Originally Posted by

**chinglu**
Now exactly how does the mainstream claim the speed of light is the same for inertial frames given the same light sphere for the twins experiment and yet support time dilation?

Can you explain that?

Of I course I can explain that - simply by using the correct relations and laws. What you are doing in your scenario is mixing an accelerating clock with a stationary ruler. You cannot do that - if you determine the speed of light in inertial frames, you must use inertial clocks and rulers. You then get time dilation between frames,

**but also length contraction**, and the factor by which both measurements change is the same. It's that simple.

It is ridiculous that you are even questioning that, because it is very easy to test experimentally, and has been done hundreds of time. The outcome of all these experiments clearly show that the speed of is constant, just as SR postulates - it is a petty that you are totally ignoring the evidence. Also, a much more practical reason is that all observers see the same vacuum, regardless of their state of relative motion; and since light speed is directly determined by vacuum permittivity and permeability

it cannot change just because two observers are in relative motion. You do not even

**need **SR to understand that, it is really just elementary electrodynamics !

I want to see that. If that is not in the evidence, then I think any intelligent person would agree the center of the light sphere cannot move around in the coordinates of an accelerating frame. That is absolutely absurd and that is pure crackpottery.
How is that absurd, considering that the light pulse was emitted while at rest ? How is that even an

** issue** ? You emit the light pulse while at rest, you measure the speed while at rest, that's all there is to it. Your mistake is that you use a clock which does not remain at rest, but undergoes acceleration, and then compare this to a ruler measurement taken at rest. Now

**that** is what I call absurd, because it means you are mixing reference frames. If you wish to do this then you must consider that any point on the expanding light sphere, as seen from the accelerating frame, behaves as if it is within a gravitational field. The result is that its trajectory becomes curved, like here :

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have not considered this at all in your reasoning, you only talk about time.

So you people need to prove that SR is valid with this experiment.
Already done - see post 38, 36, 35. The proof stands as it is, and it does not need your agreement to do so. You on the other hand have not answered any of my proofs.

Besides,

**you** are the one rejecting established science, so the onus is on

**you** to provide proof, not the other way around.

More specifically, under the relative motion phases, exactly how can time dilation be true and also the twins measure exactly the same light sphere and speed of light when they are again common.
Relative motion phases means inertial frames. In inertial frames you have both time dilation and length contraction. Both carry the same gamma factor, so the relation between the two is always c.

Besides - "when they are again common" means they are again in the same frame of reference. If they are again in the same frame, they will also once again measure the same speed of light, because they use the same rulers and clocks.

But, this is a different issue from this thread.

Not at all, it is

**exactly** what this thread is about. So long as Minkowski's general proof stands you are wrong by default, and each "maths" you present only shows off your ignorance of how to correctly apply relativistic laws.

So, what you need to do now is show the world mathematically that Minkowski's proof as I have presented it is wrong. If you can do that in a mathematically consistent way, then you have a good case which is worth considering.

If not, then all you have is a serious delusion.