vuquta

Fair, nuff. The defect in the transformation occurs prior to the derivation. Specifically, here is the problem. Step 1 We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Step 2 In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if tB - tA = t'A - tB http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Step 3 In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity 2AB/(t'A - tA) = c. to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Therefore, we may conclude t = AB/c. Then, I put this up against the Relativity train embankment experiment and the conclusions are not correct. Now, I said in the post, R of S and LT are in conflict. What I meant specifically was that Einstein used the clock synchronization described above which fundamentally is based on t = AB/c to derive LT. But, R of S disagrees. Here is how. Take M' as stationary, then A and B are moving light sources to M'. According to the light postulate, the motion of the light sources has no bearing on the behavior of light. Now, when the A and B light sources are equidistant from M' and M, they emit. The motion of the light sources makes no difference in the problem for either observer. Since d is the distance from the light source A and also from B to M', then we should apply the LT logic AM'/c = t and also BM'/c = t. Oh, but look at this. That also applies to M. AM/c = t and also BM/c = t. Therefore, both M and M', according to t = AB/c will conclude both light strikes were simultaneous. So, here is where we are. Assume the truth of the train embankment experiment. Then, t = AB/c is false. Therefore, LT is false. Assume the truth of t = AB/c. Then M and M' see the strikes as simultaneous and therefore, the conclusion of Einstein that M' sees B before A is false. Worse, if we assume t = AB/c, then M and M' will both see the strikes as simultaneous at different positions and therefore one or the other or both will measure c for two different light path lengths with equal times for both paths, which is a contradiction. . This is a simple accusation. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged your units are wrong for this equation. If is supposed to be for time, but has the units of speed. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Agree with all you say, except I believe if have found a contradiction between LT and R of S. Hey, if not, what the heck. Hopefully, I posted above with enough detail to decide one way of the other.

I am not going through all this. You are off task of this thread. If I had game, I would simply do the math and refute. You do not and cannot. So, let's get back on task of this thead.

OK, With all these timid humans here. Here is is. let r be the distance to B t = r/(λ(c+v)) http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/appendix-SR.pdf Page 17.

Well, it is missing a distance term. If you have studied this, you would have noticed. Why did you miss this? So, why, since you know everything going on, why dont you tell me when O' will record the light? Then, since I am stupid, we will go from there. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Answer, Yes, and this is different fron deriving LT. Did you know that? I can do both.

BTW, would you like to debate the math of this? I would.

OK, so answer this, But, I will focus on a more astounding concept. [math] \frac{1}{\gamma(1+\beta)}[/math] This was your timing concept for the light ray. Where is your distance? The poster did not answer. You answer.

Yea, is there any way you can supply math to support your assertions? That is what is going on in this thread. Now, I would assume you can go through my statements in a specific way and refute them mathematically. I assume you are able to handle mathematical debate, correct? So, let's go.

Let's see, I am going to ignore your inverse concepts because you did not explain why an invertible matrix was necessary. You brought it up. I guess that is because you do not know why. But, I will focus on a more astounding concept. [math] \frac{1}{\gamma(1+\beta)}[/math] This was your timing concept for the light ray. Where is your distance?

Yes, I agree wth your assessment. Thanks for your time. Oh, I added an additional feature in a prior post. I say we remain 1-D. An additional observer is added. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I was just looking here. What is your matrix operation so I can see the determinant. Since we are operating in 1-D space, I assume you are using one for time and the x-axis for said matrix. I did not see the need for a bijective nature and thus the need for an inverse matrix. Perhaps you could explain why an inverse matrix is necessary. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Oh, I just thought of something else. What is your calculation for time in the moving frame from the light emission point to the strike at the moving observer for the positive x-axis laser? This matrix would resolve this matter.

I would write exactly this. I am in complete agreement. What do you calculate as the time from when O and O' are coincident on the clock of O' until the laser strikes O'? O will record r/c for all of them. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI came up with an easier way to do this rather than a circle. Einstein's Train Embankment Thought Experiment. Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html Below is a picture of Einstein's train embankment thought experiment. A M' ->v B | M | Thus, if synchronized clocks had been placed at M' at the front of M' and the rear of M', infinitesimally close, the front clock would record an earlier time than does the back clock for the light from the lightning strikes to hit the clocks. As Einstein said, Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html Now, we add another observer in the frame of M'. A M' ->v B M'2 ->v | M | Place another observer at M'2 in the frame of M' which is the same distance to B that M' is to B and M' is to A. Place a synchronized clock at M'2. Run the same experiment. Since the rear clock of M' is the same distance from A to M' as is the distance from B to M'2, both observers are in the same frame, and the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the M frame, then M'2 will read the same clock value as does the rear clock of M' for the time when the light hit the clock. Thus, the frame of M' will conclude the time of the front clock of M' will read an earlier time when the light reached the clock than does the clock at M'2. Also the rear clock of M' will read the same value as the clock of M'2. But, the light at B and the observers M' and M'2, with an origin coincident with B when the lightning strikes, are LT equidistant calculated observers and LT concludes M' and M'2 will read the same time for light to strike their clocks. This seems to be a problem.

