# Thread: The burn mark problem

1. Originally Posted by Jack_
I posted a very clear and concise proposal for you on your concept of a consistent space from applying LT in the other thread.

Originally Posted by Jack_
Like I said, I gave you a very specific example in the other thread without simply tossing around words. Like I said, I will provide the answer to the question and prove it mathematically. If you are all this in SR you will be able to provide an answer and prove it also.
Once again you completely ignore all questions I asked you. You quoted me asking you several direct simple questions and you didn't reply to any of them.

And you once again imply I think I'm 'all that'. I have already told you I don't think I'm 'all that'. Thinking I'm better than most is not synonymous with thinking I'm 'all that'. Firstly, I have proof I'm better at mathematical physics than most given what I've achieved in that area. Secondly, you're here trying to convince us all that for 100 years mathematicians and physicists have missed a glaring error in a homework problem, that all of geometry and group theory is wrong and that you're the first to see it. You're here claiming essentially Nobel Prize winning stuff.

Originally Posted by Jack_
Victory to me is putting someone into a contradiction. I think you are describing your own version of victory.

Originally Posted by Jack_
I had to clarify what you were asking because you asked it so vaguely. The derivation of the general form of a coordinate boost is something you can find on a great many websites, including Wikipedia. Asking "What is $\gamma$ for? What about x-vt?" firstly suggests your understanding of vector calculus is dodgy since you should already understand how they arise and secondly it does nothing to further your point about which this thread was initially about.

Originally Posted by Jack_
not explaining the reasoning behind the LT equations
Are you asking why the Lorentz transformations are what they are because you don't know how they are derived or are you asking in order to lead the responder down a path to some conclusion? If the former you should read a bloody book and if its the latter just come out with it.

Originally Posted by Jack_
You see, you are the one that claimed to know all about it.
How many times am I going to have to restate this! I don't believe I'm 'all that'. I believe I'm pretty good and better than most. This is something I can justify with evidence. I am certain I've got a better grasp of relativity than you.

Now, how about you answer my direct questions? Have you studied mathematics and/or physics beyond high school? Have you done any group theory? What are you not submitting this work to a journal and earning a Nobel Prize? How do you demonstrate GR has local Lorentz invariance?

2. Originally Posted by Jack_
You are correct if we pick the earth as a stationary frame.
So, that is the starting point in the earth frame.
Right!
I thought we were talking about 2 frames.
So, in the ten seconds in took that person to run the race, how far has the starting point moved as the Earth spins? As it orbits the Sun? As the Sun orbits the galaxy?

Do you see that the distance travelled by the runner depends on your chosen context?
Do you see that the motion of the starting point depends on your chosen context?
Do you understand that this is very old science, much older than SR's 100 years?

3. Originally Posted by Jack_
I do not agree with this above. O has noithing to do with O' being stationary and concluding d/λ. That would be frame mixing.
Jack, you did agree with it. I explicitly went through how we start with O and calculate what O' measures, and you said "I am OK with youe mathematics."

I know what LT calculates.

But, let's focus on the BM problem because that is what this is about.

How, I changed the problem slight to clear up your confusion by having each frame run the experiment internally for a time t=d/c and mark on a rod
1) Their position
2) The other frame's position
3) The position of the leading edge of the light beam.

We then bring the two back together in the same frame and compare the rods.
I am afraid I have circumvented LT all together and if LT is consistent, it should make sense.
Jack, you don't have a clue. You can't "circumvent" the lorentz transform and still talk about what special relativity says. Special relativity is the lorentz transform, in a very real sense.

4. Originally Posted by Jack_
Let me make sure I understand you.

Are you now agreeing with the fact that SR is the theory of multiple light emission points?
In the same way that Newtonian mechanics is "a theory of multiple light emission points". There's nothing special about light or SR in that sense, Jack. The location of any event diverges in the same way under newtonian mechanics.

You're 400 years behind the times. Catch up.

5. Originally Posted by Pete
Right!

So, in the ten seconds in took that person to run the race, how far has the starting point moved as the Earth spins? As it orbits the Sun? As the Sun orbits the galaxy?

Do you see that the distance travelled by the runner depends on your chosen context?
Do you see that the motion of the starting point depends on your chosen context?
Do you understand that this is very old science, much older than SR's 100 years?
Yes, motion depends on the frame.

I think you are driving to the point that SR canno know the exact light emission point in space.

That implies, SR is actually the theory of relative light emission points.

Anyway, let's get back to the thought experiment.

6. [QUOTE=Pete;2483983]Jack, you did agree with it. I explicitly went through how we start with O and calculate what O' measures, and you said "I am OK with youe mathematics."

