SR Issue

[Trippy]

Doesn't seem like moderation is interested in the content of a response beyond it's possible anti social implications.

Simply untrue.

 

[chinglu]

For example, there has been no response to:

​

The logic of that excerpt is an indictment of a failure of the OP to work within the physical theory being examined in the so-called "thought experiment" and so failure to respond strongly suggests insincerity.

This is completely false. The OP asks the question, if C' and M are co-located, where does the primed frame place the lightning along the positive x-axis. It also asks the question if C' and M are co-located, where does the un-primed frame place the lightning along the positive x-axis in primed frame coordinates. This is absolutely the domain of SR.

I don't believe that. I think I have answered the question "when C' and M are co-located, where is the lightning along the positive x-axis for both frame coordinate systems?" precisely

​

and in addition explained why it was a bad question:

​

But the OP did not respond to that. In fact, I'm still waiting for the OP to respond to the obvious correction of "flash" or "light" (which propagates at the speed of light) for the original "lightning".

1) Everyone assumes lightning is a flash. And, it is clear the intended location of the lightning is the leading edge.

2) Einstein said, "when the origin of the co-ordinates is common to the two systems".
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The issue has nothing to do with time in frames but a condition of logic. For example, folks use when x=1, then x*2=2. Now, clearly this is nothing to do with time, but a logical condition as Einstein noted "when" the two origins are common. Therefore, when C' and M are co-located means if C' and M are co-located. Now, if C' and M are co-located, where does the primed frame place the lightning along the positive x-axis. Likewise, if C' and M are co-located, where does the unprimed frame place the lightning in primed frame coordinates along the positive x-axis. Are you finally going to answer this yes or no.

Further, I proved a calculation of distance of the lightning from the common location of C' and M in primed frame coordinates. I showed SR claims 2 different distances of the lightning from the common location. Are you finally going to answer this yes or no.

 

[Trippy]

Chinglu, you seem to be operating under the impression that the two observers being co-located means they are in the same inertial reference frame.

Are you making this assumption? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[chinglu]

It's not "wrong" -- it's different. It's different because $$t=t_P$$ is different from $$t'=t'_P$$ everywhere except event P. Thus event Q is a different event in space-time than event R.
What is wrong is to expect $$t=t_P$$ to mean the same thing as $$t'=t'_P$$.
The OP has the unrealistic expectation that the Lorentz transform is supposed to relate $$\left( x_Q = \frac{d'}{\gamma}, \; t_Q = \frac{d'}{\gamma c} \right)$$ to $$\left( x'_R = d', \; t'_R = \frac{d'}{c} \right)$$ because the OP never understood $$t_Q = t_P$$ and $$t'_R = t'_P$$ doesn't mean $$t_Q = t_R$$. What a waste of human potential and years of labor to wage a campaign against concepts that the OP has never understood.

It is correct that we cannot expect $$t=t_P$$ and $$t'=t'_P$$ to be true except at event P. However, at event P which is the co-location of C' and M, we can ask where each frame places the lightning along the positive x-axis in M' frame coordinates. This is a simple SR question.

Now, what you are advocating is that if C' and M are co-located, it is OK for the unprimed frame to put the lightning at a different location than does the primed frame both in primed frame coordinates.

You see, this means if C' and M are co-located, then the lightning is at 2 different locations along the positive x-axis in primed frame coordinates, and that is simply not consistent with nature.

Your task is to explain why the lightning can be at 2 different places along the positive x-axis when the predicate "if C' and M are co-located" is true.

 

[chinglu]

Chinglu, you seem to be operating under the impression that the two observers being co-located means they are in the same inertial reference frame.

Are you making this assumption? A simple yes or no will suffice.

No. Definitely not in the same frame.

 

[paddoboy]

No. Definitely not in the same frame.

That's nice. So then this little minion sees your confusion in the fact that you are still asserting absolute time and subsequently ignoring relativity of simultaneity? Even though we have two FoR's?
I see this then realising that two different FoR's will not agree on time [as time is not absolute, correct chinglu?] so therefor they see this event [lightning strike] as happening at different times..
So SR stands as solid as a rock...no anomalies, no problems, from what I can see.

Apologies for butting in to rpenner and Trippy, just sort of rung a bell with me.

