Alexander Masterov

We're not talking about the transverse doppler effect - we're not talking about any doppler effect. I was answering your question.What does your sentence mean?:

A distance between the observers of Transverse Doppler effect is constant. The collision takes place: 1. Time is absolute. 2. The boundary between a facts that "can happen" and that "can not happen" should not depend on the acrobatics of the observer. What to prefer? Third?

So. Simpler, easier. Let: time of your interlocutor slow down. Are your time slowed-down or accelerated? (Interlocutor's opinion.)

Experiment: both the observer projected on a screen a films (each from his IRF). What sequence of images we and they see?

That requires that if x^2 - (ct)^2 = 0, then x'^2 - (ct')^2 = 0. Do you agree with that? Post 2 no need of it. If [math] x^2 - (ct)^2 =x'^2 - (ct')^2=0 [/math] then time must slow down. But two observers can not see the slowdown of each other simultaneously. If one sees a slowdown, then the second sees the acceleration. (Otherwise causality principle come to incorrect.) But such asymmetry violates the equality of inertial reference frames. Time can not slow down.

c=const is basis of Master Theory, but there is no evidence to suggest that matter can not move faster than light. For example: from target of elementary particle accelerator generate unstable particles emitted from the known lifetime (tau leptons - 5 10^-13 seconds) sometimes. During life, they manage to overcome the distance that can not be overcome if the move at the speed of light.

This fact is on default, concoct, fabricate and are evident from nothing. Nicely!_________________________ Einstein bestowed the absoluteness to [math]x^2 - (ct)^2 =x'^2 - (ct')^2=0[/math] - on what basis? It is boundary between events that may be a cause and consequence of each other of Einsteinian theory, that is also a consequence of no-proven assumption that nothing can travel faster than light.

Do you not understand what Einstein wrote?

§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former Let us in "stationary" space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e. two systems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to one another, and issuing from a point. Let the axes of X of the two systems coincide, and their axes of Y and Z respectively be parallel. Let each system be provided with a rigid measuring-rod and a number of clocks, and let the two measuring-rods, and likewise all the clocks of the two systems, be in all respects alike. Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocity v be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks. To any time of the stationary system K there then will correspond a definite position of the axes of the moving system, and from reasons of symmetry we are entitled to assume that the motion of k may be such that the axes of the moving system are at the time t (this "t" always denotes a time of the stationary system) parallel to the axes of the stationary system. We now imagine space to be measured from the stationary system K by means of the stationary measuring-rod, and also from the moving system k by means of the measuring-rod moving with it; and that we thus obtain the co-ordinates x, y, z, and.... Please specify a location in the text where Einstein justify their choice.

I read this article in Russian. (Long ago.) But I have not found an answer to my question at that time. Can you give me a quote from this article, where Einstein substantiate its choice in favor of the cross-scale? I'm doing it sure, but - later on. As long as I need to find an answer to a fundamentally important issue. I hope that we can find an expert who will answer. (In Russia there is no such expert.)

Link to article (my reading which would take more than one hour) can not accept as an argument of scientific debate. If you have an argument, then show it. ___________________________________________ Non inertial reference frame Real coordinates: Real speed: Visual speed: Visual coordinates: Visual time: without Doppler effect

Width and height.

Compare: Master Theory: SRT: __________________________________________ H - is cross-scale. If the distance between observers (A and B) is zero (for t=0), then: [math]x=Vt[/math] - real distance [math]x'=V't[/math] - visual distance ____________________________________ If: Real coordinates: [math] x(t) =Vt [/math] Then: Visual coordinates: [math] x'(t) =vt'=\frac{vt}{1+V/c}=\frac{2Vt}{(\sqrt{1+4V^2/c^2}+1)(1+V/c)} [/math] [math]V'=\frac{2V}{(\sqrt{1+4V^2/c^2}+1)(1+V/c)}[/math] _______________________________________________________________ Do I understand your questions: you (just as me) do not see any reason for the absoluteness of the cross-scale (transverse dimensions)?

I came to the forum not in order to my a knowledges demonstrate, but in order to get answers to questions. I'm looking for a professional who understands the relativism and can answer the question: Einstein bestowed the absoluteness to the cross-scale (but not for time) - on what basis? Einstein had entitled (bestowed the absoluteness to time), but no did it. Why?

