vuquta

I am going to agree simultaneity is relative. However, we have already decided O cannot refute light is at r(1+v/c) in its coordinates or O refutes the light and relativity postulates in the O' frame. I think you are concluding O can simply ignore the simultaneity in O' and O cannot soi that without refuting SR. So, O cannot refute light is at r(1+v/c). But, that puts light at r and r(1+v/c). Note, none of this logic refutes the relativity of simultaneity. It just shows when the simutaneity of O' is overlayed with the R of S of O using the co-location of O'1 and O, then light is located at two frontiers of one coordinate system. I do not think so. Observations of remote points are relative even if two observers are at the same place, but experience relative motion. How? Please explain this with two observers in relative motion at the same place. This would imply light behaves differently frame to frame contradicting the relativity postulate. An absolute reference frame has nothing to do with this. The light postulate says light proceeds spherically from the light emission point in the frame. The conjunction of the light postulate and the relativity postulate says light proceeds spherically from the light emission point in the moving frame. So they are the same by the relativity postulate. The rules of physics are the same frame to frame.

Well, LT claims light is located at ( r(1+v/c,0,0) in the O frame when O and O'1 are co-located. This is because O'1 and O'2 are simultaneous and we have been through the math. So, if LT is logical then light is located at at ( r(1+v/c,0,0) when O and O'1 are co-located. But, based on the light postulate, light is only located (r,0,0) in O. How do you resolve this? How? This is wrong. The light cone is identical. The space-time coords are not. But, we have been through this. O'1 and O disagree on the light cone in terms of O'2. Can you show how they agree when they are co-located? No, this does not work. Observations are relative until two observers are at the same place. If they are at the same place and disagree on the light sphere, then there must be more than one. Are you claiming the light sphere is relative?

Oh, I do not require them to be simultaneous. I do not care. But, you are not complete in your statement. Two observers at the same place required the light sphere to be in two different places. How is this logical? OK, if I cannot argue about whether the light hits O'2 when light hits O'1, then which do you refute the relativity postulate or the light postulate in the primed frame? No, you missed the point of the post. No two observes can disagree on whether a position/event is in the light cone. Hey, when observers are at the same place, that is the highest standard. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is false. You cannot argue the two frames agree on the light cone because by design because if you do then you agree with absolute simultanety. So, can you show they agree on the light cone and disagree on the position of the light sphere when O and O'1 are co-located? Can I see the math?

The coordinates from the moving frame were mapped to the stationary system of coordinates. You cannot claim LT is true and then say LT cannot be used to map coords from the moving frame to the stationary frame. Everything was mapped into the stationary system of coordinates so that one space is used. The co-location O and O'1 is used as a mechanism. This is not artifical since it is all within the domain of logic of SR. So, I am not imposing anything. I merely picked some points at certain places to make sure SR worked correctly. Next, the two observers are at the same place. You can argue they may disagree about time, you can argue they may disagree about measurements. But, you cannot argue they can disagree about the location of one light sphere both using the stationary coordinates. The light event is O'2 being struck by the light. The above classifications hold true in any frame of reference; that is, an event judged to be in the light cone by one observer, will also be judged to be in the same light cone by all other observers, no matter their frame of reference. This is why the concept is so powerful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

This is all correct but only if we demarcate the two frames in logic and ignore some factual results. When O'1 and O are at the same place, light is at two different places in one coordinate system. We are not talking dynamics here as required by SR. This is a static logic. When the O and O' are at the same place, each conclude light is at a different position in the same coordinate system of O. Clocks have no impact on the location of light. A clock is just a bystander and yes, each will have a different time on their respective clocks. It is the position of light that is at issue. One place of observation cannot produce two different places for one light sphere in one coordinate system. The next problem comes with the location of O'2 in the coordinates of O. I am sure you agree it is located at ( vr/c + r/γ² ) in the coordinates of O when O and O'1 are co-located. If you calculate x' with x = ( vr/c + r/γ² ) and t = r/c, you get x' = r/γ as expected, so that is consistent. But, with t' you get t' = r/(cγ)( 1 - v/c ) with x = ( vr/c + r/γ² ) and t = r/c. However, the time on the clock of O'1 and all O' observers is r/(cγ) when O and O'1 are co-located. Therefore, LT contends the place where O'2 is located was struck by the light prior to the co-location of O and O'2 even though O'1 and O'2 are equidistant to the origin/light emission point. So a clock argument under the rules of SR fails in this situation as well.