 

[chinglu]

That's nice. So then this little minion sees your confusion in the fact that you are still asserting absolute time and subsequently ignoring relativity of simultaneity? Even though we have two FoR's?
I see this then realising that two different FoR's will not agree on time [as time is not absolute, correct chinglu?] so therefor they see this event [lightning strike] as happening at different times..
So SR stands as solid as a rock...no anomalies, no problems, from what I can see.

Apologies for butting in to rpenner and Trippy, just sort of rung a bell with me.

Who is the little minion me or Trippy?

Uhhmm, can you translate your comments into the math and logic of the OP. I am not able to follow you otherwise, without the math.

Thanks, I know the math is coming.

 

[Trippy]

No. Definitely not in the same frame.

So then what's the problem?

If they're in different inertial frames, one of them is moving and the other is not, then of course they're going to disagree on what happened where. I don't understand where your problem is?

 

[paddoboy]

Who is the little minion me or Trippy?

Uhhmm, can you translate your comments into the math and logic of the OP. I am not able to follow you otherwise, without the math.

Thanks, I know the math is coming.

The minion remark was tic in relation to what you labeled me as.
The rest of your post I don't believe
You understand FoR's...you understand the non absolute nature of time and space [but you will not accept it] and you understand relativity of simultaneity. So please, don't be shy. refute my claim if you can.

 

[paddoboy]

Uhhmm, can you translate your comments into the math and logic of the OP. I am not able to follow you otherwise, without the math.
.

And it appears rpenner, Neddy and arfabrane have invalidated both your maths and logic, as well as your erronious assumptions.

 

[brucep]

Simply untrue.

From my perspective it's true. A major portion of these threads is worn out nonsense and intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Trippy]

From my perspective it's true. A major portion of these threads is worn out nonsense and intellectual dishonesty.

Let me put it to you this way, the only reason this thread is still open is because of the contributions of Rpenner and Neddy Bate. Whilst the contributions of (for example) Chinglu might be, at best, questionable, I have chosen (so far anyway) to leave this thread open because of the work put in by some of the other posters.

I understand that it gives the impression of giving Chinglu a platform to spread his nonsense, however, given the quality of the posts put forward by some of its participants in addressing said nonsense, it's almost a teaching resource. Even in spite of that, I found myself recently considering closing the thread, and I have issued Infractions for posts that were made in the last 24 hours - I just generally choose not to make a spectacle of doing so, so often the only people that know are myself and the people I have infracted - in this regard your perspective is based on incomplete information.

 

[paddoboy]

Let me put it to you this way, the only reason this thread is still open is because of the contributions of Rpenner and Neddy Bate. Whilst the contributions of (for example) Chinglu might be, at best, questionable, I have chosen (so far anyway) to leave this thread open because of the work put in by some of the other posters.
.

Both sides have issues worth defending, so to speak.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I do believe though in time, the inevitable will happen.


Bingo!
A suggestion.
Why not start up a "TUTORIAL" page for the best educational aspects from the top contributors on subjects such as SR...GR...Cosmology...BIOLOGY. etc.
The contributions of rpenner and Neddy could go to helping students as well as old has beens like me.
Just a suggestion.
ps: It worked well on another forum I was on.
We had a GR expert giving some excellent tutorials on a few subjects, and they were often referenced.
Also, the forum I speak of had contributions from JamesR.

 

[Neddy Bate]

You are showing very well here, when C' and M are co-located, the M frame gets the position wrong for the primed frame.

Please look at my Minkowski diagram, then tell me where the M frame "gets the position wrong" for the primed frame.

Now, when C' and M are co-located, does the M frame get the correct answer for the primed frame location of the lightning yes or no?

Yes.

 

[rpenner]

For example, there has been no response to:

The OP does not state HOW this is inconsistent with nature. Events Q and R undeniably happen in different positions and times in every frame, but that's true about any two distinct events on a light-like line. That is entirely consistent with the light-postulate which requires the same light at different times to be at different locations.

So if the OP thinks there is a problem with two positions, the real problem must be with existence of two distinct events. But there always were going to be two distinct events Q and R because there were always two different frames describing a frame-dependent concept of "same time as event P". This resulted in lines j and k being distinct space-like lines and as I said above, that leads to two distinct events Q and R.

That the OP now complains that $$x_Q \neq x_R$$ means the OP never understood that $$t = t_P$$ is a different line than $$t' = t'_P$$ and thus never understood Relativity of Simultaneity.

The logic of that excerpt is an indictment of a failure of the OP to work within the physical theory being examined in the so-called "thought experiment" and so failure to respond strongly suggests insincerity.