[quote]I know what LT calculates.

But, let's focus on the BM problem because that is what this is about.

How, I changed the problem slight to clear up your confusion by having each frame run the experiment internally for a time t=d/c and mark on a rod
1) Their position
2) The other frame's position
3) The position of the leading edge of the light beam.

We then bring the two back together in the same frame and compare the rods.
I am afraid I have circumvented LT all together and if LT is consistent, it should make sense.
Jack, you don't have a clue. You can't "circumvent" the lorentz transform and still talk about what special relativity says. Special relativity is the lorentz transform, in a very real sense.
Pete you are stuck in a box.

Why don't you specifically address the thought experiment intead of all this.

And, yes I did circumvent LT.

When I compare rods that were marked when the frame was stationary only, and then bring them into one frame, please explain specifically how LT will be involved in the comparison. Simply take a stand here.

Next, please explain how the stationary rods when compared are consistent with LT.

7. Originally Posted by Pete
In the same way that Newtonian mechanics is "a theory of multiple light emission points". There's nothing special about light or SR in that sense, Jack. The location of any event diverges in the same way under newtonian mechanics.

You're 400 years behind the times. Catch up.
OK, now that I am finally catching up with your superior intellect, tell me which light path I use for clock synchronization when the two rods are brought back together.

There are two of them.

Further, please explain how light emits from two different points in the coords of one frame.

Note when bringing back the rods for comparison, tow light emission points are demonstrated. Further, LT,

x' = xλ - vtλ.

When the light path is considered, t = x/c so
x' = xλ - vxλ/c.

Now we have switched to a different light emission point.

If is located at (vxλ/c, 0) in the coords of the stationary frame.

The light emission point for the stationary frame is located at (0,0).

Hence, two light emission points are confessed in one single space.

8. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric

Once again you completely ignore all questions I asked you. You quoted me asking you several direct simple questions and you didn't reply to any of them.

And you once again imply I think I'm 'all that'. I have already told you I don't think I'm 'all that'. Thinking I'm better than most is not synonymous with thinking I'm 'all that'. Firstly, I have proof I'm better at mathematical physics than most given what I've achieved in that area. Secondly, you're here trying to convince us all that for 100 years mathematicians and physicists have missed a glaring error in a homework problem, that all of geometry and group theory is wrong and that you're the first to see it. You're here claiming essentially Nobel Prize winning stuff.

I had to clarify what you were asking because you asked it so vaguely. The derivation of the general form of a coordinate boost is something you can find on a great many websites, including Wikipedia. Asking "What is $\gamma$ for? What about x-vt?" firstly suggests your understanding of vector calculus is dodgy since you should already understand how they arise and secondly it does nothing to further your point about which this thread was initially about.

Are you asking why the Lorentz transformations are what they are because you don't know how they are derived or are you asking in order to lead the responder down a path to some conclusion? If the former you should read a bloody book and if its the latter just come out with it.

How many times am I going to have to restate this! I don't believe I'm 'all that'. I believe I'm pretty good and better than most. This is something I can justify with evidence. I am certain I've got a better grasp of relativity than you.

Now, how about you answer my direct questions? Have you studied mathematics and/or physics beyond high school? Have you done any group theory? What are you not submitting this work to a journal and earning a Nobel Prize? How do you demonstrate GR has local Lorentz invariance?
I am not discussion my creds with you.

Further, you do not know what I am submitting or not submitting.

I am not interested in discussing this with you. You would call me a liar anyway.

In any event, your explanation for LT and the components is useless.

Are you able to refute the logic of the stationary measurement experiment?

This is how you can truely compare yourself to me.

She me you are able to demonstrate various problems in LT.

I have not even shown them all yet.

So, here is the deal. If I am wrong and you know what you are doing, then show you expertise with the stationary sample experiment I gave.

9. Originally Posted by Jack_
I am not discussion my creds with you.
So why get narked when I dared 'lecture you' on mathematics? Am I supposed to just assume you're well versed in mathematics, despite evidence to the contrary? If I know what you've studied perhaps we can move the discussion on.

Originally Posted by Jack_
In any event, your explanation for LT and the components is useless.
So why did you ask? As I expected, you were asking vague questions with little or no point to them. Other than perhaps to deflect from the fact you couldn't justify your claims.

Originally Posted by Jack_
Are you able to refute the logic of the stationary measurement experiment?
I haven't seen you actually demonstrate anything yet. All you've done is give a setup and just declare it inconsistent. You haven't actually gotten SR to say 1=2 yet.

