1 = xp/c and t2 = (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v))"?

2) This is introduced without any definition of "v" v is the relative motion between the frames. This is the standard configuration.

OK, but then your choice of "t1 = xp/c and t2 = (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v))" is very confusing.

3) Please explain why should we care about the following: Prove the moving frame coordinate (c tp', 0, 0) is not hit by the spherical wave in the view of the rest frame.

This moving frame coordinate is not struck by the spherical light wave in the rest frame on the time interval [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ). This proves there is one point on the moving frame light sphere of radius c tp' that is missing based on mapping all the coordinates met by the spherical light wave in the rest frame on the rest frame time interval [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ).

I'm not sure that what you are saying makes any sense. Nothing in one frame ever reaches something in another frame. All one can do is translate the coordinates from one frame into another.

It is my goal to prove on that rest frame time interval above, all the LT mapped vectors to the moving frame do not produce one complete light sphere in the moving frame and that is what I proved.

What vectors are you talking about? It's not clear that you have identified any.

Originally Posted by chinglu

No, we need to prove all the vectors required by the moving frame are supplied by the rest frame using LT.

You already agreed the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave.

Yet, we agree the rest frame light wave combined with LT does not supply them.

Now, of course we can chant various incantations from SR, but that still does not supply the needed light beams for the moving frame to complete its light spheres.

The problem that cannot be solved by the mainstream is where these mysterious light beams come from to make the light wave spherical in the moving frame since I have proven they do not come from the rest frame spherical light wave.

The mysterious light beams come from the fact that t is variable between the frames, rather than constant.

The problem that you cannot solve is to understand the difference between proper time and coordinate time. Proper time is how you measure time in your own frame, it is the time that is carried by a clock. All observers keep their own proper time. All observers see a light-sphere.

Coordinate time is what an observer in one frame calculates time is doing in a different frame, based on his own proper time. It is how time in the other frame relates to himself, not how time in the other frame relates to the other frame. The observer sees a light-sphere in his own frame, which is not a sphere in the other frame. It is not a sphere in the other frame because his proper time does not match the proper time in the other frame, it matches the coordinate time.

You are mixing frames - mixing up the differences between proper and coordinate time between frames. And guess what governs any connection between proper and coordinate time for frames in relative motion...

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

1) What does "[ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) )" mean?
It is a rest frame time interval. Let t1 = xp/c and t2 = (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)). It is a real number interval [t1, r2).

But why do you choose "t1 = xp/c and t2 = (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v))"?

Because I knew where the hole was in SR.

3) Please explain why should we care about the following: Prove the moving frame coordinate (c tp', 0, 0) is not hit by the spherical wave in the view of the rest frame.

This proves there is not light sphere made in the moving frame by translating vectors. So, I needed to prove (c tp', 0, 0) was not translated on the rest frame time interval.

This moving frame coordinate is not struck by the spherical light wave in the rest frame on the time interval [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ). This proves there is one point on the moving frame light sphere of radius c tp' that is missing based on mapping all the coordinates met by the spherical light wave in the rest frame on the rest frame time interval [ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ).

I'm not sure that what you are saying makes any sense. Nothing in one frame ever reaches something in another frame. All one can do is translate the coordinates from one frame into another. [/quote]

Sure, but, not light sphere are constructed in the moving frame based on the rest frame time interval. Yet, the moving frame claims to be viewing light spheres.

It is my goal to prove on that rest frame time interval above, all the LT mapped vectors to the moving frame do not produce one complete light sphere in the moving frame and that is what I proved.

What vectors are you talking about? It's not clear that you have identified any

All vectors mapped on the rest fame time interval "[ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ) are mapped and included for the moving frame.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

No, we need to prove all the vectors required by the moving frame are supplied by the rest frame using LT.

You already agreed the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave.

Yet, we agree the rest frame light wave combined with LT does not supply them.

Now, of course we can chant various incantations from SR, but that still does not supply the needed light beams for the moving frame to complete its light spheres.

The problem that cannot be solved by the mainstream is where these mysterious light beams come from to make the light wave spherical in the moving frame since I have proven they do not come from the rest frame spherical light wave.

The mysterious light beams come from the fact that t is variable between the frames, rather than constant.

The problem that you cannot solve is to understand the difference between proper time and coordinate time. Proper time is how you measure time in your own frame, it is the time that is carried by a clock. All observers keep their own proper time. All observers see a light-sphere.

Coordinate time is what an observer in one frame calculates time is doing in a different frame, based on his own proper time. It is how time in the other frame relates to himself, not how time in the other frame relates to the other frame. The observer sees a light-sphere in his own frame, which is not a sphere in the other frame. It is not a sphere in the other frame because his proper time does not match the proper time in the other frame, it matches the coordinate time.

You are mixing frames - mixing up the differences between proper and coordinate time between frames. And guess what governs any connection between proper and coordinate time for frames in relative motion...

There was no frame mixing otherwise, indicate specifically where it is.

And, the problem is the moving frame does not have enough vectors from the rest frame on the rest frame time interval to view a spherical wave even though the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave.

Frame time differentials is not an excuse as to why the physical world of the moving frame does not have enough vectors from the rest frame using LT. The physical world must be met by physical world reality and math. Yet, the moving frame does not have the vectors from LT.


So, your post does not solve the missing vector problem because there is no solution.

Originally Posted by chinglu

But why do you choose "t1 = xp/c and t2 = (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v))"?

Because I knew where the hole was in SR.[/quote]
But that's not an answer. What are those quantities? Why not use "5" and "7"?

This proves there is not light sphere made in the moving frame by translating vectors. So, I needed to prove (c tp', 0, 0) was not translated on the rest frame time interval.

What is a translation on a rest frame time interval?

Sure, but, not light sphere are constructed in the moving frame based on the rest frame time interval. Yet, the moving frame claims to be viewing light spheres.

Do you have some reason to believe that the point that you supposedly pick out (you have yet to establish that this is a point, since it only has three coordinate places) is not on some light sphere?

All vectors mapped on the rest fame time interval "[ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ) are mapped and included for the moving frame.

What vectors? So far, I have yet to see you identify one.

Perhaps you should start again, this time with proper coordinates and vectors.

Originally Posted by chinglu

And, the problem is the moving frame does not have enough vectors from the rest frame on the rest frame time interval to view a spherical wave even though the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave.

Why do you keep using the "rest frame time interval" when you are dealing with observations made in the moving frame? To know what the moving frame observes, you have to calculate it using the "moving frame time interval". Isn't this obvious?

Relative to the speed of light, each frame has the same speed, as each frame measures light to be travelling at c in relation to themselves. Each frame can consider themselves to be at rest in relation to the speed of light. This is why each frame sees a spherical wave front.

As each frame can consider itself at rest in relation to light, each frame will see any light propagate from a point that is at rest in relation to themselves, even if there is motion between the frames.

If a spaceship is moving in relation to you and flashes a light at both ends, from your frame of reference that light propagates from the place the spaceship was when it flashed, whilst the spaceship continues to move through the two spheres of light it created. Are you okay with this?

But in the frame of that moving ship, those spheres of light propagate from each end of the ship and continue to do so - the spheres remain centred on each end of the ship as the light propagates. The ship is at rest in relation to those spheres light, as the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference.

This is what SR predicts. So, what is your problem with both frames seeing a spherical wave front?

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

And, the problem is the moving frame does not have enough vectors from the rest frame on the rest frame time interval to view a spherical wave even though the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave.

Why do you keep using the "rest frame time interval" when you are dealing with observations made in the moving frame? To know what the moving frame observes, you have to calculate it using the "moving frame time interval". Isn't this obvious?

Relative to the speed of light, each frame has the same speed, as each frame measures light to be travelling at c in relation to themselves. Each frame can consider themselves to be at rest in relation to the speed of light. This is why each frame sees a spherical wave front.

As each frame can consider itself at rest in relation to light, each frame will see any light propagate from a point that is at rest in relation to themselves, even if there is motion between the frames.

If a spaceship is moving in relation to you and flashes a light at both ends, from your frame of reference that light propagates from the place the spaceship was when it flashed, whilst the spaceship continues to move through the two spheres of light it created. Are you okay with this?

But in the frame of that moving ship, those spheres of light propagate from each end of the ship and continue to do so - the spheres remain centred on each end of the ship as the light propagates. The ship is at rest in relation to those spheres light, as the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference.

This is what SR predicts. So, what is your problem with both frames seeing a spherical wave front?

The reason I use the rest frame time interval is to use LT. LT is supposed to provide the view of the moving frame based on rest frame data and LT.

So, by using this process under SR, I am proving the light wave mapped by LT cannot be the light wave viewed in the moving frame.

As I showed, the whole proof that claims SR is true is based on claiming there is only one light wave and LT maps this one light wave back and forth such that everything works.

Remember in an analysis of SR, you must include LT.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

But why do you choose "t1 = xp/c and t2 = (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v))"?

Because I knew where the hole was in SR.

But that's not an answer. What are those quantities? Why not use "5" and "7"?

I cxould use actual numbers, but I am a theory person. Actual numbers work so feel free to do it yourself.

Do you have some reason to believe that the point that you supposedly pick out (you have yet to establish that this is a point, since it only has three coordinate places) is not on some light sphere?

Yes, that point I used is on a light sphere. But, I proved it is on a light sphere that is not yet mapped in the rest frame time interval. That point will be mapped in the future of the rest fame. So, it is not yet on the moving frame light sphere.

All vectors mapped on the rest fame time interval "[ xp/c, (xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)) ) are mapped and included for the moving frame.

What vectors? So far, I have yet to see you identify one.

Perhaps you should start again, this time with proper coordinates and vectors.

Everything I have is fine. There is no reason to start again.