My translation program (English language) do not. Try to formulate your questions shortly. Divide the task into subtasks.

I am not sure that I understand you. I try to answer you: If: Real coordinates: [math]x(t) =Vt[/math] Then: Visual coordinates: [math]x^,(t) =vt'=\frac{vt}{1+V/c}=\frac{2Vt}{(\sqrt{1+4V^2/c^2}+1)(1+V/c)}[/math] Next: Visual speed (with Dopler's effect): [math]V' =\frac{2V}{(\sqrt{1+4V^2/c^2}+1)(1+V/c)}[/math] [math]V' =\frac{v(1-v^2/c^2)}{1+v/c-v^2/c^2}=v-\frac{v^2/c}{1+v/c-v^2/c^2}[/math]

I mistakenly clicked the button "submit post". So you see an intermediate result.

Non inertial reference frame Real coordinates: [math]\vec r(t) =\vec r_0+ \int_{0}^{t}{\vec V(\tau) d\tau}[/math] Real speed: [math]\vec V(t) =\vec V_0+ \int_{0}^{t}{\vec a(\tau) d\tau}[/math] [math]\vec V = \frac{\vec v}{1-v^2/c^2}[/math] Visual speed: [math]\vec v = \frac{2\vec V}{\sqrt{1+4V^2/c^2}+1}[/math] Visual coordinates: [math]\vec r^,(t') =\vec r^,_0+ \int_{0}^{t'}{\vec v(\tau) d\tau}[/math] Visual time: [math]t' = t - \frac{|r(t')|}{c}[/math] Inertial reference frame Real coordinates: [math]x(t) =x_0+ Vt[/math] Visual coordinates: [math]x^,(t) =x^,_0+ vt'[/math] [math]t' = t - \frac{x(t')}{c}=t - \frac{x_0+Vt'}{c}=\frac{t-x_0/c}{1+V/c}[/math] - Dopler's effect. [math]y' = y\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}[/math] [math]z' = z\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}[/math]

Suppose we have a closed-loop surface S, which have a characteristic size L. Then the integral expressions of the classical Maxwell's Equations: valid only in cases where a characteristic time of variation of the fields (and electric charge) in these equations are much smaller than L/c. A similar can be said about the other pair of expressions.

Relativistic Maxwell Since any differential operator is local (in close proximity), and (consequently) a finiteness of a propagation speed of the fields (in infinitely small distance) can not make adjustments to the equation. Therefore, Maxwell's equations in differential form in the context of the Master Theory would not be changed in comparison with the classics. Namely: But integral Maxwell (because of a nonlocality of a integral operators) will have a fundamentally different (non-classical, but - relativistic) form. This is explained by the fact that Stokes' and Gauss' theorems: and valid only for stationary fields, or fields, the speed of which is infinite. Application of these theorems (for the output of the integral form of Maxwell's equations) can not be correct in the relativistic case.

No.This means that the station observer will think that apparent distance up to the the train observer more than in reality. This means that the distance from the paint brush to the wall will have a visual distortion.

1. apparent distance up to the wall more than in reality2. paint-brush anoint without touching the walls (a visual effect)

I do not have that opportunity. The observer will have a visual effect: the brush will anoint formerly.Observer it would seem that he has not reach out to the wall.

Yes.I stady German, but not use it. My English is poor. Farther. (A visual spatial scales will be diminish.) Object (which across-moves to a observation beam) will seem farther away than in real. If the object approach to (run away from) the observer, then the observer will see a acceleration (deceleration) time.

I was able to convert Maxwell's equations in differential form into the integral form (and back). The last time I did it more than a quarter century ago. I'm not expert of relativism. (You probably have noticed it.) My specialty: non-linear dynamics (auto-oscillation, auto-wave, attractors ...). Master Theory is a byproduct of other (more general) theory. (This happened fifteen years ago, roughly). I have developed methods for analyzing nonlinear integro-differential equations. I easy to study analytically the equation, which have previously been extremely difficult for study. Among those equations, which I could understand, I found one that can claim to a vacancy of a generator of matter. But my attempts to satisfy Einstein's theory proved futile. Then I began to study Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. I have found that Einstein wrongly gave to absolute cross-scales. So to come into being my Master Theory. Master Theory was after I completed the career of a scientist. Therefore, I have no intentions to develop this theory, but I hope that it will make other people do.