Originally Posted by Jack_
She me you are able to demonstrate various problems in LT.
What?! You want me to do something I've categorically stated I don't believe? I'm telling you there aren't problems with Lorentz transformations and you're demanding I show there are?

Originally Posted by Jack_
I have not even shown them all yet.
You haven't shown any.

Originally Posted by Jack_
So, here is the deal. If I am wrong and you know what you are doing, then show you expertise with the stationary sample experiment I gave.
What is there to show? Computing the time of various clocks isn't anything more than basic algebra. There isn't any inconsistency. If you claim there is show it. You claim to have plenty of different ways but you're tap dancing around it. Even if I couldn't answer your question it doesn't mean you've demonstrated your claim. I am certain you could construct a convoluted physical system and ask me omething about it which I couldn't work out. That doesn't demonstrate its inconsistent. Asking a difficult question no one solves is not equivalent to demonstrating an inconsistency. If you have proof SHOW IT. Demanding I answer some innane question is something a strawman because my ability to do or not do special relativity is entirely independent of the mathematical consistency of the theory.

And I love how you demand I answer your SR problem when you ignore all my questions. Is a one word answer on how to show local Lorentz invariance in GR too hard for you?

10. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
So why get narked when I dared 'lecture you' on mathematics? Am I supposed to just assume you're well versed in mathematics, despite evidence to the contrary? If I know what you've studied perhaps we can move the discussion on.

So why did you ask? As I expected, you were asking vague questions with little or no point to them. Other than perhaps to deflect from the fact you couldn't justify your claims.

I haven't seen you actually demonstrate anything yet. All you've done is give a setup and just declare it inconsistent. You haven't actually gotten SR to say 1=2 yet.

What?! You want me to do something I've categorically stated I don't believe? I'm telling you there aren't problems with Lorentz transformations and you're demanding I show there are?

You haven't shown any.

What is there to show? Computing the time of various clocks isn't anything more than basic algebra. There isn't any inconsistency. If you claim there is show it. You claim to have plenty of different ways but you're tap dancing around it. Even if I couldn't answer your question it doesn't mean you've demonstrated your claim. I am certain you could construct a convoluted physical system and ask me omething about it which I couldn't work out. That doesn't demonstrate its inconsistent. Asking a difficult question no one solves is not equivalent to demonstrating an inconsistency. If you have proof SHOW IT. Demanding I answer some innane question is something a strawman because my ability to do or not do special relativity is entirely independent of the mathematical consistency of the theory.

And I love how you demand I answer your SR problem when you ignore all my questions. Is a one word answer on how to show local Lorentz invariance in GR too hard for you?
You talk a lot.

In this thread there is the stationary proposal.

Do you have a comment on that?

11. Originally Posted by Jack_
Yes, motion depends on the frame.

I think you are driving to the point that SR canno know the exact light emission point in space.
Now you're getting it!
Relativity (ie the last 400 years of physics, not just SR) says that the notion of an exact, unchanging point in space really isn't that useful, that a point in space can only be defined in reference to something else.

12. Originally Posted by Pete
Now you're getting it!
Relativity (ie the last 400 years of physics, not just SR) says that the notion of an exact, unchanging point in space really isn't that useful, that a point in space can only be defined in reference to something else.
why do you come to this psycho place? Is that not what this is?

you are finally now confessing multiple unique light beams because of multiple light emission points.

Does light work that way?

13. Originally Posted by Jack_
OK, now that I am finally catching up with your superior intellect, tell me which light path I use for clock synchronization when the two rods are brought back together.

There are two of them.
I don't understand what you mean, Jack. What does a historical record of a light beam in a different frame of reference have to do with synchronizing clocks?

Further, please explain how light emits from two different points in the coords of one frame.
It doesn't, Jack. The light emission location is well defined in each frame.

Note when bringing back the rods for comparison, tow light emission points are demonstrated.
Right, two different reference frame, two different spatial references. No surprises here.

Further, LT,

x' = xλ - vtλ.

When the light path is considered, t = x/c so
x' = xλ - vxλ/c.

Now we have switched to a different light emission point.
We've switched reference frames. What did you expect?
They're in the same place at t=0, after that they move apart. This is basic stuff.

It is located at (vxλ/c, 0) in the coords of the stationary frame.
What is located at that point? Your manipulation is very unclear.

The light emission point for the stationary frame is located at (0,0).

Hence, two light emission points are confessed in one single space.
Since vxλ/c=0 when x=0, it looks as if you're saying that it's a problem that (0,0) = (0,0)?

But, I suspect that you're actually getting yourself confused again by switching back and forth between frames without considering time.