If you have additional questions, I will answer them.

Originally Posted by chinglu

I cxould use actual numbers, but I am a theory person. Actual numbers work so feel free to do it yourself.

I've worked through dozens of special relativity problems. What I doubt is that you have ever done so, since you cannot use a consistent notation throughout your example.

Everything I have is fine. There is no reason to start again.

The stuff you have written down is, frankly, embarassing. It seems that SpeedFreek was correct as identifying you as someone with no interest in actual science.

Originally Posted by chinglu

The reason I use the rest frame time interval is to use LT. LT is supposed to provide the view of the moving frame based on rest frame data and LT.

So, by using this process under SR, I am proving the light wave mapped by LT cannot be the light wave viewed in the moving frame.

As I showed, the whole proof that claims SR is true is based on claiming there is only one light wave and LT maps this one light wave back and forth such that everything works.

Remember in an analysis of SR, you must include LT.

Wow. I really hope this is the language barrier getting in the way, and that I am misunderstanding you.

With mathematics, the language barrier should not get in the way. Unfortunately, nobody either here, or at BAUT, can understand the reasoning behind your mathematics, and the language barrier doesn't help with your definitions.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

The reason I use the rest frame time interval is to use LT. LT is supposed to provide the view of the moving frame based on rest frame data and LT.

So, by using this process under SR, I am proving the light wave mapped by LT cannot be the light wave viewed in the moving frame.

As I showed, the whole proof that claims SR is true is based on claiming there is only one light wave and LT maps this one light wave back and forth such that everything works.

Remember in an analysis of SR, you must include LT.

Wow. I really hope this is the language barrier getting in the way, and that I am misunderstanding you.

With mathematics, the language barrier should not get in the way. Unfortunately, nobody either here, or at BAUT, can understand the reasoning behind your mathematics, and the language barrier doesn't help with your definitions.

Many apologies.

Let's first agree, the spherical light wave in the rest frame must be transformed to the spherical light wave in the moving frame or SR is false.

In addition, you will agree on any time interval, the frame is viewing a concentric set of light spheres.

Now, how does LT meet the conditions of making this spherical light wave happen in the moving frame based on the rest frame.

We are supposed to map all the light beams in the rest frame to the moving frame and this will prove the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave.

So, I set up a time interval in the rest frame in which there is no light spheres generated by LT for the moving frame.

Since the moving frame is always viewing light spheres, then we may conclude the LT mapped spherical wave is not that which is being viewed by the moving frame.

This is the argument and please feel free to question any of this.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

I cxould use actual numbers, but I am a theory person. Actual numbers work so feel free to do it yourself.

I've worked through dozens of special relativity problems. What I doubt is that you have ever done so, since you cannot use a consistent notation throughout your example.

Everything I have is fine. There is no reason to start again.

The stuff you have written down is, frankly, embarassing. It seems that SpeedFreek was correct as identifying you as someone with no interest in actual science.

Based on you elevating yourself above the math I presented, you will be able to disprove my proof.

It is all about math as you clearly understand and so you will be able to do this easily and refute my factual claim.

You also realize in math it is all about proof and not talk so you will be supporting your claims above with math

I will be waiting.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Let's first agree, the spherical light wave in the rest frame must be transformed to the spherical light wave in the moving frame or SR is false.

This is what I mean by the language barrier, and I think it may be causing the whole problem, but the problem is not with us understanding you. I think the problem is you misunderstanding the language of the theory.

Transform.

In the context of this discussion, transform can have two very different meanings.

In a general sense, the spherical light wave in one frame can be thought to transform into a spherical light wave in the other frame, when you switch frames. Here, I mean transform in the literal sense - something changes into something else. A larvae transforms into a butterfly. That is how it seems, if you consider the situation here.

And then there is the Lorentz Transformation, which is applied ONLY to the other frame of reference - giving you the time dilation and length contraction of the other frame, relative to you. You measure that other frame to be time-dilated and length contracted in its direction of travel.

The speed of that spherical light wave is measured to be the same, from both frames of reference. Each of the frames measures that wave to be travelling at ~300,000 km/s in relation to themselves, as if they are at rest in relation to it. This is a postulate and is assumed true for all inertial frames, in SR.

Rather than just applying the Lorentz Transformation to the other frame, are you trying to apply the Lorentz Transformation to the spherical light wave itself? If you are, it is because you misunderstood something in translation, and I think it would explain exactly the problem you are having, judging from what you are saying.

You should not be applying the LT to the spherical light wave, if that is what you are doing because you "know there is a hole in SR". You should only be applying it to time and length in the other frame.

Just trying to help.

Originally Posted by chinglu

It is all about math as you clearly understand and so you will be able to do this easily and refute my factual claim.

If your mathematical statements weren't so poor, I might be able to understand your claims. As it stands, your claims are pretty much incomprehensible.

You seem to be trying to hide behind your poor mathematics because you suspect that your claims are false. Why not try to learn?

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

Let's first agree, the spherical light wave in the rest frame must be transformed to the spherical light wave in the moving frame or SR is false.

This is what I mean by the language barrier, and I think it may be causing the whole problem, but the problem is not with us understanding you. I think the problem is you misunderstanding the language of the theory.

Transform.

In the context of this discussion, transform can have two very different meanings.

In a general sense, the spherical light wave in one frame can be thought to transform into a spherical light wave in the other frame, when you switch frames. Here, I mean transform in the literal sense - something changes into something else. A larvae transforms into a butterfly. That is how it seems, if you consider the situation here.

And then there is the Lorentz Transformation, which is applied ONLY to the other frame of reference - giving you the time dilation and length contraction of the other frame, relative to you. You measure that other frame to be time-dilated and length contracted in its direction of travel.

The speed of that spherical light wave is measured to be the same, from both frames of reference. Each of the frames measures that wave to be travelling at ~300,000 km/s in relation to themselves, as if they are at rest in relation to it. This is a postulate and is assumed true for all inertial frames, in SR.

Rather than just applying the Lorentz Transformation to the other frame, are you trying to apply the Lorentz Transformation to the spherical light wave itself? If you are, it is because you misunderstood something in translation, and I think it would explain exactly the problem you are having, judging from what you are saying.

You should not be applying the LT to the spherical light wave, if that is what you are doing because you "know there is a hole in SR". You should only be applying it to time and length in the other frame.

Just trying to help.

Thanks for the help.

Lorentz symmetry requires that the rules of physics are preserved by LT.

We find a concentric set of light spheres in the rest frame.

We do not find this by LT of the light wave in the moving frame.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

It is all about math as you clearly understand and so you will be able to do this easily and refute my factual claim.

If your mathematical statements weren't so poor, I might be able to understand your claims. As it stands, your claims are pretty much incomprehensible.

You seem to be trying to hide behind your poor mathematics because you suspect that your claims are false. Why not try to learn?

OK, if my math proof is poor, that means you can prove it wrong.

And, I have stated it many different ways. I do not know what else to do.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Thanks for the help.

Lorentz symmetry requires that the rules of physics are preserved by LT.

We find a concentric set of light spheres in the rest frame.

We do not find this by LT of the light wave in the moving frame.

No, you find it by the LT of the moving frame in relation to you. It explains how the other frame sees the spherical wave.

So, you are applying Lorentz Transformation to light, when you should not be. This is your addition to fill the "hole" in SR. You are wrong.

Light always moves at c, in all inertial frames. Everyone measures light to be travelling at ~300,000 km/s, relative to themselves, whatever their motion. In order to translate what is going on in the other frame into something meaningful in your own frame, you use the LT on the rulers and the clocks of the other frame. It is as simple as that. Relativity. Everyone is at rest in relation to the speed of light.

The Lorentz Transformation is designed to show how space and time are relative, in relation to the speed of light, which is not relative.

Wow indeed.

EDIT: reworded one phrase for clarity.

Originally Posted by chinglu

OK, if my math proof is poor, that means you can prove it wrong.

As it stands now, your math is simply no better than a random collection of symbols. There is nothing to prove wrong.

And, I have stated it many different ways. I do not know what else to do.

You could try using standard mathematical conventions.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

OK, if my math proof is poor, that means you can prove it wrong.

As it stands now, your math is simply no better than a random collection of symbols. There is nothing to prove wrong.

And, I have stated it many different ways. I do not know what else to do.

You could try using standard mathematical conventions.

Here is how it works with math proof.

You prove or disprove.

You have done neither. Your statements are applicable to a very lose philosphy forum.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

Thanks for the help.

Lorentz symmetry requires that the rules of physics are preserved by LT.

We find a concentric set of light spheres in the rest frame.

We do not find this by LT of the light wave in the moving frame.

No, you find it by the LT of the moving frame in relation to you. It explains how the other frame sees the spherical wave.

So, you are applying Lorentz Transformation to light, when you should not be. This is your addition to fill the "hole" in SR. You are wrong.

Light always moves at c, in all inertial frames. Everyone measures light to be travelling at ~300,000 km/s, relative to themselves, whatever their motion. In order to translate what is going on in the other frame into something meaningful in your own frame, you use the LT on the rulers and the clocks of the other frame. It is as simple as that. Relativity. Everyone is at rest in relation to the speed of light.

The Lorentz Transformation is designed to show how space and time are relative, in relation to the speed of light, which is not relative.

Wow indeed.

EDIT: reworded one phrase for clarity.

It is the case the the spherical light wave in the rest frame is supposed to be mapped to the spherical light wave in the moving frame.

I proved it does not.

Your statements above do not change this mathematical fact.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Here is how it works with math proof.

You prove or disprove.

You have done neither. Your statements are applicable to a very lose philosphy forum.