This is completely false.

Be clear. What is "completely false" and where is the evidence and line of reasoning that shows it to be false? Here are some possibilities for what you mean by "this" (unclear antecedent):

1. Did you mean (in the [POST=3198449]OP[/POST] when you wrote "when M and C' are co-located, one lightning strike is located at 2 different positions along the positive x-axis in both coordinate systems, which of course is inconsistent with nature") that somewhere you explained how $$x_Q \neq x_R$$ was "inconsistent with nature" when it has been show that the two different locations also corresponded to two different times, $$ t_Q \neq t_R$$, because you were using two different definitions of "when", $$t=t_P$$ and $$t'=t'_P$$ and since motion is not inconsistent with nature there can be nothing a priori wrong with calculating two different positions? Because I really think you have not shown how this is inconsistent with nature. Indeed, in [post=3199677]post #30[/post], you agreed with me and said "I never claimed there was a law of nature that would not place a light flash at two different places at two different times." And even in the [POST=3198449]OP[/POST] you explicitly calculate $$t_Q$$ and $$t_R$$ to be different.
2. Did you mean that $$\color{red} (x_Q - x_O) - c(t_Q - t_O) \neq (x_R - x_O) - c(t_R - t_O)$$? Because if you could show that then I would be completely wrong about "Events Q and R ... happen in different positions and times in every frame ...on a light-like line." Using your own numbers, it appears however that $$(x_Q - x_O) - c(t_Q - t_O) = (x_R - x_O) - c(t_R - t_O)$$.
3. Did you mean there was a response to my observation that you have confused $$t = t_P = t_Q$$ with $$t' = t'_P = t'_R$$ in the [POST=3198449]OP[/POST] where you used the phrase "when C' and M are co-located" ? With two different definitions of this phrase, $$t = t_P$$ with $$t' = t'_P$$, it's obvious that you should expect two different events, with different times and different locations, Q and R.
4. Did you mean that special relativity says $$t = t_P$$ has the same meaning as $$t' = t'_P$$ and that I was wrong to criticize your ability to work within the assumptions of special relativity? If so, please demonstrate the logical equivalence of the two statements.
5. If you have not responded to these, then it must be that you mean that failure to respond does not indicate insincerity. But I argue that it does, because you are responding to my post activity but not the content of the posts. Instead you would rather repeat demands for questions already answered and ignore questions directed at you. That's peculiar behavior for someone who is sincere.

In conclusion, the charge of "This is completely false" is vague and unsupported.

The OP asks the question, if C' and M are co-located, where does the primed frame place the lightning along the positive x-axis. It also asks the question if C' and M are co-located, where does the un-primed frame place the lightning along the positive x-axis in primed frame coordinates.

No, it doesn't. The [POST=3198449]OP[/POST] asks "when C' and M are co-located, where is the lightning along the positive x-axis for both frame coordinate systems?"

This is absolutely the domain of SR.

Working in the domain of SR requires acknowledging that "when" has no absolute meaning. $$t=t_O$$ does not have the same meaning as $$t' = t'_O$$. Likewise $$x = x_O$$ does not have the same meaning as $$x' = x'_O$$, so locations have no absolute meaning. And yet $$(x - x_O) = c (t - t_O)$$ does have the same meaning as $$(x' - x'_O) = c (t' - t'_O)$$. When you asked your question in the [POST=3198449]OP[/POST], you used two definitions : "when C' and M are co-located ... for both frame coordinate systems" thus guaranteeing you would get two answers in space-time, not one. To complain that you get two answers and blame SR and not your question is a misrepresentation. SR is self-consistent -- it is not consistent with the question as you wrote it giving one answer.

It's obvious that [post=3198606]post #2[/post] covers all of this. If you didn't understand post #2, you should have asked more questions.

You have still refused to answer.

I don't believe that. I think I have answered the question "when C' and M are co-located, where is the lightning along the positive x-axis for both frame coordinate systems?" precisely

the fully-labelled coordinates for Q and R completely answer the question in an unambiguous manner. The OP does calculate these same quantities, but fails to label them and so the OP becomes confused.

