SR Issue

[arfa brane]

M' is the primed frame origin.
C' is at $$(\frac{-vd'}{c},0,0)$$ in primed frame coordinates.
M is the origin of the unprimed frame.

So, there are only 2 frames.

And, 3 clocks are OK as long as they are in 2 frames.

More or less ok so far, except it could be more specific.

And, there is a shared common x-axis. I already explained this to you with a quote from Einstein.

Einstein's quote doesn't say there is a shared common x-axis. What do you think it means? Is this really just your intentional use of a confusing idea? You think Einstein says the stationary and moving frames "share a common x-axis", and any child can see that this cannot be true, they can only share a direction in which one of their dimensions is aligned "in common" with the other, which is I think what Einstein meant to say.

But of course, you need to apply your intentional abuse of meaning to keep the parade going, and if you can mangle what Einstein actually said, so much the better, you think. Any fool can see that you can't get a pair of cubes to share a common axis; you can slide one over the other so edges are parallel but at no time does this make them share anything except a common direction.

 

[chinglu]

More or less ok so far, except it could be more specific.
Einstein's quote doesn't say there is a shared common x-axis. What do you think it means? Is this really just your intentional use of a confusing idea? You think Einstein says the stationary and moving frames "share a common x-axis", and any child can see that this cannot be true, they can only share a direction in which one of their dimensions is aligned "in common" with the other, which is I think what Einstein meant to say.

But of course, you need to apply your intentional abuse of meaning to keep the parade going, and if you can mangle what Einstein actually said, so much the better, you think. Any fool can see that you can't get a pair of cubes to share a common axis; you can slide one over the other so edges are parallel but at no time does this make them share anything except a common direction.

We have already been through this. Pay attention.

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,

Now, let the "the axes of X of the two systems coincide" means they share an x-axis.

Do you understand now?

 

[paddoboy]

chinglu, you have refused to answer my other questions, probably because they may reveal your real intent in this thread.
So, OK, you are afraid to answer them, but how about the following question chinglu...Can you answer that honestly?
As a minion lay person, I am mostly ignorant of your maths.....But by the same alternative we have Neddy, arfa, rpenner, AId, all reputable members, and all reasonably efficient at the maths, each claiming you are wrong.
So chinglu, if you are able to, can you please tell me why I should believe you are correct, when these other four say you are wrong?
And when we couple that situation with your past record, and the number of times you have had threads closed and been banned, here and elsewhere, for ignoring irrefutable evidence supporting SR, including your dismissals of time dilation, they all support the fact that you have an agenda of sorts.
So chinglu, for the forum as a whole, who are probably all waiting for your answer, why would/should I accept your maths, as opposed to other far more reputable people, who are obviously far more capable at the maths.

I wait for your answer.

 

[Neddy Bate]

So, if C' and M are co-located, C' will tell M the lightning is at $$(d',0,0,d'/c)$$ in primed frame coordinates.

Now, you say M tells the C' observer that the lightning is actually at $$(d'(1-v/c),0,0,d'(1-v/c)/c)$$ in primed frame coordinates. Then you argue the light beam measures c so all is fine.

But, that is not true. While C' and M are at the same place, the lightning is at $$(d',0,0,d'/c)$$ in primed frame coordinates period. It is not at multiple places in the primed frame on the positive x-axis.

When C' and M are co-located, they are not in the same place as the light, so they are not the people to ask about whether the light is located at $$x'=d'$$ or whether the light is located at $$x'=d'(1-v/c)$$.

What you want is a pair of co-located prime/unprime observers located at $$x'=d'$$ at time $$t'=d'/c$$ who will agree that the light is indeed located in that place at that time.

And you also want a pair of co-located prime/unprime observers located at $$x'=d'(1-v/c)$$ at time $$t'=d'(1-v/c)/c$$ who will also agree that the light is indeed located in that place at that time.

You see, both frames agree that those two events happen at different times. No one is saying they happen at the same time, except you.

 

[arfa brane]

Now, let the "the axes of X of the two systems coincide" means they share an x-axis.

Do you understand now?

I understand that you are intentionally using the word "share" to imply something.
And I understand that if I have two identical squares, and place one on top of the other so the edges are parallel, then I can slide one over the other and keep the edges parallel.
I can say that, initially, with one square aligned over the other, that they have edges which coincide, in a mathematical sense; physically the edges have directions in common, defined by the edges (coinciding). That's what Einstein is talking about.

However, you need what Einstein said to mean there is one and only one x-axis for both frames. Although this is patently and demonstrably false, you want to go on like a deluded idiot and turn your ridiculous argument back onto Einstein's theories. You are either taking the piss, or there really is something wrong with you.

