1. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
No, you've done nothing which supports your claim and you've just demonstrated you don't understand coordinate geometry.

You've failed to respond to anything I said, all you're doing now is just going into 'denial mode'. I type lengthy responses which explain various aspects of geometry to you and you make it abundantly clear you don't understand and you fail to respond.

Like I said, you've convinced yourself that you're a lot better at maths and physics than you actually are and when you're faced with people who can actually do it you have to go into this "I'm amazing, I've destroyed all of maths and science" delusion mode within which you fail to respond to any point raised. Instead you just bluster about telling people how great you are but failing to back that up.

Oh I can play that game of flawed logic too. If you can't tell me the number I'm thinking of I will assume you're a murderer.

Non-sequitors are easy to make, shame they don't validate your claims in any way. I've addressed your misunderstandings. The problem is not that you're coming to some incorrect algebraic expression, its that you're failing to understand the context of the results because you're unfamiliar with things like coordinate transformations and the non-Euclidean nature of special relativity. As I said in my previous post, there are some things which cannot be conveyed in a short snappy sound bite, something in order to understand something you have to gain experience with it. This is something you haven't done, either because you're unwilling to put in the time and effort or because its simply beyond your ability to understand.

Its a common trait with cranks. They come up against something which they don't understand and they are either unwilling or incapable of understanding it due to time and effort being something they will not invest. Thus they try to come up with excuses about why they won't learn it. Ironically it generally turns out they'll put in more effort avoiding learning something than it would take to learn. The bests of special relativity I learnt in a short summer course, 8 1 hour lectures. You've spent more time whining about SR than that, you could have actually learn the basics by now.

You haven't provided any maths proofs. You haven't reached an algebraic expression which proves your claims. I've already explained that I agree different frames will give different answers for the centre of the photon sphere. Special relativity says that. Your entire argument is that this makes it inconsistent. But it doesn't. You haven't given a maths proof that its inconsistent, you point at a result and declare it inconsistent. You have failed to provide the justification for that leap in logic.

Your entire argument is "I say this is inconsistent", despite the fact it has absolutely no bearing on any physical predictions since the centre of the photon sphere has no physical properties. If you think I'm 'too primitive' and that you can take down all my Cambridge buddies then why are you still on this forum? If you're so sure you're right and you're so sure I'm a thicko why are you stuck arguing your point in the pseudoscience section? Why aren't you sending your work to a journal? It'd take less than an afternoon to type up a 5 page paper outlining your idea, so why haven't you? Every one who talks with you on this forum disagrees with you. I am 100% positive that the problem is you don't understand and your repetition of your misunderstandings is not going to convince me. So why don't you take your work to a journal and prove me wrong for all to see?

I want you to submit your work to a journal because I am certain you'll be rejected for the same reasons I've given. Go on, submit your work. If you think I'm all talk and you're able to 'defeat' many a Cambridge graduate fucking prove it. The fact you're sticking to this forum and not daring to venture into the big wide world of journal reviews shows you know you're all talk with nothing to say. If you really believed you'd have submitted it to a journal before you posted it here.

Your actions speak much louder then you realise.
Everything you stated is based on the consistency of SR.

Einstein claimed for SR to be consistent, LT must preserve the light sphere. It does not.

The moving light emission point is not in the center of the mapped light sphere and it is not even a spherical shape since ct' for all mapped (x,y,z,ct)is not a constant as required by a sphere.

Oh, I fully intend to proceed with my ideas.

Anyway, do you see the flaw in Einstein's reasoning yes or no.

2. Originally Posted by Pete
No, Jack. Look at the threads. Read the arguments. Don't waste any more of your time working from the wrong foundation.

I suppose you do not get the fact the two light emission points diverge. Why would I possibly want to look at arguments claiming they remain in one location?

AN understands that part. I see you are still wrestling with that fact.

3. AN:

I wrote a simulation of the LT mapped light sphere that Einstein claimed is a sphere.