See how the OP cites unlabeled coordinates: $$\left( x_Q = \frac{d'}{\gamma}, \; t_Q = \frac{d'}{\gamma c} \right)$$ and $$\left( x_R = \gamma d' \left( 1 + \frac{v}{c} \right), \; t_R = \gamma \frac{d'}{c} \left( 1 + \frac{v}{c} \right) \right)$$.
See how the OP cites unlabeled coordinates: $$\left( x'_Q = d' \left( 1 - \frac{v}{c} \right), \; t'_Q = \frac{d'}{c} \left( 1 - \frac{v}{c} \right) \right)$$ and $$\left( x'_R = d', \; t'_R = \frac{d'}{c} \right)$$.

and in addition explained why it was a bad question:

This is an ambiguous question, because "when C' and M are co-located" could mean $$t = t_P$$ or $$t' = t'_P$$ but because there is no absolute time in special relativity, it follows that these two definitions are only both true at event P. ... The easiest way to resolve this ambiguity is to label the lines (or equations) for j and k, as well as the events (or solutions) Q and R.
But there is a second ambiguity, because "where is the light[] along the positive x-axis" is asking for both the x and the x' values. Asking such a confused question suggests not enough time was spent understanding the geometry of special relativity.

But the OP did not respond to that. In fact, I'm still waiting for the OP to respond to the obvious correction of "flash" or "light" (which propagates at the speed of light) for the original "lightning".

1) Everyone assumes lightning is a flash. And, it is clear the intended location of the lightning is the leading edge.

Someone with a cursory knowledge of the physical world and special relativity knows that a space-time event is of zero duration, "speed of light" is a term of art in special relativity, light in vacuum travels at the "speed of light" (and very close to this speed in air), lightning is an electrical discharge of finite (but short by human standards) duration which causes intense heating of the air through which it travels, resulting in light and sound, and (finally) electrical discharges move slower than light (typically, much slower than light in air). In English usage the atmospheric electrical discharges and the accompanying flashes of light are both referred to a "lightning" which is a mass noun. So to count (or refer to single events of) electrical discharges one has to refer to "lightning strikes" (or strokes) and to count emissions of light, one has to refer to "lightning flashes." So according to the [POST=3198449]OP[/POST] what happens at event O is "lightning strikes their [common] location" which refers to a single electrical discharge of idealized zero duration. What propagates at the speed of light through events Q and then R is not electricity but a portion of flash of light. Since you aren't referring to the entirety of the light emitted by the lightning strike, but only the portion that propagates parallel to the +X axis, we are talking about a single light-speed, particle-like, propagating phenomenon so "light" or "flash of light" seems preferable to "flash of lightning" but all are preferred to the construction you used was just "lightning".

With "lightning" being a mass noun, there is literally no problem with it being in multiple locations at the same time -- this distracts from the question you were trying to explore.

2) Einstein said, "when the origin of the co-ordinates is common to the two systems".
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

In detail he wrote:

it is assumed that at the origin of k, $$\tau =0$$, when $$t=0$$.
...
we obtain

$$\begin{eqnarray*} \tau & = & \phi(v)\beta(t-vx/c^2), \\ \xi & = & \phi(v)\beta(x- v t), \\ \eta & = & \phi(v)y, \\ \zeta & = & \phi(v)z, \ \end{eqnarray*}$$​

where

$$\beta = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$$,​

and $$\phi$$ is an as yet unknown function of v. If no assumption whatever be made as to the initial position of the moving system and as to the zero point of $$\tau$$, an additive constant is to be placed on the right side of each of these equations.

We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the principle of relativity.

At the time $$t=\tau=0$$, when the origin of the co-ordinates is common to the two systems, let a spherical wave be emitted therefrom, and be propagated with the velocity c in system K. If (x, y, z) be a point just attained by this wave, then

$$x^2 + y^2 + z^2 =c^2 t^2$$.​

Transforming this equation with the aid of our equations of transformation we obtain after a simple calculation

$$\xi^2 + \eta^2 + \zeta^2 =c^2\tau^2$$.​

The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible.

or with our current notation:

it is assumed that at the origin of Σ', $$t'=0$$, when $$t=0$$.
...
we obtain

$$\begin{eqnarray*} t' & = & \phi(v)\gamma(t-vx/c^2), \\ x' & = & \phi(v)\gamma(x- v t), \\ y' & = & \phi(v)y, \\ z' & = & \phi(v)z, \end{eqnarray*}$$​

where

$$\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$$,​

and $$\phi$$ is an as yet unknown function of v. If no assumption whatever be made as to the initial position of the moving system and as to the zero point of $$t'$$, an additive constant is to be placed on the right side of each of these equations.

We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the principle of relativity.

