Certainly.....When you answer my previous questions.
[1] Do you accept time dilation?
[2] Do you accept length contraction?
[3] Do you accept SR?
[4] If not to any or all of those questions, explain what we observe.
SR Issue
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
Certainly.....When you answer my previous questions.
[1] Do you accept time dilation?
[2] Do you accept length contraction?
[3] Do you accept SR?
[4] If not to any or all of those questions, explain what we observe.
I vote that you are a fraud, and are purposely misinterpreting and concocting non existent scenarios.
I vote that SR is near factual
I vote that time dilation and length contraction have been observationally shown to occur.
Answer the vote question.
This OP is about a specific experiment and I answer questions on anything about it. What you have above is not on the OP.
But that's what "having a common origin" means, so what are you talking about?
No it doesn't. Two frames cannot physically have the same x-axis; this is your misunderstanding or your delusion.
There is no flaw in SR; there is a flaw in your understanding and it's a really big one.
No that's incorrect; everyone has been telling you there are two separate x-axes, one in each frame and the "light flash" is in one place for each observer (or frame).
No, the problem is that you still think you can have two frames with a shared x-axis; this is not stated anywhere in Einstein's 1905 paper and I've never seen a textbook that describes SR that way. It's your delusion about what an x-axis is, or specifically, what you think Einstein says in his paper, but you've got it completely wrong, that's what the problem is.
You're still saying "the positive x-axis" as if there's only one, like I said. There is one x-axis for each frame, but you're too stupid to understand a simple thing like that, something a child can see; what the hell is wrong with you? Why are you fixated on this "one and only one x-axis" idea when it's so clearly wrong? Can't you see how stupid it looks?
Here we are 23 pages on, and you still can't see this, perhaps because you really aren't anywhere near as smart as you want to think you are.
Look I really do not care what you say. The two frames share a common x-axis. Now, if you can prove any equations in the OP are false based on your "views", then do it.
RPenner has already agreed every equation in the OP is mathematically true.
So, what exactly are you trying to prove? Be specific.
And nobody cares about what you think is a problem with SR. You've managed to demonstrate you are a physics moron, so why should anyone care?chinglu said:
Then they are the same frame, not two frames. There can be no independent motion in that case "between frames", so your idea isn't very useful (unless you're a deluded idiot).
Yes, and Santa Claus has you down on the nice list this year.
I vote (LEM) for 4-dimensional Minkowski geometry which directly models the physics of Einstein's special relativity which relates co-ordinates for the same event by Lorentz transformations:
When, which is a frame-dependent concept which necessarily requires a particular inertial frame to define particular space-like hyper-surfaces of simultaneity, C' and M are co-located, light emitted in a direction parallel to any particular, frame-dependent spatial direction, is at one particular, frame-dependent generalization of location. (LEM)
But you ignore the requirement to use a particular frame, you mix and match frame-dependent concept from different frames, which is a case of apples and oranges and lead to an infinite number of locations as potential answers. Thus the fault is with your artifice and question and not with special relativity.$$t = t_P$$ does not have the same meaning as $$t' = t'_P$$ just like $$x = x_P$$ does not have the same meaning as $$x' = x'_P$$.
OK, well no one has been able to refute my math.
Why would you attack math you cannot refute?
Can you explain that?
Right, let's get our physics lesson correct. If C' and M are co-located is the light located at 1 place or 2? Answer the question.
By the way, frame mixing is not an issue as you claimed since all calculations end up in M' frame coordinates.
Otherwise, prove your assertions and prove the Op math frame mixes.
Always remember to prove your assertions.
Now, answer the vote one way or the other. What are you afraid of?
We are still stuck, but not me.
If C' and M are co-located, where is the light along the positive x-axis in the M' frame?
Note, this has one answer.
Otherwise, Rpenner and the like, prove it is at 2 places. You claim to be experts.
It is at one place or many or even 0.
Take a position RPenner people.
If C' and M are co-located, where is the light along the positive x-axis in the M' frame?
Note, this has one answer.
Otherwise, Rpenner and the like, prove it is at 2 places. You claim to be experts.
It is at one place or many or even 0.
Take a position RPenner people.
You can avoid it as much as you like. Just as earlier you accused others of being afraid and running away, that is exactly what you are doing.
My questions concern SR
Your mathematical problem is not a problem, just some concocted rubbish.
the fact that you acknowledge that you do not know how to go about on solving massive problems like a god's algorithm,
speaks volumes.
it shows that you would not even know how to calculate
and graph properly on a small simple problem like this.
this is no where near a mathematician.
So why are you here?
Why not get this potential paradox peer reviewed?
Why are you continually refusing to answer questions, but ask plenty in return?
Do you really and truly believe that clocks are hardwired to astronomical movements, and that the whole world is wrong, except you?
Are you really that naive?
Is it because your answers can only reveal you a SR denial fool?
Really chinglu, you were parroting the same delusions in the time dilation thread a while back before your banning.
Now you come back again, sprouting the same crap under a different guise.
The above extracts from posts 2 and 4, correctly summed up the utter rdiculious situation that you have put yourself in chinglu.
You have also refused to answer my questions by erronously claiming they were off topic and have nothing to do with the OP.
That is obviously false and casts deserved aspersions on your character.
Now again chinglu, Do you accept time dilation and length contraction.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Your argument is based on the idea that the primed frame is somehow special. You describe all your events in primed coordinates, and then claim that the simultaneity of the primed frame is the only correct simultaneity. You could just as easily have described those same events in unprimed coordinates, and then claimed that the simultaneity of the unprimed frame is the only correct simultaneity. Then you could argue against yourself forever.
No, I am not claiming the primed frame is special.
Let's take issue #1. If C' and M are co-located, where is the light in primed frame coordinates? This is not special but a question of nature. Where is it?
At the same place, M claims the light is one place in primed coordinates and C' claims it is at another place. So, they are at the same place claiming two different locations for the light in primed coordinates. In order for both of them to be right, light must be at 2 different places in primed coordinates, which does not happen in nature.
Next, let's look at issue #2. To understand SR, you must understand the role of LT is to translate to the truth of the other frame. That is its role.
So, the unprimed frame LT must translate into what is true for the light postulate in the primed frame. It is not allowed to translate to falsehoods.
However, if C' and M are co-located, the truth of the light postulate in the primed frame says the light is at the space-time coordinate $$(d',0,0,d'/c)$$.
LT is not permitted to conjure up some arbitrary vector that measure c, it is required to match the vector that satisfies the light postulate in the primed frame. And, if C' and M are co-located, that correct vector according to the primed frame light postulate is $$(d',0,0,d'/c)$$.
However, LT says if C' and M are co-located, the correct vector is $$(d'(1-v/c),0,0,d'(1-v/c)/c)$$. Hence, it does not match the light postulate in the primed frame so LT fails and it is that simple.
That is the point of this thread.
I see you are saying my math is rubbish while you have also said you do not understand it.
How do you work that out?
thanks for proving me correct