The solid yellow circle is the stationary light sphere that has struck the stationary rigid body sphere.

The blue ellipse is the moving rigid body sphere.
The yellow rays are the LT mapped rays mapped from the stationary light sphere.

Clearly in no way is it a sphere as Einstein claimed he proved.

Again, Einstein wrote:
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

The ray light sphere in the picture is the LT mapped view in the moving system. His proof is obviously false.

4. Originally Posted by Jack_
Einstein claimed for SR to be consistent, LT must preserve the light sphere. It does not
By definition the Lorentz transformations preserve the light cone. If you'd ever done a basic course in vector calculus you'd understand it.

The space-time interval is $ds^{2} = \eta_{ab}dx^{a}dx^{b}$. The Lorentz transformations $L^{a}_{b}$ are such that $L \cdot \eta \cdot L^{\top} = \eta$. Thus $ds^{2} \to L^{a}_{c}\eta_{ab}L^{b}_{d}dx^{c}dx^{d} = \eta_{ab}dx^{a}dx^{b}$

This is the definition of the Lorentz transformations. You claim you have a Lorentz transformation which doesn't satisfy this. Then by definition its not a Lorentz transformation. This is pretty simple logic. Didn't you cover that while learning about decidability and transfinite logic?

Just try it with the 1+1 dimensional case. You have the transformations $x' = \gamma(x-vt)$ and $t' = \gamma(t-vx)$ (c=1). Using $\gamma^{-2} = 1-v^{2}$ it follows by algebra so simple even you can do it that $-dt^{2}+dx^{2} = -(dt')^{2}+(dx')^{2}$.

Since the light cone is defined by $ds^{2}=0$ if $ds^{2}$ is unchanged by a Lorentz transformation then so is the light cone. These are definitions. If you can't grasp that you're even thicker than I thought.

5. Originally Posted by Jack_
The solid yellow circle is the stationary light sphere that has struck the stationary rigid body sphere.

The blue ellipse is the moving rigid body sphere.
The yellow rays are the LT mapped rays mapped from the stationary light sphere.

Clearly in no way is it a sphere as Einstein claimed he proved.
I have already told you this many times. The region inside the light cone is warped by a Lorentz transformation. The points on the light cone move around, I even drew you a fucking picture. You're telling me things I told you (but you obviously didn't grasp) and which are not justifications of your claims. The convergent point of those rays is dependent on the transformation, precisely as I explained and drew in that picture I posted previously.

Not only are you demonstrating you didn't understand something you dismissed you're demonstrating you still don't understand a result I've had to spoon feed you. Time and time and time again you demosntrate you're working out things you would have learnt already if you ever did a course in SR and you're failing to understand them. Your problem isn't that you make a slip up in algebra here or there, it's that you have a fundamental lack of grasp of geometry and coordinates. I suggest you learn about manifolds, since they are the core of any area of physics and the notion of different but equivalent coordinate systems are fundamental to their study.

You're simply too ignorant and you're having trouble accepting the problem is with your understanding. You're slow to reach even the simplest of conclusions. Stop writing code for things you don't understand, actually understand what you're coding.

6. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
I have already told you this many times. The region inside the light cone is warped by a Lorentz transformation. The points on the light cone move around, I even drew you a fucking picture. You're telling me things I told you (but you obviously didn't grasp) and which are not justifications of your claims. The convergent point of those rays is dependent on the transformation, precisely as I explained and drew in that picture I posted previously.

Not only are you demonstrating you didn't understand something you dismissed you're demonstrating you still don't understand a result I've had to spoon feed you. Time and time and time again you demosntrate you're working out things you would have learnt already if you ever did a course in SR and you're failing to understand them. Your problem isn't that you make a slip up in algebra here or there, it's that you have a fundamental lack of grasp of geometry and coordinates. I suggest you learn about manifolds, since they are the core of any area of physics and the notion of different but equivalent coordinate systems are fundamental to their study.