Your replies here might make sense if you were doing mathematics. You aren't. As far as I can tell, you can't even do addition. Given that you can't use the most basic mathematics of relativity theory in your own example, I have little choice but to believe that you have simply copied and pasted equations that you think have something to do with this subject but that are essentially unrelated.

You are welcome to try to actually put your argument in readable form, but at this point it seem beyond you.

Given that Einstein established the opposite of your point in fine mathematical rigour over 100 years ago and given that it has also been established in many relativity textbooks (one that you seemingly haven't read), the burden of proof would be on you to not look like you have made some sort of greivous error here.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

Here is how it works with math proof.

You prove or disprove.

You have done neither. Your statements are applicable to a very lose philosphy forum.

Your replies here might make sense if you were doing mathematics. You aren't. As far as I can tell, you can't even do addition. Given that you can't use the most basic mathematics of relativity theory in your own example, I have little choice but to believe that you have simply copied and pasted equations that you think have something to do with this subject but that are essentially unrelated.

You are welcome to try to actually put your argument in readable form, but at this point it seem beyond you.

Given that Einstein established the opposite of your point in fine mathematical rigour over 100 years ago and given that it has also been established in many relativity textbooks (one that you seemingly haven't read), the burden of proof would be on you to not look like you have made some sort of greivous error here.

There is zero chance that chinglu can establish his claim rigorously. One of the two postulates of SR is the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, which guarantees a spherical wavefront in all inertial frames. From that and the invariance of physical laws with reference frames one deduces the Lorentz transformations. Thus one cannot invalidate a fundamental postulate by means of Lorentz transformations.

I refuse to waste time going through his babble in detail, but as an educated guess he is failing to take into account the relativity of simultaneity in trying to determine the wave front in the "moving" frame.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

I refuse to waste time going through his babble in detail, but as an educated guess he is failing to take into account the relativity of simultaneity in trying to determine the wave front in the "moving" frame.

That may well be part of the problem. As far as I can tell, Chinglu accepts that the "moving" frame sees a spherical wave front, but insists on trying to find that spherical wave front from the rest frame, by applying the Lorentz transform to the wave front, from the rest frame.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

Here is how it works with math proof.

You prove or disprove.

You have done neither. Your statements are applicable to a very lose philosphy forum.

Your replies here might make sense if you were doing mathematics. You aren't. As far as I can tell, you can't even do addition. Given that you can't use the most basic mathematics of relativity theory in your own example, I have little choice but to believe that you have simply copied and pasted equations that you think have something to do with this subject but that are essentially unrelated.

You are welcome to try to actually put your argument in readable form, but at this point it seem beyond you.

Given that Einstein established the opposite of your point in fine mathematical rigour over 100 years ago and given that it has also been established in many relativity textbooks (one that you seemingly haven't read), the burden of proof would be on you to not look like you have made some sort of greivous error here.

All you need do is refute the math proof (which you can't). See, this is not philosphy or physics, this a math proof based on postulates.

You have not refute it. So, your comments have no value.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

Here is how it works with math proof.

You prove or disprove.

You have done neither. Your statements are applicable to a very lose philosphy forum.

Your replies here might make sense if you were doing mathematics. You aren't. As far as I can tell, you can't even do addition. Given that you can't use the most basic mathematics of relativity theory in your own example, I have little choice but to believe that you have simply copied and pasted equations that you think have something to do with this subject but that are essentially unrelated.

You are welcome to try to actually put your argument in readable form, but at this point it seem beyond you.

Given that Einstein established the opposite of your point in fine mathematical rigour over 100 years ago and given that it has also been established in many relativity textbooks (one that you seemingly haven't read), the burden of proof would be on you to not look like you have made some sort of greivous error here.

There is zero chance that chinglu can establish his claim rigorously. One of the two postulates of SR is the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, which guarantees a spherical wavefront in all inertial frames. From that and the invariance of physical laws with reference frames one deduces the Lorentz transformations. Thus one cannot invalidate a fundamental postulate by means of Lorentz transformations.

I refuse to waste time going through his babble in detail, but as an educated guess he is failing to take into account the relativity of simultaneity in trying to determine the wave front in the "moving" frame.

All good mathematicians today run their theorems through computer simulation.

I do that.

That way, you do not make stupid claims with simply errors contained.

I have run computer simulations on the time interval I specified. The light points are bunched up on the left side and slowly reduce until the right side only contains a small number of points based on the calculations of LT on the unprimed frame information.

There is no question from the simulations not one light sphere is seen in the primed frame based on LT which we all know should be false in the primed frame.

Hence, LT does not map the spherical wave in the unprimed frame to the spherical wave in the primed frame as required.

Now, I have issued the challenge, put up or shut up and confess you are wrong.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by DrRocket

I refuse to waste time going through his babble in detail, but as an educated guess he is failing to take into account the relativity of simultaneity in trying to determine the wave front in the "moving" frame.

That may well be part of the problem. As far as I can tell, Chinglu accepts that the "moving" frame sees a spherical wave front, but insists on trying to find that spherical wave front from the rest frame, by applying the Lorentz transform to the wave front, from the rest frame.

I specified why I must map from the unprimed to the primed.

That is what Einstein claimed should be done.

Further, Lorentz symmetry requires LT fully represents the laws of physics in the primed frame based on unprimed frame data. In short, LT must preserve the laws of physics in the mapping.

Yet, the laws of physics require the moving frame views a spherical light wave.

With this proof, the moving frame does not view any light sphere at all on the specified interval.

Hence, the laws of physics are not preserved by LT.

Well, now we know that you're lying.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Well, now we know that you're lying.

I doubt that he is lying.

He really is dumb enough to believe whatn he is saying. That despite it being self-contradictory.

Good mathematicians don't need computer simulations to demonstrate logical contradictions. GIGO

You're right. I guess we could see some source code of the supposed simulation. That might be funny.

Originally Posted by chinglu

I specified why I must map from the unprimed to the primed.

That is what Einstein claimed should be done.

Further, Lorentz symmetry requires LT fully represents the laws of physics in the primed frame based on unprimed frame data. In short, LT must preserve the laws of physics in the mapping.

Yet, the laws of physics require the moving frame views a spherical light wave.

With this proof, the moving frame does not view any light sphere at all on the specified interval.

Hence, the laws of physics are not preserved by LT.

Show me where Einstein says you should apply the Lorentz transformation to light waves.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

You're right. I guess we could see some source code of the supposed simulation. That might be funny.

I can't put all of it, it's too long.

Here is a sample.

#define LIGHTSPEEDMPS 186282.397
#define LIGHTSPEEDMPSSQUARD (34701131432.065609)
#define PI 3.14159265358979323846


double gamma( double velocity )
{
return( 1 / sqrt( 1 - (velocity*velocity/LIGHTSPEEDMPSSQUARD)) ) ;
}


double calcthisx( double r, double v, double y )
{
double g = gamma( v ) ;
double xprime = sqrt( r*r - y*y ) ;

return( (xprime + v*r/LIGHTSPEEDMPS)*g ) ;

}

double calcthisnegx( double r, double v, double y )
{
double g = gamma( v ) ;
double xprime = sqrt( r*r - y*y ) ;

return( (-xprime + v*r/LIGHTSPEEDMPS)*g ) ;

}

double calcthist( double r, double v, double y )
{
double g = gamma( v ) ;

double xprime = sqrt( r*r - y*y ) ;


return ( r/LIGHTSPEEDMPS + v*xprime/(LIGHTSPEEDMPS*LIGHTSPEEDMPS) ) * g ;

}

double Calcxprime( double x, double t, double velocity )
{
return( (x - t*velocity) * gamma(velocity) ) ;
}

double Calctprime( double x, double t, double velocity )
{
return( (t - (velocity*x/LIGHTSPEEDMPSSQUARD)) * gamma(velocity) ) ;
}



void CCanvasObject:rawStationaryLightSphere(CDC & dc)
{
CPen lightPen ;
lightPen.CreatePen( PS_SOLID, 2, (COLORREF)LIGHTCOLOR ) ;
CPen * pCurrPen = dc.SelectObject( &lightPen );


LOGBRUSH lb ;
lb.lbStyle = BS_HOLLOW ;
CBrush cb ;
cb.CreateBrushIndirect( &lb ) ;

CBrush* pcb = dc.SelectObject( &cb ) ;

CPoint Center ;
Center.x = m_originalcenter.left + (m_originalcenter.right - m_originalcenter.left) / 2 ;
Center.y = m_originalcenter.top + (m_originalcenter.bottom - m_originalcenter.top) / 2 ;


CRect rcBounds ;

rcBounds.left = Center.x - lighttravelindots() ;
rcBounds.right = Center.x + lighttravelindots() ;
rcBounds.top = Center.y - lighttravelindots() ;
rcBounds.bottom = Center.y + lighttravelindots() ;


dc.Ellipse( &rcBounds );
dc.SelectObject( pcb );
cb.DeleteObject() ;


dc.SelectObject( pCurrPen );
lightPen.DeleteObject() ;

}

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Well, now we know that you're lying.

I doubt that he is lying.

He really is dumb enough to believe whatn he is saying. That despite it being self-contradictory.

Good mathematicians don't need computer simulations to demonstrate logical contradictions. GIGO

You are wrong.

Simulations are a very positive way to prove theorems.
When you step into new territory, to think you absolutely have the answer without backup in my view is absurd.

So, clearly, you do not perform simulations to prove your thoughs. I can't imagine.

In any event, you have my proof and the last thing I see you doing is finding any error.

Unlike me, all you can prove is you can type on a computer. Whereas I have provided a math proof.

Let me know when you agree with the findings. Once you agree with my conclusions, you know you are correct.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

I specified why I must map from the unprimed to the primed.

That is what Einstein claimed should be done.

