vuquta

Agreed but only when viewed from one frame to another. Inside each sphere, the light is a sphere in its own frame. So, I am not really comparing frames with SR. I am concluding that each light sphere within each frame proceeds spherically from the emission point in the frame just by the requirements of SR. Intellectually, once the theory is put in this light, it is clear there are two different light spheres one in each frame. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged My apologies. I will use the math language here though it sure does take time, but is more readable for all and also avoids silly mistakes on my part.

No, I only forget to type in the / symbol at the end. I make mistakes like that. But, x' = vtλ( (λ - (1+λ))/(1+λ) ) = -(vtλ) / (1+λ) = -x since (λ - (1+λ) = (λ - 1 - λ) = -1 and no the math is not suspect for leaving out a symbol. My link has easy to read word math and did not contain this typing error. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Here it is in that format. Thanks for the suggestion. It is easy to make typing mistakes with all those parens. [math] x' = \left( x - vt \right)\lambda [/math] and [math] x = \frac{vt\lambda}{ \left( 1 + \lambda \right)} [/math] So, [math] x' = \left( \frac{vt\lambda}{ \left( 1 + \lambda \right)} - vt \right)\lambda [/math] [math] x' = vt\lambda \left( \frac{\lambda}{ \left( 1 + \lambda \right)} - 1 \right) [/math] [math] x' = vt\lambda \left( \frac{\lambda}{ \left( 1 + \lambda \right)} - \frac{\left( 1 + \lambda \right)}{ \left( 1 + \lambda \right)} \right) [/math] [math]x' = vt\lambda \left( \frac{\left( \lambda - (1+\lambda) \right)}{(1+\lambda)} \right) = vt\lambda \left( \frac{ \lambda - 1 -\lambda}{(1+\lambda)} \right) = vt\lambda \left( \frac{-1}{(1+\lambda)} \right)= \frac{-vt\lambda}{(1+\lambda)} = -x [/math] Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, I said only that all the points will not hit simultaneously from the POV of the stationary frame to the moving frame. However, this point is struck in each frame at the same time. This is something completely different. SR claims both spheres will see the light sphere emerge spherically in their frames and strike all points at the same time. Now, since the moving sphere is centered at (vt,0,0) in the coords of the stationary frame, and the stationary sphere is centered at (0,0,0), then it is natural to ask how this happens and further what will a clock at the origin of stationary frame read when this occurs. That is the purpose of this point. Both light spheres hit this point at the same time aoocrding to LT and this point in on both rigid body sphere at any time t. This allows the question to be answered by the clock in the stationary of when the simultaneity occurs in the moving frame.

I agree with your corrections and that makes it more specific. That was my intention as I thought 3) indicated. And, yes I can be more specific, but are you talking about 1 and 2? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Oh, it is a point of simultaneity between two rigid body spheres when light strikes them. That means, both frames read the same time on their clocks when x is struck and x' = -x is struck by light where x = (vtλ)/(1+λ) I want to abandon the bold for now. However, if we can agree on the two conditions, 1) Light proceeds spherically in the stationary frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously, as seen from the stationary frame. 2) Light proceeds spherically in the moving frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously, as seen from the moving frame. Then, I believe I can prove 2 distinct light spheres are necessary to meet both conditions and one cannot do the job. The point provided will be used along with the two conditions above and a thought erxperiment I call the twin spheres thought experiment. But, conditions 1 and 2 must be agreed upon as theorems of the SR light postulate. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOK, I am not stupid and understand SR very well. For the first time, light timing has been preformed bt NASA. http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934.pdf This is consistent with my theory of absolute motion and causes SR to fail. On the face of it, this constitutes a first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance and implies that light propagates in an absolute reference frame, a conclusion that most physicists (except perhaps some contemporary field theorists) would be reluctant to accept.

Thanks. I agree 1 is not consistent with 2, but that is SR. Here is the light postulate. Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Now, since it is "any ray of light", that means in any direction also. Thus, a light sphere proceeds spherically from the emission point in the frame at c in all directions. Also, it says, "whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.". Thus, even if the the light source were moving, then light would still proceed spherically from the emission point in the frame. Therefore, any light pulse in any frame proceeds spherically from the emission point in the frame regardless of the relative motion of the light source. Now, by setting up two rigid body spheres with a light source in the moving sphere, I can test this logic. Thus, when the two rigid body spheres are coincident, the light is flashed. It must proceed spherically from the origin in the stationary frame regardless of the motion of the light source. But, also, in the moving frame, the light source is stationary at the center of that sphere and thus light must proceed spherically from there also inside that spherical frame. Hence, both conditions 1 and 2 must be met under SR. But, at any time t, the two rigid body spheres are seperated by a distance of vt. This necessitates two light spheres emerging out of one.