At the time $$t=t'=0$$, when the origin of the co-ordinates [$$(x=0, y=0, z=0)$$ and $$(x'=0, y'=0, z'=0)$$] is common to the two systems [event O], let a spherical wave be emitted therefrom, and be propagated with the velocity c in system Σ. If (x, y, z) be a point just attained by this wave, then

$$x^2 +y^2 +z^2 =c^2 t^2$$.​

Transforming this equation with the aid of our equations of transformation we obtain after a simple calculation

$$x'^2 +y'^2 +z'^2 =c^2 t'^2$$.​

The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system [Σ']. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible.

Since he had just finished giving the coordinate transformation, he is talking about a single event in space-time, O, with coordinates $$\left( x=0, \; y=0, \; z=0, \; t = 0, \;x'=0, \; y'=0, \; z'=0, \; t' = 0 \right)$$ -- He didn't assume $$t = 0$$ and $$t' = 0$$ had the same meaning universally. He didn't assume that "when the origin of the co-ordinates is common to the two systems" had a meaning other than at the place and time that those origins met. He limited his discussion to the portion of space time for which both were true because he was trying to talk about an event in the geometry of space-time before 1908 when Minkowski unified relativity and geometry.

The issue has nothing to do with time in frames but a condition of logic. For example, folks use when x=1, then x*2=2. Now, clearly this is nothing to do with time, but a logical condition as Einstein noted "when" the two origins are common. Therefore, when C' and M are co-located means if C' and M are co-located.

This blurring of "when" [at what time] as used in a discussion of space-time and "when" [under what circumstances] as used to introduce assumptions in logic conflates two different senses of the same word and is a fallacious argument.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/when
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation 一詞多義

This does not allow you to change the question asked in the OP.

Now, if C' and M are co-located,

You can't use "if" here -- Because the assumption that C' is not at rest relative to M, any such co-location happens only at discrete event P, not as some universal truth suitable for predicate logic. What you want is first-order logic where the universe of discussion is limited to space-time events and coordinates given to space-time events. [post=3198606]Post #2[/post] is simple to read in the context of first-order logic.

A second reason you can't use "if" here is because if "if" is read to mean "under such circumstances that at some event in space-time C' and M happen to be co-located" then the location of the flash of light doesn't have two answers -- it has the answer "every location on the + X axis" because the answer is not the x or x' value of an event, but the x-coordinate value of a half-line, ℓ, that starts at the event O. But because you don't understand what a logical predicate is, I include this only for completeness, not for your personal edification.

Are you finally going to answer this yes or no.

You are missing a comma, because I will not answer a "where" question with yes or no. If you were to ask "Are you finally going to answer this, yes or no?" I would point out that "this" is a question predicated both on assuming special relativity and assuming universality of the truth of simultaneity of non-co-located events, so no simple answer suffices. Where a complex answer suffices, I refer you to [post=3198606]post #2[/post], when I answered over two weeks ago.

Further, I proved a calculation of distance of the lightning from the common location of C' and M in primed frame coordinates.

Your use of "lightning" and "distance" is problematic, because you said the lightning struck the common (well, "command", but everyone assumes you meant "common") location of M' and M. So to the distance to M is logically zero if you are talking about the lightning strike. If you are talking about the lightning flash, the above comments about "when" and relativity of simultaneity apply. Finally, "distance" between events doesn't have any universal meaning. You could talk about the space-time interval if you wanted something with universal meaning.

I showed SR claims 2 different distances of the lightning from the common location. Are you finally going to answer this yes or no.

You are still talking about three events, P, Q and R. Until you start over and actually label the things you are talking about you will make no progress towards asking questions that make sense. You continue to suffer the delusion that you have a right to demand answers when you pretty much make a hash out of your own discussion and contribute nothing positive to the reputation of this forum.

Now, explain why the unprimed frame gets the answer wrong when C' and M are co-located

It's not "wrong" -- it's different. It's different because $$t=t_P$$ is different from $$t'=t'_P$$ everywhere except event P. Thus event Q is a different event in space-time than event R.
What is wrong is to expect $$t=t_P$$ to mean the same thing as $$t'=t'_P$$.

and that wrong answer is still correct. You continue to refuse to answer this simple question.