Further, Lorentz symmetry requires LT fully represents the laws of physics in the primed frame based on unprimed frame data. In short, LT must preserve the laws of physics in the mapping.

Yet, the laws of physics require the moving frame views a spherical light wave.

With this proof, the moving frame does not view any light sphere at all on the specified interval.

Hence, the laws of physics are not preserved by LT.

Show me where Einstein says you should apply the Lorentz transformation to light waves.

Sure, look for this and read from there.

We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the principle of relativity.

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

Originally Posted by chinglu

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Well, now we know that you're lying.

I doubt that he is lying.

He really is dumb enough to believe whatn he is saying. That despite it being self-contradictory.

Good mathematicians don't need computer simulations to demonstrate logical contradictions. GIGO

You are wrong.

Simulations are a very positive way to prove theorems.
When you step into new territory, to think you absolutely have the answer without backup in my view is absurd.

.

Nope.

And I am quite certain that I have discovered and published, in refereed journals, more theorems than have youi.

Backup need not be, and commonly is not, simulations.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by chinglu

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Well, now we know that you're lying.

I doubt that he is lying.

He really is dumb enough to believe whatn he is saying. That despite it being self-contradictory.

Good mathematicians don't need computer simulations to demonstrate logical contradictions. GIGO

You are wrong.

Simulations are a very positive way to prove theorems.
When you step into new territory, to think you absolutely have the answer without backup in my view is absurd.

.

Nope.

And I am quite certain that I have discovered and published, in refereed journals, more theorems than have youi.

Backup need not be, and commonly is not, simulations.

However you think.

I prefer backup.

In any event my proof stands with all your assertions.

You have a problem here. You try to convince everyone you know what you are doing, yet, my proof stands unrefuted and worse, if it cannot be refuted, SR falls.

Fell free to ask questions if you are not sure what I am doing.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by chinglu

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Well, now we know that you're lying.

I doubt that he is lying.

He really is dumb enough to believe whatn he is saying. That despite it being self-contradictory.

Good mathematicians don't need computer simulations to demonstrate logical contradictions. GIGO

You are wrong.

Simulations are a very positive way to prove theorems.
When you step into new territory, to think you absolutely have the answer without backup in my view is absurd.

.

Nope.

And I am quite certain that I have discovered and published, in refereed journals, more theorems than have youi.

Backup need not be, and commonly is not, simulations.

Theorems in physics?

Show me.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Theorems in physics?

Show me.

No. Theorems in mathematics, where rigor is required.

I don't need to show you anything. The burden of proof is on you. You have failed miserably to bear that burden.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Show me where Einstein says you should apply the Lorentz transformation to light waves.

Sure, look for this and read from there.

We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the principle of relativity.

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

I read from there, but can find no reference to applying the transformation to anything but the time and distance coordinates in the other frame. The constancy of the velocity of light is found compatible with the principle of relativity when transforming the length of a rod in one frame to the length a rod in the other.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by chinglu

Theorems in physics?

Show me.

No. Theorems in mathematics, where rigor is required.

I don't need to show you anything. The burden of proof is on you. You have failed miserably to bear that burden.

Yes, the burden is on me. I provided a math proof to support my claim and met my burden.

Yet, you sit on the sidelines claiming it is wrong without any ability to refute it.

In fact, no one can.

So, if you think the math proof failed miserably, I assume you have some mathematical reason to support your assertion. What is it?

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Show me where Einstein says you should apply the Lorentz transformation to light waves.

Sure, look for this and read from there.

We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the principle of relativity.

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

I read from there, but can find no reference to applying the transformation to anything but the time and distance coordinates in the other frame. The constancy of the velocity of light is found compatible with the principle of relativity when transforming the length of a rod in one frame to the length a rod in the other.

We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the principle of relativity.
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.5
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


As we can see, Einstein picked a point (x, y, z) be a point just attained by this wave and mapped it with LT.

This is standard SR and is called Lorentz Symmetry. This means LT will map the spherical light wave to the spherical light wave in the moving frame. Another way to put it is that LT preserves the laws of physics.

One law of physics is that the moving frame is always viewing a spherical light wave. Again, this is standard SR.

This proof demonstrates there exists a time interval in the rest frame in which the moving frame according to LT did not view a single light sphere let alone a spherical light wave.

Therefore, LT did not preserve the laws of physics for the spherical light wave.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Yes, the burden is on me. I provided a math proof to support my claim and met my burden.

You are delusional if you think that you have provided a mathematical proof. If you think that, then you really need some professional help.

So, if you think the math proof failed miserably, I assume you have some mathematical reason to support your assertion. What is it?

The mathematical reason that what you have provided simply isn't mathematics or physics. For example, you use three-dimensional coordinates where four-dimensional coordinates are required. Another example: you cannot explain what "xp(c+v))/(c(c-v))" means.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

Yes, the burden is on me. I provided a math proof to support my claim and met my burden.

You are delusional if you think that you have provided a mathematical proof. If you think that, then you really need some professional help.

So, if you think the math proof failed miserably, I assume you have some mathematical reason to support your assertion. What is it?

The mathematical reason that what you have provided simply isn't mathematics or physics. For example, you use three-dimensional coordinates where four-dimensional coordinates are required. Another example: you cannot explain what "xp(c+v))/(c(c-v))" means.

I provided all the information for 4D coords.

xp(c+v))/(c(c-v)).

I select any value of xp.

You do not understand SR. You have done nothing with your comments.

Originally Posted by chinglu

As we can see, Einstein picked a point (x, y, z) be a point just attained by this wave and mapped it with LT.

The point just attained by the wave in the other frame is found by applying the LT to coordinates in the other frame, which shows the light to be spherical in the other frame.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

As we can see, Einstein picked a point (x, y, z) be a point just attained by this wave and mapped it with LT.

The point just attained by the wave in the other frame is found by applying the LT to coordinates in the other frame, which shows the light to be spherical in the other frame.

Right, LT must produce a spherical light wave.

You have it.



http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/a7f1badf6e.jpg

This image shows a computer simulatiuon on the rest frame time interval I speciified with xp = 50 ls and v = .6c.


Legend

Dark Red - Points hit before the specified rest frame time interval.
Red - Points hit during the specified rest frame time interval but the light sphere for any of these points requires time prior to the rest frame time interval to complete a light sphere.
Dark Blue - Points hit after the specified rest frame time interval.
Blue - Points hit during the specified rest frame time interval but the light sphere for any of these points requires time after the rest frame time interval to complete a light sphere.
Yellow - Points with t' = a constant. The very right point is missing.

Hence, on the specified rest frame time interval, not one single light sphere is produced by LT for the primed frame.

Therefore, LT does not preserve the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Hence, on the specified rest frame time interval, not one single light sphere is produced by LT for the primed frame.

Therefore, LT does not preserve the laws of physics.

*sigh* You are mangling SR!

The sphere, as seen in the rest frame, translates into an ellipse in the primed frame, when viewed from the rest frame (using rest frame time interval, as you put it). But when viewed from the primed frame, it is indeed a sphere.

The LT preserves the laws of physics between frames.

WHY ARE YOU USING THE REST FRAME TIME INTERVAL TO CALCULATE WHAT THE PRIMED FRAME SEES? TO CALCULATE THAT, YOU NEED TO USE THE PRIMED FRAME TIME INTERVAL.

Why don't you understand this?

If time is "running slower" in the other frame, then you cannot apply time as you perceive it in your own frame and have any hope of understanding observations made in the other frame.

There is no problem with SR. There is a problem with your understanding of it.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

Hence, on the specified rest frame time interval, not one single light sphere is produced by LT for the primed frame.

Therefore, LT does not preserve the laws of physics.

*sigh* You are mangling SR!

The sphere, as seen in the rest frame, translates into an ellipse in the primed frame, when viewed from the rest frame (using rest frame time interval, as you put it). But when viewed from the primed frame, it is indeed a sphere.

The LT preserves the laws of physics between frames.

WHY ARE YOU USING THE REST FRAME TIME INTERVAL TO CALCULATE WHAT THE PRIMED FRAME SEES? TO CALCULATE THAT, YOU NEED TO USE THE PRIMED FRAME TIME INTERVAL.

Why don't you understand this?

If time is "running slower" in the other frame, then you cannot apply time as you perceive it in your own frame and have any hope of understanding observations made in the other frame.

There is no problem with SR. There is a problem with your understanding of it.

What I am showing you is the relativity of simultaneity is not compatible with Lorentz invariance. I did it with a math proof and then I showed it with a computer simulation.

And, your slow time argument is worthless. Let's assume time dilation for the moving observer at the moving origin. Then, that time interval is shorter indeed. Yet, that observer is still viewing a concentric of light spheres.

Next, you also have to include this truth of SR when you do your thinking. The laws of physics are invariant under the lorentz transformation.

“The laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transformations (when going from one inertial system to another arbitrarily chosen inertial system)”.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/proper-t/

So, what do we have.
1) We have a time dilated time interval for the observer at the moving origin.
2) LT must preserve the laws of physics and the most important one is that light moves away from the origin at c in all directions forming a concentric set of light spheres on any time interval.
3) We also have the relativity of simultaneity.

But, we have a time interval in the rest frame that translates to a time dilated interval in the moving frame. But, LT does not provide the correct laws of physics for the moving frame since that frame did not view even one light sphere based on the rest frame time interval.

That is seen in the math proof and that is seen in the picture below.

What you have, at best, is the spatial points on a sphere identified from one frame without having corrected for the time coordinates when these points are on a sphere. There is not simply time dilation, there is a failure of simultaneity between frames.

If you ever figured this out conceptually then you might have a better idea about the problem with your images.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

What you have, at best, is the spatial points on a sphere identified from one frame without having corrected for the time coordinates when these points are on a sphere. There is not simply time dilation, there is a failure of simultaneity between frames.