 

[chinglu]

I understand that you are intentionally using the word "share" to imply something.
And I understand that if I have two identical squares, and place one on top of the other so the edges are parallel, then I can slide one over the other and keep the edges parallel.
I can say that, initially, with one square aligned over the other, that they have edges which coincide, in a mathematical sense; physically the edges have directions in common, defined by the edges (coinciding). That's what Einstein is talking about.

However, you need what Einstein said to mean there is one and only one x-axis for both frames. Although this is patently and demonstrably false, you want to go on like a deluded idiot and turn your ridiculous argument back onto Einstein's theories. You are either taking the piss, or there really is something wrong with you.

You have been focused on this non-issue for days. When I say share a common x-axis, obviously given the OP, I do not mean their origins are in the same place.

It just means the x-axis is the same for the frames though their markings are different.

 

[krash661]

You have been focused on this non-issue for days. When I say share a common x-axis, obviously given the OP, I do not mean their origins are in the same place.

It just means the x-axis is the same for the frames though their markings are different.

please tell me something about god's algorithm without plagiarizing, or looking it up, from your own words.
and how to go about of solving something so massive.

 

[chinglu]

When C' and M are co-located, they are not in the same place as the light, so they are not the people to ask about whether the light is located at $$x'=d'$$ or whether the light is located at $$x'=d'(1-v/c)$$.

What you want is a pair of co-located prime/unprime observers located at $$x'=d'$$ at time $$t'=d'/c$$ who will agree that the light is indeed located in that place at that time.

And you also want a pair of co-located prime/unprime observers located at $$x'=d'(1-v/c)$$ at time $$t'=d'(1-v/c)/c$$ who will also agree that the light is indeed located in that place at that time.

You see, both frames agree that those two events happen at different times. No one is saying they happen at the same time, except you.

Here, if C' and M are co-located, then the light flash is at $$x'=d'$$ at time $$t'=d'/c$$. You have agreed with this. So, you say this statement is true.

Now, if C' and M are co-located, then the M frame claims the light flash is at $$x'=d'(1-v/c)$$ at time $$t'=d'(1-v/c)/c$$. But, this statement is false. It is that simple, the M frame gets the wrong answer.

See what you are trying to claim is if C' and M are co-located, the statement Q ($$x'=d'$$ at time $$t'=d'/c$$) is true and is also false. That is called a contradiction. You can't do that in logic even if you are SR.

And, I am not saying these events happen at the same time for each frame. They don't. I am saying the simple obvious factual truth, if C' and M are co-located then the light flash is at $$x'=d'$$ at time $$t'=d'/c$$ period, that is the truth.

Yet, the M frame claims if C' and M are co-located then the above is false.

Really, this is a simple contradistinction. Maybe you should look up the term in wiki.

 

[paddoboy]

Are you to afraid to answer post 423 chinglu?

 

[chinglu]

please tell me something about god's algorithm without plagiarizing, or looking it up, from your own words.
and how to go about of solving something so massive.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

And, I am only pointing out a flaw in SR. I do not have the correct answer as it is very complex.

Here is why. The earth's rotational sagnac is valid, but the orbital sagnac is not. I cannot explain this. Neither can SR.

We are missing something.

 

[chinglu]

chinglu, you have refused to answer my other questions, probably because they may reveal your real intent in this thread.
So, OK, you are afraid to answer them, but how about the following question chinglu...Can you answer that honestly?
As a minion lay person, I am mostly ignorant of your maths.....But by the same alternative we have Neddy, arfa, rpenner, AId, all reputable members, and all reasonably efficient at the maths, each claiming you are wrong.
So chinglu, if you are able to, can you please tell me why I should believe you are correct, when these other four say you are wrong?
And when we couple that situation with your past record, and the number of times you have had threads closed and been banned, here and elsewhere, for ignoring irrefutable evidence supporting SR, including your dismissals of time dilation, they all support the fact that you have an agenda of sorts.
So chinglu, for the forum as a whole, who are probably all waiting for your answer, why would/should I accept your maths, as opposed to other far more reputable people, who are obviously far more capable at the maths.

I wait for your answer.

No, your assumption is not correct. Each poster you listed claims if C' and M are co-located, then the light flash is permitted to be at 2 different places in M' frame coordinates.

The problem is that if C' and M are co-located, then the light flash is at one place in M' frame coordinates, otherwise it contradicts nature. In other words. if C' and M are co-located, then the light flash cannot be at 2 different M' frame locations on the positive x-axis.

 

[paddoboy]

Now, if C' and M are co-located, then the M frame claims the light flash is at $$x'=d'(1-v/c)$$ at time $$t'=d'(1-v/c)/c$$. But, this statement is false. It is that simple, the M frame gets the wrong answer.