I was saying here, and it should have been clear, you can use algrebra to find a contradiction if a theory has one. So, of course I assumed we were talking about this concept. I see you thought I was questioning algebra when in fact I was questioning the theory. For example. Theory: There is a greatest integer. Let g be the greatest said integer. But, if g is an integer than g + 1 is an integer by the induction hypothesis. Also, g + 1 > g. Thus, there is no greatest integer. Note I use algebra to run a theory into a contradiction. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I agree with your statement. I see my words were unclear above. By laser strikes I mean when O' is struck by the lasers. O' will be struck by each laser at different times based on the x-coordinate. As such, O' will believe they emitted at different times. I will edit the post because it is unclear.

Well, since we are on the train/embankment, what did you have in mind? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Tell you what. My undergrad degree was in math from a top school. Further, I was summa cum laude graduate. So, I am really not interested in your unfounded and false insults. Did you see any problem with the conclusions above since that is the issue.

This thought experiment is modeled after the train/embankment thought experiment of Einstein. There will be two observers, O and O'. The only change is to turn the problem into a 2-D problem instead of 1-D. So, each observer is centered in a circle, the two circles are of rest radius r and are in relative motion along a common x-axis. Similar to the lightning strikes, the O circle has lasers at every point aimed at the origin O. Now, when O' and O are coincident, the lasers on the circle of O all fire at the same instant. Conclusion: 1) O will see all the laser strikes as simultaneous. 2) O' will not see the laser strikes as simultaneous. [Edit: Laser stike means when O' is struck by a laser] 3) O agrees O' will not see the laser strikes as simultaneous. [Edit: Laser stike means when O' is struck by a laser] Any objections?

No sorry the point works. You can look at the full math here with the light sphere. So, if your friends think they have proved it wrong, they are mistaken and are welcome to bring their math forward and I will show them why they are wrong.

I am sorry, but they did nothing and you either. I gave a specific point under LT. Normally folks run and cry when presenting. I don't. But, this point I have is not a strawman argument. So, if you are unable to handle this specific mathematical point I gave just simply say you give up instead of all this. Say it is beyond you. Why attack me? So here it is again, x = vtλ/(1+λ) This point causes simultaneity between the frames at any time t which of course forces SR into submission. Why not deal in this extremely specific subject?

Let's hold on here. This point I offered is valid. You refuse to deal with it. You are operating in your comfort zone. You are in circles. Since you know what you are doing, why not operate on it? What is your F=ma example? How is that relevent?

I do not think so. I gave the point x = vtλ /(1+λ ) Then you plug this into t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ When you do you get t'=t. Do you need help with the language of math? I can do this proof for you. It is not hard. But, math facts are math facts. You are saying measuring changes reality. We were on a different subject. The poster was claiming measuring creates reality. It this your contention also? I have a refutation to this absurd argument. This is good and getting there. No, I am saying measurability does not determine reality. Where did you get this? Here is the problem. I have given a point that breaks Sr. You cannot refute it. In addition, I have made the realistic statement that while light moves through space so does the frame in some unknown way. Instead of leacturing, prove my statements are false. I am being very specific. If I am going to debate someone and I give clear math, which I have, I expect clear math in return. Do you have this? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Lt is the equation for the light sphere to map 4-D events to 4-D events. You are thinking x-axis only. This point requires a y-component or v > c. Or, z and y can trade off such that (ct)² = x² + y² + z². So, x = vtλ/(1+λ) requires a y value at least. Given that fact, two frames are forced into simultaneity.

We are talking about SR. Do you know SR? If you do not, I can show you some things.

Let's see the math. You are wrong. I said set x = vtλ/(1+λ)\, then t'=t. Yes, but I do not know why math is the best language for the universe. Just because it works is not an answer as to why. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is geocentric thinking similar to SR saying an "rest frame". We abandoned this thinking years ago, sans SR. Measurability does not create reality. I will give an example. Take photosynthesis. Energy transfer rates between pigments are very rapid, and charge separation in reaction centers occurs in 3-30 picoseconds http://photoscience.la.asu.edu/photosyn/education/photointro.html Plants operate in the pico second range. Yet, our ability to measure this only became real in the last decade. However, plants have been around 4 billion years. Now, did photosynthesis become real in the last decade or was it real for 4 billion years? Your logic is similar to much of quantum theory which is absurd in this sense as I showed.

No, Using LT by Einstein, t' = ( t - vx/c² )λ Then I set x = vtλ/(1+λ) in which case t' = t. This is all legal. Then, there is no time dilation. Now what? Are you claiming Einstein was wrong? Me too. Well, this is Einstein's junk, so according to him, that is the result. Yea, that which light moves. Oh, so do frames in some unknown way. Actually, though off this track, I don't know. I really don't know what space is. I do know this though. While light moves through space, so does the frame. Therefore, SR's claim that t = d/c is universal for measuring light speed is false because this claims the "at rest" frame is at absolute rest. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I can only give you an opinion. For some reason, this place/universe operates according to the rules of math. There would be no current technology if this were false. So, when describing events and behaviors in the universe, math has been shown to be the best model for its description. Don't ask me why because I do not know.