If you ever figured this out conceptually then you might have a better idea about the problem with your images.

I used LT to map these points. So, if you hate LT then that is your problem.

But, I note you did not include the fact that LT must represent the truth of the laws of physics for the moving frame based on the truth of the laws of physics of the rest frame.

You just confessed LT does not do its job. On the specified rest frame time interval and based on time dilation and the truth of the laws of physics for the rest frame, LT does not produce a one single light sphere in the view of the moving frame.

Hence, LT does not provide the truth of the laws of physics in the moving frame.

Originally Posted by chinglu

I used LT to map these points. So, if you hate LT then that is your problem.

You used the Lorentz transformations incorrectly. If you want to actually learn something, go back and read a textbook on the subject.

But, I note you did not include the fact that LT must represent the truth of the laws of physics for the moving frame based on the truth of the laws of physics of the rest frame.

You just confessed LT does not do its job. On the specified rest frame time interval and based on time dilation and the truth of the laws of physics for the rest frame, LT does not produce a one single light sphere in the view of the moving frame.

Just because I don't say something doesn't mean that you can fill in the gap with anything you want. You don't understand what the Lorentz transformations do and you don't understand why.

Originally Posted by chinglu

“The laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transformations (when going from one inertial system to another arbitrarily chosen inertial system)”.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/proper-t/

So why are you applying the LT to the propagating spherical light wave? It is not an inertial system, so how can you apply the LT to it?

Originally Posted by chinglu

I used LT to map these points. So, if you hate LT then that is your problem.

If someone refutes your usage of a method, defend it. Don't write emotive, illogical crap like this.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

“The laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transformations (when going from one inertial system to another arbitrarily chosen inertial system)”.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/proper-t/

So why are you applying the LT to the propagating spherical light wave? It is not an inertial system, so how can you apply the LT to it?

Each inertial systems is supposed to view the same spherical light wave in their own time and measurements.

As I showed you, Einstein claimed LT preserves the spherical light wave when mapping to another frame.

I am demonstrating that is false.
That is why I am applying LT to the spherical light wave.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

I used LT to map these points. So, if you hate LT then that is your problem.

You used the Lorentz transformations incorrectly. If you want to actually learn something, go back and read a textbook on the subject.

But, I note you did not include the fact that LT must represent the truth of the laws of physics for the moving frame based on the truth of the laws of physics of the rest frame.

You just confessed LT does not do its job. On the specified rest frame time interval and based on time dilation and the truth of the laws of physics for the rest frame, LT does not produce a one single light sphere in the view of the moving frame.

Just because I don't say something doesn't mean that you can fill in the gap with anything you want. You don't understand what the Lorentz transformations do and you don't understand why.

Do you find a specific problem with my proof and/or computer animation?

Originally Posted by chinglu

As I showed you, Einstein claimed LT preserves the spherical light wave when mapping to another frame.

I am demonstrating that is false.
That is why I am applying LT to the spherical light wave.

Listen, here is the real deal...

Anyone who actually understands Special Relativity KNOWS YOU ARE WRONG.

You are wrong.
Your conclusions are wrong.
Your reasoning is wrong.
Your rationale is wrong.
Your understanding of Special Relativity is wrong.
You do not understand the principle of relativity.
Your education in Special Relativity is deficient.

Your math might be correct, but your equations are not those of SR (you "filled the hole" in SR with your own stuff). All you have proved is that you do not understand SR.

Give it up.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

As I showed you, Einstein claimed LT preserves the spherical light wave when mapping to another frame.

I am demonstrating that is false.
That is why I am applying LT to the spherical light wave.

Listen, here is the real deal...

Anyone who actually understands Special Relativity KNOWS YOU ARE WRONG.

You are wrong.
Your conclusions are wrong.
Your reasoning is wrong.
Your rationale is wrong.
Your understanding of Special Relativity is wrong.
You do not understand the principle of relativity.
Your education in Special Relativity is deficient.

Your math might be correct, but your equations are not those of SR (you "filled the hole" in SR with your own stuff). All you have proved is that you do not understand SR.

Give it up.

This is just a long sequence of false statements.

Since you claim to know SR, then please point out exactly in the math proof where you think there is an error in the usage of SR equations.

You can't. No one can.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Since you claim to know SR, then please point out exactly in the math proof where you think there is an error in the usage of SR equations.

You can't. No one can.

The error is the part where you apply the Lorentz transformation to the spherical wave-front, using the rest frame time interval.

The Lorentz transformation shows how space and time in the other frame are contracted, relative to your frame. It is NOT designed to show any contraction of light, relative to your frame, as SR postulates that light always travels at the same speed, relative to both frames.

If the laws of physics are the same in both frames, and you know that light travels at c, relative to you, why are you applying the Lorentz transformation to that light, using your own time interval, when that time interval does not show you how the other frame views that light? Your reasoning makes no sense at all, if you accept the postulate of SR that c is constant to all inertial frames. What is not constant to all inertial frames is space or time, and that is what the Lorentz transformation explains. You have been told this, over and over.

Stop applying the LT to the spherical light wave, using the rest frame time interval. As long as you continue to do so, you are violating a basic principle of one of the postulates of SR. If you continue to violate that postulate, how can anyone take any of your conclusions about SR seriously?

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

Since you claim to know SR, then please point out exactly in the math proof where you think there is an error in the usage of SR equations.

You can't. No one can.

The error is the part where you apply the Lorentz transformation to the spherical wave-front, using the rest frame time interval.

The Lorentz transformation shows how space and time in the other frame are contracted, relative to your frame. It is NOT designed to show any contraction of light, relative to your frame, as SR postulates that light always travels at the same speed, relative to both frames.

If the laws of physics are the same in both frames, and you know that light travels at c, relative to you, why are you applying the Lorentz transformation to that light, using your own time interval, when that time interval does not show you how the other frame views that light? Your reasoning makes no sense at all, if you accept the postulate of SR that c is constant to all inertial frames. What is not constant to all inertial frames is space or time, and that is what the Lorentz transformation explains. You have been told this, over and over.

Stop applying the LT to the spherical light wave, using the rest frame time interval. As long as you continue to do so, you are violating a basic principle of one of the postulates of SR. If you continue to violate that postulate, how can anyone take any of your conclusions about SR seriously?

Einstein:

We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the principle of relativity.
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.5
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

As we can see above, Einstein took an arbitrary point from the spherical light wave in the rest frame, applied LT and then concluded the light wave is also spherical in the moving frame.

Now, if Einstein can take any arbitrary point, then I can take any arbitrary collection of points and the same conclusions should hold. Otherwise, Einstein's proof methodology is unsound.

So, I took the entire collection of points over a rest frame time interval to see if the Einstein proof methodology is sound.

Guess what, his proof methodology fails. Not one single light sphere is generated for the moving frame on the rest frame time interval in this thread. So, LT claims the moving frame is NOT viewing a spherical light wave as Einstein contended above.

Yet, by time dilation, any rest frame time interval translates to a time dilated moving frame time interval.

The light postulate in the moving frame claims on that time dilated interval, the moving frame observer is viewing a spherical light wave.

Yet, LT is unable to make that true.

Therefore, LT does not preserve the laws of physics for the moving frame (it gets them wrong) hence, SR is false.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Einstein:

We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the principle of relativity.
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.5
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The condition stated is PRECISELY the statement that each observer sees a spherical wavefront for the light propagating out from a pulse emanating from single point, and includes the effects of the Lorentz transformation on both the time and spatial coordinates.

The conditions stated are equivalent to the statement that Lorentz transformations preserve the Minkowski inner product.

Originally Posted by chinglu

As we can see above, Einstein took an arbitrary point from the spherical light wave in the rest frame, applied LT and then concluded the light wave is also spherical in the moving frame.

Now, if Einstein can take any arbitrary point, then I can take any arbitrary collection of points and the same conclusions should hold. Otherwise, Einstein's proof methodology is unsound.

So, I took the entire collection of points over a rest frame time interval to see if the Einstein proof methodology is sound.

Guess what, his proof methodology fails. Not one single light sphere is generated for the moving frame on the rest frame time interval in this thread. So, LT claims the moving frame is NOT viewing a spherical light wave as Einstein contended above.

Yet, by time dilation, any rest frame time interval translates to a time dilated moving frame time interval.

The light postulate in the moving frame claims on that time dilated interval, the moving frame observer is viewing a spherical light wave.

Yet, LT is unable to make that true.

Therefore, LT does not preserve the laws of physics for the moving frame (it gets them wrong) hence, SR is false.

Proving that you are wrong and have misapplied the Lorentz transformations. It is as simple as that.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by chinglu

Einstein:

We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the principle of relativity.
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.5
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The condition stated is PRECISELY the statement that each observer sees a spherical wavefront for the light propagating out from a pulse emanating from single point, and includes the effects of the Lorentz transformation on both the time and spatial coordinates.

The conditions stated are equivalent to the statement that Lorentz transformations preserve the Minkowski inner product.

Originally Posted by chinglu

As we can see above, Einstein took an arbitrary point from the spherical light wave in the rest frame, applied LT and then concluded the light wave is also spherical in the moving frame.

Now, if Einstein can take any arbitrary point, then I can take any arbitrary collection of points and the same conclusions should hold. Otherwise, Einstein's proof methodology is unsound.

So, I took the entire collection of points over a rest frame time interval to see if the Einstein proof methodology is sound.

Guess what, his proof methodology fails. Not one single light sphere is generated for the moving frame on the rest frame time interval in this thread. So, LT claims the moving frame is NOT viewing a spherical light wave as Einstein contended above.

Yet, by time dilation, any rest frame time interval translates to a time dilated moving frame time interval.