You're simply too ignorant and you're having trouble accepting the problem is with your understanding. You're slow to reach even the simplest of conclusions. Stop writing code for things you don't understand, actually understand what you're coding.

Yea.

I am showing you the view in the moving frame.

You do not understand. It is not hard.

Each light wave was sent through LT to get the view of the moving frame. That is the requirement of the proof.

Put out your own picture of when light is at r in the stationary frame, what the moving frame sees for all (x,y,z,r/c) with z = 0.

Once it matches mine, you will know you have the correct answer.

If you cannot do this, then you admit you do not understand SR and LT.

Show everyone here pictures and geometry.

7. Originally Posted by Jack_
I am showing you the view in the moving frame.

You do not understand.
Are you not reading my posts? My previous diagram included 3 different frames, one of which was stationary. The fact you failed to grasp this and turn around and say "You do not understand" is pretty ironic.

Originally Posted by Jack_
Put out your own picture of when light is at r in the stationary frame, what the moving frame sees for all (x,y,z,r/c) with z = 0.
I don't have access to a scanner for the next two days. Besides, given you've failed to understand my previous diagram it's obviously lost on you.

Originally Posted by Jack_
If you cannot do this, then you admit you do not understand SR and LT.
And if you can't tell me the number I'm thinking of you admit you're a wife beater. See, I can make non-sequitors too.

And this accusation simply doesn't stick. Firstly I've sat and passed exams on the following topics with include special relativity :

Special relativity, General relativity 1, General relativity 2, black hole, string theory, quantum field theory, electodynamics. And I've taught special relativity. And I've got a PhD in the area of supergravity and make use of Lorentz invariance in my published work. So it would seem that I can demonstrate to people who do special relativity that I can do it too. You've previously lied about teaching vector calculus and you obviously haven't studied special relativity. So you'll forgive me if I don't value your evaluation of my abilities and knowledge in a topic you don't know.

Originally Posted by Jack_
Once it matches mine, you will know you have the correct answer.
As previously commented your problem is you don't understand the underlying principles. Algebra isn't the issue here, your grasp of its implications is.

Originally Posted by Jack_
Once it matches mine, you will know you have the correct answer.
Yes, because you're the ultimate judge of what special relativity is and says.

Originally Posted by Jack_
Show everyone here pictures and geometry.
You must be trolling. How many times have I given algebra and pictures? Plenty. And unlike you I've provided a great deal of explanations and elaboration on my pictures and algebra. I address points you say and I justify my results. You continually mass quote my posts and other peoples posts, ignore everything rraised and then repeat "Give me diagrams and maths". Do you think people reading this thread won't remember I've already done so? Do you think they'll not notice I've provided a lot of lengthy posts with diagrams and algebra? If you're going to say "Come on, provide me with diagrams and algebra" at least do so in a thread where people don't have to just scroll up to see I have.

Is that all you can manage now? You've given a pathetic excuse of a conspiracy of silence as to why you won't submit your work to a journal, claiming they'll not understand your ground breaking genius, and now you're resorting to lying in a thread where I've posted huge pictures and you have even quoted them. And you think people won't notice that?

8. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Are you not reading my posts? My previous diagram included 3 different frames, one of which was stationary. The fact you failed to grasp this and turn around and say "You do not understand" is pretty ironic.

I don't have access to a scanner for the next two days. Besides, given you've failed to understand my previous diagram it's obviously lost on you.

And if you can't tell me the number I'm thinking of you admit you're a wife beater. See, I can make non-sequitors too.

And this accusation simply doesn't stick. Firstly I've sat and passed exams on the following topics with include special relativity :

Special relativity, General relativity 1, General relativity 2, black hole, string theory, quantum field theory, electodynamics. And I've taught special relativity. And I've got a PhD in the area of supergravity and make use of Lorentz invariance in my published work. So it would seem that I can demonstrate to people who do special relativity that I can do it too. You've previously lied about teaching vector calculus and you obviously haven't studied special relativity. So you'll forgive me if I don't value your evaluation of my abilities and knowledge in a topic you don't know.

