Strange

You have ignored the answers and explanations; these have included mathematics and corrections to your diagrams. You have clearly closed your mind to rational thought because of your personal belief that SR is wrong. I don't know what else anyone can do to help you if you are unwilling to learn.

Maybe you need to think about why that is. Which is more likely: (a) a lone genius has spotted a trivial mathematical error that has been missed by millions of students, scientists and mathematicians in over a century or (b) you have made a silly mistake? You seem unwilling to consider that you might be wrong. You completely ignore the answers and explanations you have been given. You need to step back and consider your motives.

Although my comment was a bit of a joke, there is a serious point: how accurate do you expect a work of fiction to be? Ironically, we might hold this sort of drama to a higher standard of accuracy than an SF movie, where we expect the rules of physics to be violated for the benefit of the plot. But maybe I am taking your question too literally. Maybe you are just asking about relativity!

I don't think Einstein and Monroe ever met, either.

It was posted in another thread about the same thing: Modern Physics Randy Harris 2008 pages 14-15-v1-2.pdf

If you mean hypothetical characters living in a universe with 4 spatial dimensions, for example, then I would say they would see us as we are. But we would look, in some sense, "flat" to them. I say this because we (3D beings) can see 2D things (e.g. drawings) exactly as they are. But if there were hypothetical 2D creatures, then they could only see a 2D projection of us. In the same way that we cannot see (or imagine) a 4D object; we can only create a 3D representation of it. Often drawn only in 2D, so we have to imagine what the 3D representation looks like. I hope that is clear. BTW, it would appear to be impossible:

You are ignoring the answers you have been given.

Something like this, perhaps:

It is more more accurate to say that spacetime curves (in the presence of mass). Objects do follow the curvature of spacetime. We feel the effect of that and call it "gravity". Spacetime could only form a "tunnel" in very extreme circumstance, such as near the centre of a black hole. So it is not a useful image in general.

It is very much simplified, but it seems accurate. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. So the light from both trains will spread out at the same speed.

What are you talking about? As your first quote says, quantum field theory is based on special relativity. As your second quote says, we do not yet know how to combine quantum theory and general relativity. (Actually, we know several ways of combining them, but we don't know how to test them yet.) You seem to be implying some sort of contradiction. But, like so much else, that only exists in your imagination. You have been several detailed answer, with illustrative diagrams, that should indicate where your error lies. You have chosen to ignore those answers. It is up to you to start being fair.

! Moderator Note You have asked a large number of similar questions here. You are not getting the information you need so you need to find a more relevant forum.

Some do. (I have known Christians who are fairly ambiguous about belief in either god or christ; the message is more important than the medium, I guess.) Perhaps it says that belief is a sufficient but not necessary condition. So more like Groundhog Day, then? I haven't watched Lucifer, seen some trailers. Looks quite fun.

There are branches of Christianity that think that it is purely how you lived your life that determines if you go to heaven, not whether you belief. What a great idea! Although they should probably be offered counselling. (Sounds a bit like the plot of The Good Place movie.)

Some religious people in some religions. Many religions have no concept of heaven. Many have no concept of hell. And not all religions that have heaven or hell reserve them for people who believe / do good or otherwise. You didn’t say that in your first post. A good argument can be made that Hinduism is an inappropriate term, applied inappropriately by foreign powers. You haven’t attempted to do that. (Saying you don’t believe in “-isms” is a bit silly; we know that atheism, socialism, racism, fascism, feminism, patriotism and many others exist.)

Perhaps you are going to say, "I am talking about time = 1, so I don't need to say it." But the problem is: time = 1 in which frame of reference. Not being absolutely explicit about which frame of reference is being referred to, at every stage, can confuse other people. But, perhaps more importantly, it may be the reason you have confused yourself.

To use v and c as distances, you need to multiply them by time. So, for each diagram, do you mean: 1. length (OV) = vt, length (OC) = ct, length (VC) = ct - vt Or: 2. length (OV) = vt', length (OC) = ct', length (VC) = ct' - vt' All three diagrams appear to represent measurements in the same frame of reference, S. So, in all three diagrams length (OV) = vt, length (OC) = ct, length (VC) = ct - vt. Therefore these diagrams, with their current annotations, only represent one frame of reference. Therefore these diagrams are useless for answering your question that started this thread. I already showed you what the situation looks like when measured in the moving frame of reference S' This is why it is important that you don't wrongly use v and c as distances, and why you can't use S for two different frames of reference.

Because you are very confused about the theory, you need to be careful to be completely explicit about what you are saying, and therefore in the notation you use. It is too easy to fall into the trap of mixing frames of reference when you fail to use symbols correctly. For example, equating v to a distance depends on the frame of reference. The distance vt is different from the distance vt'. (And we can now ignore your complaints about taking threads off topic because you have introduced E=mc2. )

This thread was about you asking for help from others. Which you then rejected because it disagrees with your (mistaken) preconceptions.

Here is the first link from a search: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

It is purely based on the evidence you have presented here. You very obviously do not understand the basics of either the mathematics or the physics. Quantum field theory. SR is a special case of GR. GPS uses a (very simplified) GR calculation to account for the difference in gravitational potential and difference in speed. The effect of the difference in speed can be calculated using SR.

! Moderator Note You do not have the right to tell other people how to discuss the topic. If you think a post is off topic, report it.

That is a good point. The velocity measured in S' should be marked v'. (However, it is not clear if Jan Slowak ever references v'. I think he always references the speed as measured in S. This mixing of frames is often a source of confusion for people who don't understand SR.) I didn't see it!

Apart from the fact it should be Δt rather than t, yes. But what is the point of this thread? The link you provide answers your question.

If you don't understand the invariance of c (and you don't) then it will be impossible for you to correctly derive the Lorentz transform (or understand existing derivations - which you don't). As you are unwilling to learn what the invariance of c means for different frames of reference, then we may as well close this thread. And you can give up any hope of understanding the Lorentz transform and SR. It is a shame, but unless you are willing to be open minded and learn, there isn't much anyone can do to help you.