Are you claiming simultaneity in the moving frame occurs at one time in the stationary fame?
Can someone help?
- Thread starter Jack_
- Start date
Are you claiming simultaneity in the moving frame occurs at one time in the stationary fame?
$$
I have used them and they are useless for long proofs unless I had some kind of editor.
That is not what I said in the link.
I said rpenner formed an equality of the light postulate in the rest frame and the light postulate in the moving frame.
I said, you cannot do this.
In the link, and I was clear, I said you must use LT to convert from one coordinate system to the other and that proof is the correct one since it uses LT to solve the equations.$$
Last edited:
Good, we have our disagreement.
It is my position when light strikes the point of the rest frame at (-rc/(γ(c+v)),0,0), x'=-r and t'=r/c.
LT will verify.
Note that t = r/(γ(c+v))
It is my position when light strikes the point of the rest frame at (rc/(γ(c-v)),0,0), x'=r and t'=r/c.
LT will verify.
Note that t = r/(cγ(c-v))
You can do the other points and verify, x'=r and t'=r/c on a set of points where t is in the interval [r/(γ(c+v), r/(γ(c-v))].
No, that doesn't even mean anything.
It's not that hard. Put in a little effort.
It's what you implied.
Again, that doesn't mean anything.
Please point out the line in rpenner's post which you think broke the rules.
No, because "simultaneity" is a feature of events, not of frames, as I have explained to you many time previously. Did you not understand?
I don't see where the disagreement is in this. If you've applied the Lorentz transformation correctly, then I will agree with you as to the spacetime coordinates of various events.
Are you disputing the Lorentz transformation?
What do you think we disagree about?
Still don't know what 'proof' means. Is English not your first language?
Are you so desperate you must put words in people's mouth? Can't you answer my simple direct question of why you haven't submitted it to a journal if you're so sure you're right? I'm more than willing to talk about your pdf provided you can demonstrate some intellectual honesty. Answer my questions, clearly and directly, and I'll be willing to put in some time talking about your work. Until you demonstrate you're even capable of discussion there's no point talking about your 'work'.
Do you know what 'proof' means? Do you know what 'honesty' means? Do you know what 'peer review' means? Do you know what 'Lorentz transform' means?
Please answer this question : Do you understand that Lorentz transformations always map an expanding light sphere to an expanding light sphere. If you can't discuss this there's no point in discussing your 'work' as you are incapable of honest open discussion.
I know you want to believe you've retorted things people have said but you haven't. You've done nothing but display your ignorance. You demand I reply to your work yet you won't answer anything I ask you. How many times have you quoted entire posts of mine and then replied to nothing I said? You don't practice what you preach. And if you believed your work were valid you'd not be on forums, you'd be publishing in journals. Your actions speak louder than you think.
If you want to discuss LT then answer my question about whether or not you understand they map expanding light spheres to expanding light spheres. If you can't grasp this point then your work, upon which your pdf is based, is utterly invalidated.
Sure it does. Go back to Einstein's mirror in the moving frame to develop LT.
In the moving frame, it is some distance r. In the moving frame, the time to and from the mirror for light travel is r/c.
In the rest frame, those times are
r/(γ(c+v)) and r/(γ(c-v)).
Now, if the light pulse is spherical in the moving frame, light will be a distance r and all clocks in the moving frame read r/c since there is but one time in the moving frame from the context of the moving frame.
On the other hand, from the view of the rest frame, each points that reads t'=r/c, at a different x' coordinate, y>0, and z>0, it will be the case that no t will be the same in the rest frame time from that entire set of points after applying LT.
Do you agree or disagree?
I did this specifically in the pdf file. I even wrote his name at the step.
Yes, but I am using the context of the light postulate in which light proceeds spherically from the light emission point of the frame.
I suppose I could say light has reached a radius r. Is this OK with you.
That is actually what I mean.
I applied LT correctly.
I am not sure at this point if we disagree.
Jack_:
You say "yes", then you make a statement that has no relevance to the point. Strange.
Good. Then you agree you are wrong to claim that, according to special relativity, time must effectively stop in one frame during the time interval in another frame between events that are simultaneous in the first frame. Is that correct?
You say "yes", then you make a statement that has no relevance to the point. Strange.
Good. Then you agree you are wrong to claim that, according to special relativity, time must effectively stop in one frame during the time interval in another frame between events that are simultaneous in the first frame. Is that correct?
No, Jack, we've covered this before. "Sumultaneity occurs" is a phrase that you made up. It means nothing to anyone else.
Well, your syntax is so garbled I can neither agree nor disagree with your post.
I do agree that according to rest frame clocks, the light pulse strikes the moving sphere at different times for different x coordinates.
Jack, you didn't mention a single line from rpenner' s post in your pdf.
OK, you explain this.
Assume that light is a radius r in the moving frame.
Now, use just (-r,0,0), (0,r,0) and (r,0,0) in the moving frame.
t' = r/c for all no?
What time transpired in the rest frame for all this?
Hint: Apply LT.
You will find there is a different time for all of these in the rest frame, but only one time in the moving frame.
How do you explain this?
Yes.
What do you mean? Are you asking for the spacetime coordinates of those events in the rest frame? Note that those events do not lie on a sphere in the rest frame, but on an ellipsoid.
Apply the Lorentz transformation and you'll have your answer.
Yes. And so...?
Events that are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in a different frame unless they occur at the same spatial location.
So... you say this implies that moving clocks at those locations would be stuck at t'=r/c until they all catch up?
Is that what you're suggesting that SR implies?
Yes, you are both reading this.
I am not sure how to present it.
I have thought about this.
Since any frame has but one time, any reference to t' must refer to one time in the moving frame.
One time for the moving frame is a time interval in the rest frame, aka the relativity of simultaneity.
Yes, in fact this is true.
No.
Every event in spacetime has one and only one time coordinate in the rest frame, and one and only one time coordinate in the moving frame.
False dichotomy. You should have learnt about such logical fallacies on that imaginary course on logic you want people to believe you took.
Once again you quoted my entire post, including a direct simple question and you ignored it all. Are you so afraid to discuss things for fear of exposing more of your ignorance that you'll repeatedly be blatantly dishonest and hypocritical?
I have repeatedly asked you to say whether or not you understand a LT always maps an expanding light sphere to an expanding light sphere. If you answer 'no' to this then you admit you can't apply LT properly, which completely contradicts your claims about being able to put SR into a contradiction. Is this the reason you won't answer my question, you know you'll contradict yourself?
This is true.
However, there exists an infinite number of times in the rest frame such that t'=r/c and x' = r.
I would hope you know this.