The light postulate in the moving frame claims on that time dilated interval, the moving frame observer is viewing a spherical light wave.

Yet, LT is unable to make that true.

Therefore, LT does not preserve the laws of physics for the moving frame (it gets them wrong) hence, SR is false.

Proving that you are wrong and have misapplied the Lorentz transformations. It is as simple as that.

You are basically claiming the the invariance of the light like space time interval is sufficient to prove the target frame is viewing a spherical light wave based on the mapping of LT.

I proved that to be false.

I restricted the set of LT mapped 4-D vectors to those generated on a time interval in the rest frame.

Now, given any time interval in the rest frame, based on the light postulate, the rest frame is viewing is spherical light wave.

Given any time interval in the rest frame, there exists a corresponding time dilated time interval for the clock at the light emission point in the moving frame.

We then apply the relativity postulate (the rules of physics are the same for the moving frame) and we are able to conclude the moving frame viewed a spherical light wave on that time dilated time interval.

We now apply LT on the rest frame time interval. Guess what. LT does not produce any set of 4-D vectors using that rest frame time interval such that the moving frame is viewing a light sphere, let alone a spherical light wave.

Therefore, LT is not capable of representing the laws of physics for the moving frame based on the specified rest frame time interval.

Originally Posted by chinglu

You are basically claiming the the invariance of the light like space time interval is sufficient to prove the target frame is viewing a spherical light wave based on the mapping of LT.

I proved that to be false.

I restricted the set of LT mapped 4-D vectors to those generated on a time interval in the rest frame.

Since your results directly contradict those of Einstein that you cited to support your position, where did Einstein go wrong in his calculations?

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

You are basically claiming the the invariance of the light like space time interval is sufficient to prove the target frame is viewing a spherical light wave based on the mapping of LT.

I proved that to be false.

I restricted the set of LT mapped 4-D vectors to those generated on a time interval in the rest frame.

Since your results directly contradict those of Einstein that you cited to support your position, where did Einstein go wrong in his calculations?

Einstein did not go wrong in his calculations. He went wrong in his conclusions.
Here is basically his method.

1) Select a point (x,y,z) from the light wave in the rest frame. Then, based on the light postulate, the equation x² + y² + z² = c² t²*holds.
2) Next, he applied LT x' = ( x - vt )γ, y' = y, z' = z and t' = ( t - vx/c² )γ.
3) Take the equation x'² + y'² + z'² and apply LT. This step assumes the truth of LT.

*x'² + y'² + z'² = ( x - vt )²γ² + y² + z².

Now, assume the truth the of the rest frame LP. Hence, x² + y² + z² = c² t² and y² + z² = c² t² - x² .

Substitute y² + z² = c² t² - x²
*x'² + y'² + z'² = ( x - vt )²γ² + y² + z² = ( x - vt )²γ² + c² t² - x²

Expand ( x - vt )²γ²
*x'² + y'² + z'² = x²γ² + v²t²γ² - 2xvtγ² + c² t² - x²

Pull out γ²
*x'² + y'² + z'² = γ²[x² + v²t² - 2xvt + c²t²/γ² - x²/γ²]
*x'² + y'² + z'² = γ²[x² - x²/γ² + v²t² + c²t²/γ² - 2xvt ]
*x'² + y'² + z'² = γ²[x²( 1 - 1/γ² ) + t² (v² + c²/γ²) - 2xvt ]
*x'² + y'² + z'² = γ²[x²( v²/c² ) +c² t² - 2xvt ]

Pull out c²
*x'² + y'² + z'² = c²γ²[x²( v²/c^4 ) + t² - 2xvt/c² ]
*x'² + y'² + z'² = c²( t - vx/c² ) γ²

Since t' = ( t - vx/c² )γ, then we have
*x'² + y'² + z'² = c² t'²

At this point, since the light beam in the rest frame measures c and by applying LT to that light beam, the translated light beam in the moving frame measures c.
But, that is all the proof of Einstein shows. It shows LT preserves the constant speed of light c for each light beam.

Then, Einstein took this math and claimed, therefore, the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave.

However, light beams measuring c is secondary to the light postulate. The real light postulate says light propagates away from the light emission point at c in all directions. And, this is the notion that gives the meaning of the spherical light wave.

Now, the question to be answered, if all LT translated light beams measure c, then may we conclude the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave based only on the calculations of LT. That is the whole issue.

This cannot be proven based on static vectors. This is a proof that requires dynamics based on light propagating away from the origin at c. Hence, it must be shown for all time intervals in the rest frame, there exists some corresponding time interval in the moving fame and LT calculates that the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave just like the rest frame is.

If it is not the case that LT can calculate a spherical light wave in the view of the moving frame, then it is impossible that one light pulse can do the task for both the rest frame and moving frame.

Well, I proved for some given xp with t = xp/c, the rest frame time interval [ t, t(c+v))/(c-v) ) is insufficient for LT to produce one light sphere in the moving frame.

Yet, by time dilation, the rest frame time interval translates to the moving frame time interval [ t/γ, t(c+v))/(γ(c-v)) ) for the observer located at the origin of the moving frame.

For any time interval in any frame, the observer located at the light emission point of the frame/origin has viewed a concentric set of light spheres on that time interval.

Since LT is not able to match these requirements for the moving frame observer located at the origin based on the light postulate in the moving frame, therefore, the relativity postulate is false since one light pulse is not able to satisfy the dynamic requirements of the light postulate in both frames.

Hence SR is false.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Now, the question to be answered, if all LT translated light beams measure c, then may we conclude the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave based only on the calculations of LT. That is the whole issue.

This cannot be proven based on static vectors.

Hunh? You just proved, mathematically, that the moving frame sees a sphere!

This is a proof that requires dynamics based on light propagating away from the origin at c. Hence, it must be shown for all time intervals in the rest frame, there exists some corresponding time interval in the moving fame and LT calculates that the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave just like the rest frame is.

There is where your whole idea of SR fails. There is not one single time interval in one frame that corresponds to a single time interval in a frame moving relative to the first frame.

Well, I proved for some given xp with t = xp/c, the rest frame time interval [ t, t(c+v))/(c-v) ) is insufficient for LT to produce one light sphere in the moving frame.

Of course it isn't possible for one time interval in the rest frame to produce a light sphere in the moving frame. One has to consider a transformation in time! As people have told you from the start, you are ignoring this.

Yet, by time dilation, the rest frame time interval translates to the moving frame time interval [ t/γ, t(c+v))/(γ(c-v)) ) for the observer located at the origin of the moving frame.

And what about the relativity of simultaneity?

Almost always cranks railing against relativity forget the relativity of simultaneity.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

Now, the question to be answered, if all LT translated light beams measure c, then may we conclude the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave based only on the calculations of LT. That is the whole issue.

This cannot be proven based on static vectors.

Hunh? You just proved, mathematically, that the moving frame sees a sphere!

I proved that mathematically? Good why don't you show me with math the moving frame sees a light sphere. Please don't forget the math!

This is a proof that requires dynamics based on light propagating away from the origin at c. Hence, it must be shown for all time intervals in the rest frame, there exists some corresponding time interval in the moving fame and LT calculates that the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave just like the rest frame is.

There is where your whole idea of SR fails. There is not one single time interval in one frame that corresponds to a single time interval in a frame moving relative to the first frame.

Well, first, you just refuted time dilation. Next, I would have assumed you would have realized, it is easy to attach two intervals to each other.

All you have to do is make a mark in the moving frame along the y axis at a distance of ct/γ and t(c+v)/(γ(c-v)).

This is simply the Pythagorean theorem derivation for time dilation. Then, when the moving frame sees the light at those positions, that is the time interval.

This is exactly the same thing as time dilation for the clock at the moving origin.

You can check Einstein's paper to learn further on the matter.

Well, I proved for some given xp with t = xp/c, the rest frame time interval [ t, t(c+v))/(c-v) ) is insufficient for LT to produce one light sphere in the moving frame.

Of course it isn't possible for one time interval in the rest frame to produce a light sphere in the moving frame. One has to consider a transformation in time! As people have told you from the start, you are ignoring this.

As it has been explained to you over and over, the moving frame is supposed to be viewing is a spherical light wave and that is what Einstein said. Further, Einstein claimed LT produced this conclusion. You are now claiming Einstein is wrong.

Is that correct?

Yet, by time dilation, the rest frame time interval translates to the moving frame time interval [ t/γ, t(c+v))/(γ(c-v)) ) for the observer located at the origin of the moving frame.

And what about the relativity of simultaneity?

Almost always cranks railing against relativity forget the relativity of simultaneity.

This is funny. I guess you are struggling with the math. I proved because of the relativity of simultaneity, there exist time intervals in the rest frame in which the moving frame is not viewing one single light sphere based on the conclusions of LT.

So, try out my light beam marking method on the y axis of the moving frame.

Once you understand that, you will note, based on the light postulate in the moving frame, that frame views a concentric set of light spheres between the marks.

Yet, based on the calculations of LT, the moving frame does not see one single light sphere.

So, LT gets the answer wrong. So, LT is not able to make both light postulates true in both frames. Hence, SR is false.

Originally Posted by chinglu

[I proved that mathematically? Good why don't you show me with math the moving frame sees a light sphere. Please don't forget the math!

You presented the math yourself, in the quote from Einstein:



transforms to



That is all that is needed. You simply fail to understand the mathematics.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Well, first, you just refuted time dilation. Next, I would have assumed you would have realized, it is easy to attach two intervals to each other.

It is easy to transform one interval into another as long as one takes the spatial coordinates into account. The interval transforms differently at differnt spatial locations. Among other things, you don't understand that.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by chinglu

[I proved that mathematically? Good why don't you show me with math the moving frame sees a light sphere. Please don't forget the math!