1) What you have is a mathematical contradiction. You have either misapplied the assumptions of SR (or made some other assumption) or made math a mistake. Here was my objective. I have two rigid body spheres in relative motion. The moving sphere contains a light source. When their origins are coincident, the light is flashed. SR makes the following statements. 1) Light proceeds spherically in the stationary frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously. 2) Light proceeds spherically in the moving frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously. 3) Neither sees the others strikes as simultaneous. Now, a question should be asked. If the sphere points in the moving frame are struck simultaneously, when in the the time coordinates of the stationary frame, does this occur? SR provides no such tools. So I invented one. The point I found is on both rigid body spheres when it is struck by the light. Since t' = t, ct = r and ct' = r at the point, as shown in the paper, then we may conclude all the sphere points of the moving sphere are struck at t = r/c in the stationary system of coords. Now, since the origin of the moving sphere is located at vt at any time t, then the origin of the light sphere in the moving body sphere is located at vt = v(r/c) or ( v(r/c), 0 ) when its sphere are all struck simultaneously. But, the origin of the light sphere in the stationary frame is located at (0,0). Therefore, there exist one light sphere at the origin of the stationary frame and another at ( v(r/c), 0 ) and hence there are two distinct light spheres which is a physical contradiction of one light sphere. So, now it is understandable how the following conditions are met. 1) Light proceeds spherically in the stationary frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously. 2) Light proceeds spherically in the moving frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously. 3) Neither sees the others strikes as simultaneous. 1) is met by the stationary light sphere. 2) is met by the Ritz's theory light sphere riding along with the moving frame located at vt in the coords on the stationary frame. 3) Is met by applying the stationary light sphere to the moving rigid body sphere. Whence SR is a theory of one light sphere morphing into many in different places in the space of the stationary system of coordinates where the oeigin is located at vt at any time t. 2) I'm not understanding your choice of coordinate for x (and what is x_break?), why it depends on speed, and why you claim that x' = -x. x can't depend on the speed of O' I chose this point to establish simultaneity between the frames. If we use the two rigid body sphere above as an example, then we can set x = vtλ/(1+λ). Since we are talking about when the light sphere hits the point, then t = r/c, where r is the rest radius of both rigid body spheres. Thus, x = (vr)/(c(1+λ)). Since all quantities are known, v, r, c , then x is known. X can depend on the speed, it just moves as the rigid body sphere moves over time. The paper proves that x^2 + y^2 = (ct)^2. It also proves that ½vt < x < vt and so x is in the legal domain space of LT. For example, if an x were picked that required v > c, then x is not in the domain. x' = -x. Proof. x' = ( x - vt )λ, and x = vtλ/(1+λ). So, x' = (vtλ/(1+λ) - vt)λ x' = vtλ( λ/(1+λ) - 1 ) x' = vtλ( λ/(1+λ) - (1+λ)/(1+λ) ) x' = vtλ( (λ - (1+λ))/(1+λ) ) x' = -vtλ(1+λ) = -x.

Yea, folks say this all the time. I am upgrading this post based on a previous post and new findings. The prior post of mine could not be refuted. The link below will provide a specific point in the stationary system of coordinates. With this point, it will be shown the Lorentzian Transformations map one light sphere in the stationary frame into a completely different light sphere in the moving frame. Both light spheres are mapped into the stationary system of coordinates to demonstrate their uniqueness. Naturally, this arrives at a physical contradiction since one light flash cannot reside in two two different origins of the same space. PDF Link

I did not. By setting x = λvt/ (1 + λ), then plug it in to LT. t' = λ( t - vx/c²). After simplification, t' = t.

Agreed, it looks and feels weird to me also. Thanks, and have a good one.

1) The path lengths for light travel are different with t'=t. 2) I mapped all coords from the moving frame into the stationary frame using LT. So, I can apply Newtonian mechanics and the Pythagorean theorem. Here is why. Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the ``stationary system.'' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

I only use LT and a specific point in the space of the stationary frame. In addition, I use this same -point in a moving frame. The results are interesting. Thanks, no rush. Please ask any question on the setup to shorten your time. But, I really do not believe I made any mistakes. In general, I use the point x = λvt/ (1 + λ) You will note, using LT, t'=t for all t and x' = -x. This is the key. By using the correct setup, I can then map from the moving frame into the stationary frame. By doing this, with t=t', I can then compare light travel on a contracted length from the moving frame vs light travel on a stationary length using the same rest distance all in the coordinates of the stationary frame. Since t'=t for the light travel and the light path lengths are different, then there is no choice but to conclude light speed is measured at different values. However, this assumes light is always emitted c regardless of any motion. But, this is experimentally verified by Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources

This is speculation. I am sure you can point out, given the very specific math in my link, where this applies. Why don't we debate that?

Well, I assumed SR is true. Under that assumption, I come up with 2 different measurements for the speed of light. Further, I have used that light always emits c. I demarcate that with the measurement of c. When I do, and use the correct point, I find that SR must measure two different values for c when it always emits c. So, my proof does not waste its time on dividing by zero, since that would be stupid. It simply forces that light always emits at c and is always measured c into a contradiction. You will note I am using very specific terms.

I posted a clear and concise measurement in the pdf file as well the use of LT for translatiing coordinates into the stationary system of coordinates.

Hi, I seem to have a condition in which SR measure two different values for c. Since the math is somewhat long, I've put it to a pdf file here. If you find any logic or SR errors, please feel free to point them out. Thanks in advance.