14. Originally Posted by Jack_
why do you come to this psycho place? Is that not what this is?

you are finally now confessing multiple unique light beams because of multiple light emission points.

Does light work that way?
Dude, everything works that way. Welcome to reality.

Note that it's not "multiple unique light beams" in the way you imply, it's multiple measures of location and length.

If someone runs a 100m race, you can sensibly say they ran 100m, starting here at the start line.
You can also sensibly say they moved hundreds of km as the Earth orbits the Sun, starting hundreds of km away.

Does that sound psycho to you?

15. Originally Posted by Jack_
I am not discussion my creds with you.

Further, you do not know what I am submitting or not submitting.

I am not interested in discussing this with you. You would call me a liar anyway.

In any event, your explanation for LT and the components is useless.

Are you able to refute the logic of the stationary measurement experiment?

This is how you can truely compare yourself to me.

She me you are able to demonstrate various problems in LT.

I have not even shown them all yet.

So, here is the deal. If I am wrong and you know what you are doing, then show you expertise with the stationary sample experiment I gave.
Blah blah blah.
Translation:

"Alpha, I don't like it when you use hard words because I don't know what I'm talking about and I don't like being reminded of it. And I'm not a liar. Really."

16. Originally Posted by Jack_
I know what LT calculates.
You're not convincing anyone that you even grasp what it is, Jack.
But, let's focus on the BM problem because that is what this is about.
Jack, the burn mark problem was completely done and dusted way back at the beginning of the thread. We're just waiting for you to catch up.

I am afraid I have circumvented LT all together and if LT is consistent, it should make sense.

Why don't you specifically address the thought experiment intead of all this.

And, yes I did circumvent LT.
See, this is where you wear your ignorance for all to see, Jack. You think you can circumvent time? You think you can 'circumvent the lorentz transform', while still talking about what SR predicts? You're embarrassing yourself.

When I compare rods that were marked when the frame was stationary only, and then bring them into one frame, please explain specifically how LT will be involved in the comparison. Simply take a stand here.
Again? Very tedious, Jack. This was well and truly covered way back when. Everything that can be known about this problem is completely embedded in those diagrams I made.

Here, let me spell it out:
The rods are a record of the locations of certain events. Rod1 records locations in the rest frame of O, Rod2 records locations in the rest from of O'.

How do we predict what the rods will record?
Well, we know when and where the events occur in the rest frame of O, so Rod1 is easy.
And the lorentz transform tells us when and where the events occur in the rest frame of O', so Rod2 follows, except for an event of the light reaching the end of Rod2, which is not recorded on Rod1, but follows from the length of Rod2.

17. Originally Posted by Pete

It doesn't, Jack. The light emission location is well defined in each frame.
Stop right here.

Show me the emission points.

18. Originally Posted by Pete
Jack, the burn mark problem was completely done and dusted way back at the beginning of the thread. We're just waiting for you to catch up.
Well let's see.
I have you evolved to the point you submit to the logic that each frame carries their own light emission point.

Do you understand how to generalize this to the light sphere?

At the emission point in the frame the light sphere exists.

But since the emission points diverge, this implies each frame carries their own light sphere.

This is called Ritz's theory.

Just wanted to bring you to this point Pete.

19. Jack_:

Early on in this thread, I told you that when you look at a light emission event (or any other event, for that matter) in two different reference frames, the same event will, in general, have different spacetime coordinates. The Lorentz transformations tell you how, given the coordinates in any single frame, you can derive those coordinates for any other frame.

I think your confusion is that you think special relativity somehow says there are two or more spacetime events for the emission of light. In fact, what it says is that people in different reference frames will assign different spacetime coordinates to the same event.

Do you understand the point I'm making here? It is not events that transform in relativity - only coordinates. That's why we talk about reference frames. A reference frame change is just a coordinate change. We're still all looking at the same spacetime.

20. Originally Posted by James R
Jack_:

Early on in this thread, I told you that when you look at a light emission event (or any other event, for that matter) in two different reference frames, the same event will, in general, have different spacetime coordinates. The Lorentz transformations tell you how, given the coordinates in any single frame, you can derive those coordinates for any other frame.

I think your confusion is that you think special relativity somehow says there are two or more spacetime events for the emission of light. In fact, what it says is that people in different reference frames will assign different spacetime coordinates to the same event.

Do you understand the point I'm making here? It is not events that transform in relativity - only coordinates. That's why we talk about reference frames. A reference frame change is just a coordinate change. We're still all looking at the same spacetime.
Sure I understand.

Each frame carries their own light sphere according to Ritz's theory.
You love the ballistic theory of light.

You boneheads fell right into this.