Ok, this does not mean anything. hmmmmmm If I set x = vtλ/(1+λ), I find that t'=t using t' = ( t - vx/c² )λ Where is the time dilation? So, when you try to connect frames with time dilation exclusively, this point breaks that argument. t' = ( t - vx/c² )λ OK, let's assume they are co-located. So, you set t = 0. t' = ( t - vx/c² )λ = ( 0 - vx/c² )λ So, t' = -vxλ/c² Therefore, for x > 0, since v > 0, then t < 0. That means we can go back into the past. No, there are no one way speed of light timing experiments done with clocks. At one mile, these timing experiments would need to function at the pico-second level. Anyway, you claim light moves through space at one speed c. So do I. A frame is just a coordinate system and is not space. So, how is your coordinate system moving through space while light does?

I agree, but what are you doing with this? I am not following it. Well, there is time dilation and then there is the simultaneity term. So, for co-local events, time dilation applies. But, for events ie light events, t' = ( t - vx/c² )λ. Since an event is light travel, t = x/c, when lookin only at the x-axis point. t' = ( x/c - (v/c)(x/c)λ. t' = x/c(1 - (v/c))λ. = x/c(c/c - (v/c))λ = x/c√[( c - v )/(c + v)] So, t' = x/c√[( c - v )/(c + v)]. This implies, the further light travels down the x-axis, the less synchronous the moving clock and the stationary clock become per second. This is an extra term compare to time dilation. Time dilation desyncronizes at a constant rate per second. On the other hand with LT, the clocks in the moving frame desyncronize at an ever increasing rate per second compared to the corresponing stationary clock at x as x increases, which is the distance from the origin in the stationary frame. That does not show up in GPS. No, because all the other adjustments for path and GR are included in GPS. Further, the thought experiment I did was for 3.9 km which is a straight line comparison in both frames and LT did not apply to this experiment but is supposed to. Is the frame at some absolute rest? No. It is a simple thought process. Light moves through space at c. Does the light receiver move through space also in some unknown way? Naturally, I can claim the frame is at rest in space but is that realistic?

You cannot possibly be asserting any type of reasonable logic based on this statement. You said it, prove it. You should not have ever made this statement. Yes, he is doing a path integral for time since all paths are spherical. This is correct. But, since you now adhere to this logic, where is your simultaneity term? It is not in there and now you are forced to agree with my conclusions. Thanks. I was very clear that c is a constant and cut the author for not stating this. But, it is tedious since all this evidence is proving that the SR method of measuring light speed fails. Light is c, but SR cannot measure it. I can help you with this. Light moves through space at c. Now, a frame wants to measure light. Does this frame move through space. I will give you your answer, yes it does. So, while light moves through space, what is the frame doing? You have no answer.

I found a paper today that sees the same thing I see with GPS. (2) the speed of light is dependent on the receiver’s tranlational motion relative to the ECI frame if the source is stationary (although simultaneity is the key of GPS operations and the relativity of simultaneity of Special Relativity disagrees with the basic operational principle of GPS) The term -vxλ/c² is the relativity of simultaneity. Then his major conclusions is: From the calculations given before, we find that the speed of light in a reference frame moving relative to the ECI frame is c – v or c + v. http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/IAINpaper2000.pdf The problem with this conclusion he implies the speed of light is not a constant. He should have said the constant speed of light is measured c – v or c + v. This is similar to the error in SR. The speed of light is a constant but the measurement technique fails. So, light speed is not c + v and c - v. That represents our failure to measure it correctly.

There are two components to translating time in LT. t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ x is not the distance traveled of the object, it is a position in the stationary coordinates. So, I do not know what you are driving at here. The frequency of the clock is changed because that is how time is measured. So the frequency of the satellite is programmed in orbit so that it will register at a frequency of 10.23 MHz. Five sources of relativistic effects contribute in Figure 2. The effects are emphasized for several different orbit radii of particular interest. For a low earth orbiter such as the Space Shuttle, the velocity is so great that slowing due to time dilation is the dominant effect, while for a GPS satellite clock, the gravitational blueshift is greater http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/ Now, I see t' = tλ, where t is the satellite clock, so that t = t'/λ in the equations, but I do not see what you are proposing. Further, the term -vxλ/c² is not in them which is what I have been saying. And no, after the reprogramming on earth, they do not accumulate time dilation as they travel. And further, if you want to claim time dilation is accumulated based on relative motion travel when no adjustments are made, I am OK with that. But, the coordinate x has nothing to do with that. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged OK. I am sorry if you thought I said you are stupid. That was not my intention.