Agreed. I depend on this. Since O cannot refute the conclusion of O'1, then where is O'2 when O and O'1 are co-located? It is located at the position (vr/c + r/γ²,0,0) in the stationary system of coords. So, when O and O'1 are at the same place, light is at (r,0,0) according to O and light is at (vr/c + r/γ²,0,0) according to O'1. Neither cionclusion can be refuted and the conclusion of O cannot carry more weight than the conclusion of O'1. Hence, when two observers are at the same place, one light sphere is located at two different places.

Yes it is true in both frames, that was my intent. Here was part of my original post.

OK, that is simple. The location of O'2 is vr/c + r/γ² because of length contraction when O and O'1 are co-located in the frame of O. This is because the elapsed time in O is r/c. The origin of O' is located at vt = vr/c, plus the length contracted distance of r/γ². Therefore when O and O'1 are co-located, O'2 is at the coordinate (vr/c + r/γ²,0,0) in the coordinates of O. Since the postulates of SR applies to all frames, then O cannot refute the conclusion of O'1 that light is at O'2 or the relativity postulate and/or the light postulate is false for O'. Yet, light is only at (r,0,0) based on the truth of the light postulate in O. So, light is at (r,0,0) based on the light postulate for O and light is at (vr/c + r/γ²,0,0) based on the conjunction of the two light postulate in O'. Both cannot be true.

I am not considering O's views so this does not apply. OK, I only meant from the view of O'1. When O and O'1 are co-located, O'1 concludes light is located at O'2. How about this statement above, do you agree? But, we need to be careful about observer views when it comes to light. Given an event E, the light cone classifies all events in spacetime into 5 distinct categories: Events on the future light cone of E. Events on the past light cone of E. Events inside the future light cone of E are those affected by a material particle emitted at E. Events inside the past light cone of E are those that can emit a material particle and affect what is happening at E. All other events are in the (absolute) elsewhere of E and are those that cannot affect or be affected by E. "The above classifications hold true in any frame of reference; that is, an event judged to be in the light cone by one observer, will also be judged to be in the same light cone by all other observers, no matter their frame of reference. This is why the concept is so powerful." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

Yes, the simultaneity is in the moving frame. O'1 and O'2 see the light as simultaneous and O will not agree. This was proven with LT and is consistent with R of S. Now, I did not invoke anything about O concerning the O' frame except that the light will be at O'2 when O and O'1 are co-located. Do you agree or disagree.

Nope, this is not correct. I never said O would claim they are simultaneous. O does not. I said O'1 and O'2 would claim simultaneity and I proved that with LT. 1) Do you agree O and O'1 are co-located when light strikes them. 2) Do you agree O'1 and O'2 must see the light as simultaneous since LT calculates that and since they are equidistant to the origin, this is a simple application of the light postulate. Light cannot be at O'1 and not at O'2.

Agreed. But, based on the co-location of O and O'1, O'1 and O'2 are equidistant to the light emission point in the moving frame at all times. Hence, by the light postulate, if O'1 is struck by the light then O'2 is struck by the light since they are equidistant to the light emission point in the frame. So, the light postulate forces light to be at O'2. This in fact is what O'1 sees at co-location. To confirm this, you may plug into LT that location in the stationary system of coords which is t = r/c( 1 + v/c) and x = r( 1 + v/c ) and x'= r/γ and t' = r/(cγ) just as predicted. Hence, this location O'2 is a place of simultaneity with O'1. So, LT has no disagreement here.

1) I hope you can see the two observers in the moving frame are equidistant to the origin in the moving frame. There is nothing illegal about this. 2) There is another observer in the stationary frame. There is nothing illegal about that. 3) When the two origins are co-located, a light pulse is emitted. This is standard SR. 4) Based on the above no opionion are used. Strictly LT, the light postulate and the relativity postulate are used for the conclusions. An observer cannot be at both places and I did not say they could. But two different observers in relative motion can co-locate. The two observers that co-locate are simply based on the Pythagorean theorem derivation of time dilation. If that is true, then my example is true. So, I am on firm footing there. Indeed, the two observers O and O'1 are co-located when light reaches either. ct' = r/γ is not generally true. This is true for all points in the moving frame that are a distance r/γ from the origin or the light postulate is false in the moving frame. This example requires 2-D.