You presented the math yourself, in the quote from Einstein:



transforms to



That is all that is needed. You simply fail to understand the mathematics.

Yes, I demonstrated using components of this proof that the mapping does not work.

It works in the sense that each light beam will measure c. But, it does not work in the sense that LT maps a spherical light wave over an interval into a set of 4-D vectors that do not even construct one single light sphere. Hence, the moving frame is not viewing a SLW based on the calculations. I proved that and there is nothing you can do about it.

Now, I also gave a method of attaching the two intervals of light wave expansion by using markings on the y axis of the moving frame and using light beams that hit those markings.

Hence, between those markings, the moving frame is viewing a set of light spheres.

However, according to LT, the moving frame did not view one single light sphere. So, LT fails to get the correct answer.

Therefore, LT does not map the light wave of the rest frame to the light wave in the moving frame because it gets the wrong answer.

Therefore, SR is false.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

Well, first, you just refuted time dilation. Next, I would have assumed you would have realized, it is easy to attach two intervals to each other.

It is easy to transform one interval into another as long as one takes the spatial coordinates into account. The interval transforms differently at different spatial locations. Among other things, you don't understand that.

You are confused. I said use markings on the y axis of the moving frame. Those have spatial coordinates of (0,y1,0) and (0,y2,0).

So, it is you that does not understand.

The frames can agree that light hits those markings on the moving frame y axis. They can agree when the lower marking is hit, they both start the experiment. When the higher marking is hit, they both stop the experiment.

After the experiment, the LT claims no light sphere is formed in the moving frame.

The moving frame contends it saw an entire set of light sphere between the markings.

LT gets the results wrong and thus SR is false. LT is supposed to supply the truth of the light postulates in both frames. It fails.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Yes, I demonstrated using components of this proof that the mapping does not work.

It works in the sense that each light beam will measure c. But, it does not work in the sense that LT maps a spherical light wave over an interval into a set of 4-D vectors that do not even construct one single light sphere. Hence, the moving frame is not viewing a SLW based on the calculations. I proved that and there is nothing you can do about it.

Wrong. You simply failed to understand special relativity and the associated mathematics. Your assertions are, quite simply, false. Light emitted from a point source results in a spherical wavefront in all inertial reference frames. This follows from the fact that the Lorentz group preserves the Minkowski inner product, which is the meaning of the two equations




The facts with supporting mathematics are right there before your eyes, and you just don't comprehend the truth.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by chinglu

Yes, I demonstrated using components of this proof that the mapping does not work.

It works in the sense that each light beam will measure c. But, it does not work in the sense that LT maps a spherical light wave over an interval into a set of 4-D vectors that do not even construct one single light sphere. Hence, the moving frame is not viewing a SLW based on the calculations. I proved that and there is nothing you can do about it.

Wrong. You simply failed to understand special relativity and the associated mathematics. Your assertions are, quite simply, false. Light emitted from a point source results in a spherical wavefront in all inertial reference frames. This follows from the fact that the Lorentz group preserves the Minkowski inner product, which is the meaning of the two equations




The facts with supporting mathematics are right there before your eyes, and you just don't comprehend the truth.

Looks like I will have to teach you some math.

The inner product deals only in static 4-D vectors.

So, you have not grapsed the fact I am operating on a dynamic set of vectors.

LT is required to support the truth of the light postulate in all frames based on one single light emission.

Part of that logic on a dynamic time interval is that any moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave.

I proved there exists time intervals in the rest frame in which the moving frame is not viewing a light sphere at all on the interval.

Yet, I also provided a method to attach the rest frame start/stop events to agreed upon start/stop events in the moving frame.

We find that the moving frame claims it is viewing a set of light spheres.

We find LT calculates the moving frame is not.

That is called a logical contradiction within the theory. There is nothing you can do.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Looks like I will have to teach you some math.

Do you realise how that statement makes you look? DrRocket has a Ph.D in mathematical analysis (meaning he has made a significant contribution to the subject of mathematics) and has taught mathematics at 3 universities. And you presume to teach him mathematics?

Did you ever stop to think, after having being told why you are wrong by so many people, that the error might be yours?

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

Looks like I will have to teach you some math.

Do you realise how that statement makes you look? DrRocket has a Ph.D in mathematical analysis (meaning he has made a significant contribution to the subject of mathematics) and has taught mathematics at 3 universities. And you presume to teach him mathematics?

Did you ever stop to think, after having being told why you are wrong by so many people, that the error might be yours?

I have an extensive math background myself.
So, no my statement holds.


Further, he attempted to paste a static solution onto the dynamic problem being studied. I corrected that error. And, I am sure he can speak for himself.

Finally, I do not care if a million folks made claims. Unless they can refute the math proof, then their words have no meaning.

And argumentum ad populum is not a valid argument.

So, I will reiterate the math conclusions.

There exists an agreed upon interval for the rest and moving frames such that the light postulate claims the moving frame views a set of light spheres, but on that same agreed upon interval, LT claims the moving frame did not view a single light sphere.

Since LT is the conjunction of the two light postulates in the frames and LT is not able to match the light postulate in the moving frame, then both light postulates cannot be true. Therefore, the relativity postulate is false and hence SR is false.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by chinglu

Yes, I demonstrated using components of this proof that the mapping does not work.

It works in the sense that each light beam will measure c. But, it does not work in the sense that LT maps a spherical light wave over an interval into a set of 4-D vectors that do not even construct one single light sphere. Hence, the moving frame is not viewing a SLW based on the calculations. I proved that and there is nothing you can do about it.

Wrong. You simply failed to understand special relativity and the associated mathematics. Your assertions are, quite simply, false. Light emitted from a point source results in a spherical wavefront in all inertial reference frames. This follows from the fact that the Lorentz group preserves the Minkowski inner product, which is the meaning of the two equations




The facts with supporting mathematics are right there before your eyes, and you just don't comprehend the truth.

Looks like I will have to teach you some math.

The inner product deals only in static 4-D vectors.

So, you have not grapsed the fact I am operating on a dynamic set of vectors.

LT is required to support the truth of the light postulate in all frames based on one single light emission.

Part of that logic on a dynamic time interval is that any moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave.

I proved there exists time intervals in the rest frame in which the moving frame is not viewing a light sphere at all on the interval.

Yet, I also provided a method to attach the rest frame start/stop events to agreed upon start/stop events in the moving frame.

We find that the moving frame claims it is viewing a set of light spheres.

We find LT calculates the moving frame is not.

That is called a logical contradiction within the theory. There is nothing you can do.

not even wrong

You have proved nothing and lack the ability to recognize it. The Lorentz transformations deal with 4-vectors and 4-vectors are defined on flat spacetime -- there are no such things as either "static" or "dynamic" 4-vectors -- time is built in.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by chinglu

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by chinglu

Yes, I demonstrated using components of this proof that the mapping does not work.

It works in the sense that each light beam will measure c. But, it does not work in the sense that LT maps a spherical light wave over an interval into a set of 4-D vectors that do not even construct one single light sphere. Hence, the moving frame is not viewing a SLW based on the calculations. I proved that and there is nothing you can do about it.

Wrong. You simply failed to understand special relativity and the associated mathematics. Your assertions are, quite simply, false. Light emitted from a point source results in a spherical wavefront in all inertial reference frames. This follows from the fact that the Lorentz group preserves the Minkowski inner product, which is the meaning of the two equations




The facts with supporting mathematics are right there before your eyes, and you just don't comprehend the truth.

Looks like I will have to teach you some math.

The inner product deals only in static 4-D vectors.

So, you have not grapsed the fact I am operating on a dynamic set of vectors.

LT is required to support the truth of the light postulate in all frames based on one single light emission.

Part of that logic on a dynamic time interval is that any moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave.

I proved there exists time intervals in the rest frame in which the moving frame is not viewing a light sphere at all on the interval.

Yet, I also provided a method to attach the rest frame start/stop events to agreed upon start/stop events in the moving frame.

We find that the moving frame claims it is viewing a set of light spheres.

We find LT calculates the moving frame is not.

That is called a logical contradiction within the theory. There is nothing you can do.

not even wrong

You have proved nothing and lack the ability to recognize it. The Lorentz transformations deal with 4-vectors and 4-vectors are defined on flat spacetime -- there are no such things as either "static" or "dynamic" 4-vectors -- time is built in.

Let's see. First you claimed the inner product has something to do with this dynamic problem. I corrected you there since the inner product is not capable of decribing the dynamic situation is proposed.

Then, you offered the equation for the spherical light wave in the rest frame and the equation for the spherical light wave in the moving frame and claimed that proved something.

Now, you are finally to the correct position and are including the 4-D vectors like I did. Let's note for the readers, you are now on a different path.

OK, since you are at least to this point, I proved the collection of LT mapped 4-D vectors do not match the 4-D vectors implemented by the light postulate in the moving frame on the agreed upon start/stop events.

Therefore, LT does not calculate the laws of physics for the moving frame.

It is odd to me. If you indeed have a phd in math and taught math, you would have understood you need to look at my proof. You would not be kicking the tires like you are.

In fact, had I seen the picture I presented, I would have instantly known if the picture is true, then the math proof is true.

If the math proof is true, then I would have known LT fails. So, I would have attacked the proof looking for some error since it is not some big deep thing to look at.

Well, we will see if you are indeed good at math.

Let me know when you have figured out the math proof is valid and therefore, SR is false.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Let's see. First you claimed the inner product has something to do with this dynamic problem. I corrected you there since the inner product is not capable of decribing the dynamic situation is proposed.

Then, you offered the equation for the spherical light wave in the rest frame and the equation for the spherical light wave in the moving frame and claimed that proved something.

