Relative Velocity Measurement – Frame and photon

[Pete]

We're done.
I've got better things to do than teach elementary logic and algebra to an uneducated arrogant know-it-all.

 

[Jack_]

What definition is that, Jack? Your world looks awfully inconsistent, so I think I'll stay with ours.


Done to death, Jack.
You keep assuming without proof that in the rest frame of M', "when M and M' co-locate A and B are struck".

Your argument is circular. You assume your conclusion.

This is totally false and it is difficult without using logic.

When M and M' co-locate A and B are struck.

When M and M' co-locate A' and B' are co-locate with A and B.

You agreed to this logic.


Therefore, when M and M' co-locate, A' and B' are struck.

This is very basic elementary logic. I can't understand why this is so difficult.

See, your logic contended light hit at B before M and M' co-located from the view of M' stationary.

But, we must not forget the condition that you agreed to:
When M and M' co-locate A and B are struck.

Therefore, when M and M' co-locate, they will disagree on the light cone.
M will contend light is just hit at B and M' will contend light has taken over positions on the x-axis coming toward M and M'.
You violate your own light cone logic.

I will draw a picture.

M' view - since light took off prior to the co-location of M and M', then light is already moving down the x-axis when M and M' co-locate. [This is your contention]
A'-------------------------------M'-----------------------------<<<<<B'

M view - light emits at B when M and M' co-locate.
A--------------------------------M--------------------------------------B

This is called logic.

 

[Uno Hoo]

You completely fail to retort things I've said to you Uno. Firstly someone can learn special relativity without having to read Einstein's own words. I've never read the original 'Elements' book by Euclid yet I know basic geometry. I've never read Newton's original words and yet I know Newtonian mechanics.

Secondly finding fault with Einstein is not synonymous with finding fault with special relativity. Einstein didn't understand a lot about his own works, he didn't get black hole solutions for a long time. We know the postulates of special relativity. They can be found in Einstein's books as well as books by plenty of other people. We know the form Lorentz transformations take, Einstein didn't come up with those. Now, if you can use those Lorentz transformations, which do not require any physical interpretation or for you to read Einstein's own words, to get SR to say 1=2 then you have a contradiction and SR is flawed. Finding fault with something Einstein said, if indeed there is a fault, may be nothing more than showing Einstein got something wrong in how he understood special relativity. The physical set up involved in this discussion is not new or novel, its something many people have looked at in many books and haven't just relied on parroting Einsteiin. That's the beauty of actually learning something and knowing how to derive results, you don't have to take other people's word for it. And plenty of people have worked through these physical setups time and again on their own and come up with non-contradictory results.

Rather than parroting Einstein's words and going "Look, he got it wrong" why don't you actually show SR is undeniably at fault. Your argument is that in two different places Einstein said two different things. Firstly you are relying on the fact you grasp SR well enough to interpret Einstein's words and the implications properly, which is a pretty massive leap to make since you have never displayed any working understanding of SR. And secondly you're assuming that if Einstein said it then definitely SR says it. This is not automatically true either.

Plenty of people have developed some new ideas and then used them to make incorrect conclusions. My GR lecturer told us how Hawking, having made a huge name for himself in differential geometry, then published another result on Riemannian manifolds but had relied on a previous proof by someone which only applied to pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. Don't worry that you don't know what those words mean, the point of the example is that sometimes even very bright people use their own results incorrectly. This is a fault in the application of the theory, not the theory itself.

If all you can do is say "Well you haven't read the book so you can be ignored" you're simply failing to justify your argument. I've read plenty of SR books. And GR books. And things which use SR, like QFT and string theory. So I can follow the kind of discussions in this thread on a quantitative level. Can you? I haven't seen you show any quantitative working understanding. All I see you say is "Have you read this decades old book?" as if reading it somehow gives you a more complete understanding of Einstein's work.

Hell, you don't even grasp what pi is. Why should any of us believe you can even do basic geometry, never mind Lorentzian geometry?

I am not saying this in any kind of a mean-hearted way at all. I say this in the most loving and friendly way a human can say something.

You need professional medical evaluation and medication. I pray to Lord God at this minute that He send healing spirits to you to bless you with every healing of mind and body. Amen.

 

[Uno Hoo]

We're done.
I've got better things to do than teach elementary logic and algebra to an uneducated arrogant know-it-all.[/QUOTE

And I thought you didn't know why I haven't talking to you.

Seriously, Pete, before the day you die, you might want to, just for laughs, read Chapter IX (Relativity Of Simultaneity) in Einstein's laughable little book Relativity. Although, I have been told, on sterling authority, that Special Relativity has nothing to do with what Einstein had to say about it.

Who wudda known.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I am not saying this in any kind of a mean-hearted way at all. I say this in the most loving and friendly way a human can say something.

Given your attitude and obvious dislike of anyone who dares correct you I seriously doubt your sincerity.

You need professional medical evaluation and medication.

Ah I see you're unable to justify your claims and retort anything I've said so we've moved onto the "You're wacko" thing. A few problems with that.

First and foremost the claim its possible assess someone's mental status by reading their posts is a pretty big one.

Secondly, you are not a trained professional and thus the claim you can accurately evaluate anyone's mental status is even more dubious.

Thirdly, the posts I've made are entirely coherent and respond to your points directly. I explain why clinging to a decades old book as your own source of information isn't too wise. I explained that even very clever physicists can write things which are mistaken. And I commented, not for the first time, you haven't provided any justifications for your claims or shown you even understand relativity. None of these things are signs of mental instability, unless you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is not all there. Which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest given your unjustified inflated opinion of your knowledge.

Fourthly, why are you the only person to believe its so obvious I need some kind of help. I spent pages and pages discussing Jack_'s relativity question and provided a sufficiently coherent discussion for him to understand his mistake.

But please feel free to explain precisely how my post is evidence of being in need of a psych evaluation. Because if you can't it might seem like all you're doing is throwing ad homs because you can't justify your claims or retort my criticisms.

I pray to Lord God at this minute that He send healing spirits to you to bless you with every healing of mind and body. Amen.

See this just seems like you're trolling. You've gone from ignorant smug jackass to some pious person who only wants to help. You really must be desperate if that's all you can come up with in response to my posts. Is it really so hard to accept it when someone knows something better than you?