The OP has the unrealistic expectation that the Lorentz transform is supposed to relate $$\left( x_Q = \frac{d'}{\gamma}, \; t_Q = \frac{d'}{\gamma c} \right)$$ to $$\left( x'_R = d', \; t'_R = \frac{d'}{c} \right)$$ because the OP never understood $$t_Q = t_P$$ and $$t'_R = t'_P$$ doesn't mean $$t_Q = t_R$$. What a waste of human potential and years of labor to wage a campaign against concepts that the OP has never understood.

It is correct that we cannot expect $$t=t_P$$ and $$t'=t'_P$$ to be true except at event P. However, at event P which is the co-location of C' and M, we can ask where each frame places the lightning [flash] along the positive x-axis in M' frame coordinates. This is a simple SR question.

No you can't because the propagating flash of light never passes through event P. At most you can ask where is the propagating flash of light under the circumstances that apply to the propagating flash of light. Event Q is the answer to where the flash of light is under the circumstance that $$t_Q = t_P$$. Event R is the answer to where the flash of light is under the circumstance that $$t'_R = t'_P$$.
Geometrically, the same way to say this is that Q is the intersection of lines j and ℓ; R is the intersection of lines k and ℓ. Everything else is frame-dependent dross without universal meaning.

Now, what you are advocating is that if C' and M are co-located,

Again, you have tried to equivocate the meaning of "when" and substitute "if" as if predicate logic could be substituted for first-order logic. What you need to do is stop pretending you understand the subject matter better than textbooks when you can't even follow the geometry when described in [post=3198606]post #2[/post] or drawn for you in [post=3204088]post #192[/post] and [post=3204151]post #199[/post].

 

[chinglu]

So then what's the problem?

If they're in different inertial frames, one of them is moving and the other is not, then of course they're going to disagree on what happened where. I don't understand where your problem is?

Sure, we can both agree on the disagreement.

However, if C' and M are co-located, the OP provides the location of the lightning along the positive x-axis in primed frame coordinates. Since this location is based on the light postulate, then it cannot be questions. RPenner has agreed on this location.

Therefore, if C' and M are co-located there cannot be any disagreement on where the lightning is located in the primed frame along the positive x-axis.

However, the unprimed frame claims if C' and M are co-located, the lightning is located somewhere else in primed frame coordinates along the positive x-axis. This disagreement is not allowed because it contradicts the primed frame light postulate. RPenner has not directly addressed this.

 

[chinglu]

And it appears rpenner, Neddy and arfabrane have invalidated both your maths and logic, as well as your erronious assumptions.

You have posted you do not understand the math. How do you conclude the math is invalidated if you do not understand it?

 

[paddoboy]

RPenner has not directly addressed this.

It's been addressed many time.

I find the following relevant to your continuing arguments.....

you used two definitions : "when C' and M are co-located ... for both frame coordinate systems" thus guaranteeing you would get two answers in space-time, not one. To complain that you get two answers and blame SR and not your question is a misrepresentation. SR is self-consistent -- it is not consistent with the question as you wrote it giving one answer.

It's obvious that [post=3198606]post #2[/post] covers all of this. If you didn't understand post #2, you should have asked more questions.

I have also asked another pertinent question chinglu.
It's straight forward and simple....but as yet you have been rather afraid to answer it.
Do you accept that time dilation and length contraction are real, each depending on the FoR?
And before you again ask me any more about your maths, no, I cannot comment personally any more then what I already have.
But anyway, show me you do understand time dilation and length contraction and how they are relevant and real with SR.

 

[chinglu]

Please look at my Minkowski diagram, then tell me where the M frame "gets the position wrong" for the primed frame.

Yes.

OK, here is the math for each frame if C' and M are co-located. Your diagram follows these calculations.

If C' and M are co-located, SR claims the lightning is located at M' frame space-time coordinates of $$(d'(1-v/c),0,0,d'(1-v/c)/c)$$ and $$(d',0,0,d'/c)$$.

Now, in the primed frame if C' and M are co-located, the lightning is located at $$(d',0,0,d'/c)$$. This is based on the light postulate and this is the only correct answer.

On the other hand, if C' and M are co-located, the unprimed frame places the lightning at $$(d'(1-v/c),0,0,d'(1-v/c)/c)$$ in primed frame coordinates.

This is what your diagram shows. However, if C' and M are co-located, the lightning is at $$(d',0,0,d'/c)$$ period. There is no disagreement allowed or that disagreement refutes the light postulate.

 

[paddoboy]

You have posted you do not understand the math. How do you conclude the math is invalidated if you do not understand it?

Because you have avoided answering the questions I have put to you.
That reveals quite a lot regarding your agenda.