Special Relativity. Assume z=0. Two frames are in relative motion and when their origins are co-located, a light pulse is emitted from their origins. Stationary frame, observer O located is at (vr/c, r/γ, 0). Moving frame, observer O'1 located is at (0, r/γ, 0) and observer O'2 located is at ( r/γ, 0, 0). When light travels a distance r in O, observers O and O'1 are co-located. Proof 1) Set x = vr/c and t = r/c in the stationary frame since this is the O observer. LT calculates x'=0 and t'= r/(γc). Hence, ct' = r/γ = √( x'² + y² + z²) = √( 0² + y² + 0²) = y. So, the coordinate in the O' frame is (0, r/γ, 0). 2) Set x' = 0 and t' = r/(γc) in the moving frame since this is the O'1 observer. LT calculates x = vr/c and t = γ/c. Thus, (ct)² = r² = x² + y² + z² = (vr/c)² + y² + 0² = (vr/c)² + y². So, (vr/c)² + y² = r² and y = r/γ. So, the coordinate in the O frame is (vr/c, r/γ, 0). Thus, the O and O'1 observers are co-located when light acquires a distance r in the O frame. Next By applying the light postulate in O, light is no more than the coordinate (r,0,0). By applying the light postulate in O', if light is at O'1, then it must also be at the O'2 observer since they are equidistant to the light emission point in O'. Calculating O'2 using LT, x'=r/γ and t' = r/(γc), x = r( 1 + v/c ) and light is therefore located at (r( 1 + v/c ), 0, 0). Thus, two co-located observers conclude two contradictory light positions even though they are located at the same place, light is located at (r,0,0) and also at (r( 1 + v/c ), 0, 0). Contradiction

If light is sent out from the origin of the big bang, how will you apply this? Is that light not a timing device? Please show the integral for the path.

“I suggest that paths of light observed as being bent by a gravitational field; the red shift in an observed light spectrum as it traverses outward in the gravitational field of its source; the red shift in distant galaxies light spectrum assumed to be primarily due to the Doppler Effect caused by receding galaxies in a rapidly expanding universe; geodesic paths of gravitational motion attributed to a curved space-time geometry; dark energy; dark matter; and the relativity of time and energy; are all unified in the substance of a universal “luminiferous aether” (ether) which has never been scientifically defined before.” How does your theory work with inertial frames?

Unfold implies determinism.

You did not handle scientific evidence. 3. The synchronize means every even (clock) run at the same rate of changing, just the initial values are different. So we can choose a standard clock for everywhere that not only synchronized but also simultaneously. In my article my conclusion is clock in all space are synchronized, only SR said GPS. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ See chapter 5. If you are correct, then GPS does not work which is false Until you resolve this, what is there to talk about?

GPS. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/ See chapter 5. If you are correct, then GPS does not work which is false.

What is missing from your "paradox" is the math for your acceleration period. You can use SR, if you use uniform acceleration. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0411/0411233v1.pdf You must integrate in the accelerating frame using the time in the accelerating frame. I can't see how you can put forth a paradox involving acceleration without using the readily available math to prove your assertions.

Wrong on the bold aboe. Sagnac as verified by GPS shows light is a constant c in space as Einstein said: light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ There are many additional experiments that show light cannot be increased in the frame. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests These experiments show light is constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You did not use the above. You proceeded with other logic not supported by frame to frame rules. You never mentioned the clock sync and you are ad-hocing your argument. From my POV, I can tell you do not understand how to pass from one frame to another using rules free from contradictions. I read your paper and pointed out your error specifically. In addition, the support of the evidence does not include Ritz's theory of ballistic light as a viable alternative. Otherwise, we can proceed experiment by experiment and I will show you the ballistric theory of light has no support. I will not do this in a mean way and certainly you have your say as we go.

I'll look at it again. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is the post your mean. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=559741&postcount=99 I have already addressed this and proven it wrong.

This is what I get for the rotation sagnac. I am still not able to figure out the earth's orbital sagnac. I cannot make it work any way I go about it.

After this point in your paper: Maybe someone said forgot the old stationary reference frame, considering the Light Source itself as stationary inertial reference frame. That means the Light Source always rested with stationary reference frame K. It is already recognized that the light speed dependent with Light Source. Let’s continue discuss this situation that was a one of many possibilities that discuss in SR You mixed frames without stating and proving a rule to do so. You are looking at the same thought experiment for LT construction in your paper. You could argue then Einstein mixed frames with LT construction. But, that is not true. To construct LT, Einstein used stationary frame clock synchronization to move from one frame to another since the clock sync is "free from contradictions" in the any frame. You do not provide such a rule "free from contradictions" and so your analysis does not work.

Light takes about .13 seconds to go around the earth. agreed In that time the earth moves about 0.06 km This is where you are going wrong. We are measuring the sagnac effect for a path from A to B on the earth. So, light is not going around the earth. It is going from A to B. Say that distance is 10 km. You will find the sagnac correction higher for the orbit vs the rotation. It is not about now long light takes to move around the circumference. It is about how far light moves while the earth moves.