Now, you are finally to the correct position and are including the 4-D vectors like I did. Let's note for the readers, you are now on a different path.

OK, since you are at least to this point, I proved the collection of LT mapped 4-D vectors do not match the 4-D vectors implemented by the light postulate in the moving frame on the agreed upon start/stop events.

Therefore, LT does not calculate the laws of physics for the moving frame.

It is odd to me. If you indeed have a phd in math and taught math, you would have understood you need to look at my proof. You would not be kicking the tires like you are.

In fact, had I seen the picture I presented, I would have instantly known if the picture is true, then the math proof is true.

If the math proof is true, then I would have known LT fails. So, I would have attacked the proof looking for some error since it is not some big deep thing to look at.

Well, we will see if you are indeed good at math.

Let me know when you have figured out the math proof is valid and therefore, SR is false.

Let's cut to the chase.

Everything that I told you is correct. Everything in your quotes of Einstein is also correct. SR is perfectly valid in the absence of gravity and is mathematically consistent.

Everything that you have said is either badly garbled or just plain wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about.

The ultimate problem is that you do not understand that you do not understand. In fact you have reached the point of being not merely confused, but in fact seriously delusional. You need professional help.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by chinglu

Let's see. First you claimed the inner product has something to do with this dynamic problem. I corrected you there since the inner product is not capable of decribing the dynamic situation is proposed.

Then, you offered the equation for the spherical light wave in the rest frame and the equation for the spherical light wave in the moving frame and claimed that proved something.

Now, you are finally to the correct position and are including the 4-D vectors like I did. Let's note for the readers, you are now on a different path.

OK, since you are at least to this point, I proved the collection of LT mapped 4-D vectors do not match the 4-D vectors implemented by the light postulate in the moving frame on the agreed upon start/stop events.

Therefore, LT does not calculate the laws of physics for the moving frame.

It is odd to me. If you indeed have a phd in math and taught math, you would have understood you need to look at my proof. You would not be kicking the tires like you are.

In fact, had I seen the picture I presented, I would have instantly known if the picture is true, then the math proof is true.

If the math proof is true, then I would have known LT fails. So, I would have attacked the proof looking for some error since it is not some big deep thing to look at.

Well, we will see if you are indeed good at math.

Let me know when you have figured out the math proof is valid and therefore, SR is false.

Let's cut to the chase.

Everything that I told you is correct. Everything in your quotes of Einstein is also correct. SR is perfectly valid in the absence of gravity and is mathematically consistent.

Everything that you have said is either badly garbled or just plain wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about.

The ultimate problem is that you do not understand that you do not understand. In fact you have reached the point of being not merely confused, but in fact seriously delusional. You need professional help.

I will teach you again.

All you can prove with Einstein's techniques is that each light beam measures c. That is all. Now I have explained exactly the problem with those methods to you.

I would not be having this conversation with a phd in math. You would just go rip at my proof.

Now, if you would like to offer a counter proof that the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave on the specified agreed upon start/stop events(since you are so good at math) then have at it. That way, I can correct you. And, when you finally arrive at the same proof as mine, then you will know you have done the problem correctly.

In other words, I have put up the math and computer simulations. All you have done is talk.

Let's see your proof.

Originally Posted by chinglu

I would not be having this conversation with a phd in math. You would just go rip at my proof.

There is no analysis of crazy. The things that you have been saying are simply wrong. You even quoted in full the sections from Einstein that showed that you are wrong without even realizing it. If that didn't get through to you, then science is not the problem.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

I would not be having this conversation with a phd in math. You would just go rip at my proof.

There is no analysis of crazy. The things that you have been saying are simply wrong. You even quoted in full the sections from Einstein that showed that you are wrong without even realizing it. If that didn't get through to you, then science is not the problem.

Did you have anything in the proof that you can refute?

Otherwise, you will have to accept the findings.

Einstein's proof did not include an agreed upon interval. He use only one arbitrary point in the rest frame and drew a sweeping conclusion for the moving frame.

Silly him, he should have realized based on the relativity of simultaneity he could not draw any conclusions about the order of events and simultaneity in the moving frame by selecting one point in the rest frame.

Well, I have corrected his error.

Like you said, most cranks and crackpots forget about the relativity of simultaneity when drawing their conclusions about SR.

Originally Posted by chinglu

Otherwise, you will have to accept the findings.

I completely accept your findings that the Lorentz Tranformation does not produce a spherical wave front in the moving frame when performed using the rest frame time interval. Your math shows this.

Unfortunately, nobody but you expects the Lorentz Tranformation to produce a spherical wave front in the moving frame when using the rest frame time interval.

The sphere seen in the moving frame is produced by the same wave front as the sphere seen in the rest frame, but due to the relativity of simultaneity, it is not the same sphere. This is due to a difference in the timing of "agreed upon start/stop events" in the respective frames.

Don't worry, I doubt I will never be able to convince you. I am only replying to make sure nobody else believes your nonsense.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by chinglu

Otherwise, you will have to accept the findings.

I completely accept your findings that the Lorentz Tranformation does not produce a spherical wave front in the moving frame when performed using the rest frame time interval. Your math shows this.

Unfortunately, nobody but you expects the Lorentz Tranformation to produce a spherical wave front in the moving frame when using the rest frame time interval.

The sphere seen in the moving frame is produced by the same wave front as the sphere seen in the rest frame, but due to the relativity of simultaneity, it is not the same sphere. This is due to a difference in the timing of "agreed upon start/stop events" in the respective frames.

Don't worry, I doubt I will never be able to convince you. I am only replying to make sure nobody else believes your nonsense.

This is not an issue of convincing me of anything. You have left off facts in reaching your conclusions.

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.

Now, let's take the view of the moving frame.

While applying the light postulate in the moving frame, once the light wave hits y1 until the light wave hits y2, the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave as a concentric set of light spheres.

As you have accepted and proven by the math, on this same "interval", LT claims the moving frame did not view a single light sphere.


So, your claim that I am simply using a rest time interval is false.

Now, what we have is that LT claims the moving frame did not view a single light sphere contradicting the view of the moving frame.

So, LT did not match the laws of physics in the moving frame.

Now, at this point, you claim is that LT is allowed to output absolutely false laws of physics about moving frame because of the relativity of simultaneity.

The relativity of simultaneity is not an excuse nor does it permit LT to logically contradict the laws of physics in the moving frame. In other words, SR is not permitted to contradict its own laws of physics.

So, you have solved nothing.

What we have is between the two events at (0,y1,0) and (0,y2,0), LT calculates pure absolute garbage that has nothing to do with the truth of the light postulate in the primed frame nor its laws of physics.

However, LT is supposed to correctly translate and preserve the laws of physics for the moving frame or why even use such a worthless tool?

We have no choice but to conclude SR is false because one calculation in the theory (LT) claims the moving frame is not viewing a single light sphere between the two events (0,y1,0) and (0,y2,0), and another part of the theory (the light postulate in the moving frame) claims the moving frame viewed an entire set of light spheres all from the radius y1 to y2.

Whenever a theory produces two calculations about the same subject that contradict one another, that theory is logically inconsistent.

Therefore, SR is internally inconsistent.

Originally Posted by chinglu

So, both frames can agree on an "agreed upon" interval determined by using y1 and y2 markings as the start/stop events.

No, they can't. They will still have differences in simultaneity that depend on coordinate location.

Now, let's take the view of the moving frame.

While applying the light postulate in the moving frame, once the light wave hits y1 until the light wave hits y2, the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave as a concentric set of light spheres.

As you have accepted and proven by the math, on this same "interval", LT claims the moving frame did not view a single light sphere.

But it isn't the same interval. It's a different interval at every coordinate location. You can work this out for yourself: calculate the time at different locations along the x, y, and z axes for the time in the rest frame when the light has reached a certain point.

Since anyone can do this, they can clearly see where you have gone wrong. What one cannot understand, save perhaps those who study psychology or psychiatry, is why you have chosen to fixate on this particular falsehood.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by chinglu

So, both frames can agree on an "agreed upon" interval determined by using y1 and y2 markings as the start/stop events.

No, they can't. They will still have differences in simultaneity that depend on coordinate location.

Now, let's take the view of the moving frame.

While applying the light postulate in the moving frame, once the light wave hits y1 until the light wave hits y2, the moving frame is viewing a spherical light wave as a concentric set of light spheres.

As you have accepted and proven by the math, on this same "interval", LT claims the moving frame did not view a single light sphere.

But it isn't the same interval. It's a different interval at every coordinate location. You can work this out for yourself: calculate the time at different locations along the x, y, and z axes for the time in the rest frame when the light has reached a certain point.

Since anyone can do this, they can clearly see where you have gone wrong. What one cannot understand, save perhaps those who study psychology or psychiatry, is why you have chosen to fixate on this particular falsehood.

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 all of you are confused, is you think comparing LT and the LP(Light Postulate) in the primed frame has something to do with the relativity of simultaneity. It does not.

The relativity of simultaneity has to do with comparing the rest frame times and events with the moving frame times and events. Generally, that is done by comparing the LP in the rest frame to the output of LP.

But, I am not comparing the LP in the rest frame to the LT.

I am comparing the LT output to the LP in the moving frame. The LT output is supposed to be precisely the LP in the moving frame. It is not.

Again, notice, all events are in the context of the moving frame. For example, (0,y1,0) and (0,y2,0) are in the coordinates of the moving frame. The LT output is in the coordinates of the moving frame.

And, between the light wave hitting (0,y1,0) and (0,y2,0) in the moving system, LT and the LP in the moving frame disagree. Hence, LT contradicts the LP in the moving frame.

Therefore, SR is internally inconsistent.