See what you are trying to claim is if C' and M are co-located, the statement Q ($$x'=d'$$ at time $$t'=d'/c$$) is true and is also false. That is called a contradiction. You can't do that in logic even if you are SR.

And, I am not saying these events happen at the same time for each frame. They don't. I am saying the simple obvious factual truth, if C' and M are co-located then the light flash is at $$x'=d'$$ at time $$t'=d'/c$$ period, that is the truth.
.

All FoR's are valid chinglu, due to time dilation and length contraction, and the fact that time and space are not absolute.
You are obviously in a severe state of unreasonable denial.
Clocks are not hardwired to any astronomical movements, and will vary according to depth in a gravity well and speed with relation to another FoR.
These are facts chinglu, and have been observed to happen over the last 100 years or so.
The world, the establishment, the whole of mainstream science lives by the facts of SR.
Again, you are in denial due to your faith in some false bullshit mythical deity.

 

[chinglu]

All FoR's are valid chinglu, due to time dilation and length contraction, and the fact that time and space are not absolute.
You are obviously in a severe state of unreasonable denial.
Clocks are not hardwired to any astronomical movements, and will vary according to depth in a gravity well and speed with relation to another FoR.
These are facts chinglu, and have been observed to happen over the last 100 years or so.
The world, the establishment, the whole of mainstream science lives by the facts of SR.
Again, you are in denial due to your faith in some false bullshit mythical deity.

You are off task.

Here is the simple way to look at the problem.

If C' and M are co-located, do you think the light is at 1 place or two places on the positive x-axis in the M' frame?

If you say 1 place you agree with me. If you say 2 places you agree with them.

 

[paddoboy]

No, your assumption is not correct. Each poster you listed claims if C' and M are co-located, then the light flash is permitted to be at 2 different places in M' frame coordinates.

The problem is that if C' and M are co-located, then the light flash is at one place in M' frame coordinates, otherwise it contradicts nature. In other words. if C' and M are co-located, then the light flash cannot be at 2 different M' frame locations on the positive x-axis.

No, your own assumptions, your own Interpretations, have already been shown to be wrong many times now, in this thread, in past threads and in other forums.
You are simply in denial.
The maths as detailed by rpenner, arf brane Neddy and others are from people who do know what they are talking about, and are not burdened with some agenda as you obviously are.

 

[paddoboy]

Do you accept time dilation and length contraction chinglu....
a simple yes or no will suffice....
Yes, means you admit you are demonstrably wrong in your maths.
No means you are a pseudo/creationist, who cannot accept the real world for what it is.
Not answering the question means you are afraid and running away....

 

[chinglu]

No, your own assumptions, your own Interpretations, have already been shown to be wrong many times now, in this thread, in past threads and in other forums.
You are simply in denial.
The maths as detailed by rpenner, arf brane Neddy and others are from people who do know what they are talking about, and are not burdened with some agenda as you obviously are.

If C' and M are co-located, do you think the light is at 1 place or two places on the positive x-axis in the M' frame?

If you say 1 place you agree with me. If you say 2 places you agree with them.

Answer the question.

 

[chinglu]

Do you accept time dilation and length contraction chinglu....
a simple yes or no will suffice....
Yes, means you admit you are demonstrably wrong in your maths.
No means you are a pseudo/creationist, who cannot accept the real world for what it is.
Not answering the question means you are afraid and running away....

You spend much time accusing me of of things I am not.

I have brought the problem down to your level,

If C' and M are co-located, do you think the light is at 1 place or two places on the positive x-axis in the M' frame?

If you say 1 place you agree with me. If you say 2 places you agree with them.

 

[paddoboy]

If you say 1 place you agree with me. If you say 2 places you agree with them.

I say you are a 100% pseudoscience fraud, that does not accept SR, is too afraid to answer the questions I and others have asked of you, and is purposely concocting some non existent mathematical problem that others have shown does not exist.
I also say the whole forum here agrees with me.

 

[chinglu]

I say you are a 100% pseudoscience fraud, that does not accept SR, is too afraid to answer the questions I and others have asked of you, and is purposely concocting some non existent mathematical problem that others have shown does not exist.
I also say the whole forum here agrees with me.

Whatever, answer the question.

If C' and M are co-located, do you think the light is at 1 place or two places on the positive x-axis in the M' frame?

If you say 1 place you agree with me. If you say 2 places you agree with them.

 

[chinglu]

Let's have a vote in the thread.

If C' and M are co-located, if you think the light is at 1 place on the positive x-axis in the M' frame vote (A).

If C' and M are co-located, if you think the light is at 2 places on the positive x-axis in the M' frame vote (B).

Post your votes.

I vote (A).