As previously commented your problem is you don't understand the underlying principles. Algebra isn't the issue here, your grasp of its implications is.

Yes, because you're the ultimate judge of what special relativity is and says.

You must be trolling. How many times have I given algebra and pictures? Plenty. And unlike you I've provided a great deal of explanations and elaboration on my pictures and algebra. I address points you say and I justify my results. You continually mass quote my posts and other peoples posts, ignore everything rraised and then repeat "Give me diagrams and maths". Do you think people reading this thread won't remember I've already done so? Do you think they'll not notice I've provided a lot of lengthy posts with diagrams and algebra? If you're going to say "Come on, provide me with diagrams and algebra" at least do so in a thread where people don't have to just scroll up to see I have.

Is that all you can manage now? You've given a pathetic excuse of a conspiracy of silence as to why you won't submit your work to a journal, claiming they'll not understand your ground breaking genius, and now you're resorting to lying in a thread where I've posted huge pictures and you have even quoted them. And you think people won't notice that?

OK, I will wait until you have a scanner and will reserve comment until then.

Remember your goal is to use pictures to prove Einstein's proof of moving frame sphericallity with LT like I did to disprove it.

9. Originally Posted by Jack_

I suppose you do not get the fact the two light emission points diverge. Why would I possibly want to look at arguments claiming they remain in one location?

AN understands that part. I see you are still wrestling with that fact.
Jack, we covered that in previous threads. Go back and read them.

10. Originally Posted by Jack_
Remember your goal is to use pictures to prove Einstein's proof of moving frame sphericallity with LT like I did to disprove it.
Is there something wrong with your ability to use the word 'proof' in the correct place?

If someone puts forward 'a proof' which is then shown to be wrong it was never a proof in the first place, it was a flawed argument. You keep saying your argument is proof or asking me to provide a disproof of your proof. If I can disprove your 'proof' your 'proof' was never 'a proof'.

This isn't hard to grasp. It just illustrates how little experience you have with mathematical logic and methods, despite you desperately wanting people to believe you're well read.

And I've already given pictures. Pete and I have been over these things with you. I provide pictures, equations and explanation, you ignore them and then demand I provide pictures and equations. Do you think people don't notice I've already done is? Do you think people won't be able to scroll up through a thread and see I've given them? A few posts up I provide the algebra which proves that Lorentz transformations map the light cone in one frame to the light cone in another. It is literally putting in the definitions of (x',t') into the space-time interval expression. This is stuff 1st years do for homework. It's without the grasp of anyone who has done basic algebra.

I told you, including giving you the diagram made of circles and dots, that although the light cone maps to the light cone the points on the light cone are moved about. I also said, not just in this thread but weeks ago when you and I first discussed this, that the region inside the light cone is moved about but all points inside the light cone remain inside the light cone. Your diagram is simply an example of that. You've taken weeks to arrive at something I've already explained to you and after I gave you the diagram! And yet despite you arriving at the same diagram I gave you you think you've proven something new because you then make the wrong conclusions from the diagram. As I've said, this isn't a matter of algebra, its your interpretation of what the results mean which is the problem.

If you draw a light cone circle and then a series of smaller concentric circles and then apply a Lorentz boost you'll find the centre of the circles moves, as I gave in my diagram and as the diagram you gave implies (you plotted the Lorentz transformations of the radial lines) the circles will not longer be concentric but they'll all still be inside the light cone and the light cone will not have moved. The fact the circles aren't concentric is not a problem, its a trivial implication of coordinate transformations. Even in basic geometry you get such things, such as stereographic projections. Circles and lines map to circles and lines in a different but equivalent layout. If you'd ever done basic geometry and vector calculus taught in the courses leading up to special relativity you'd grasp this. But instead you skipped to relativity and assumed the information you didn't learn isn't important. Wrong. That's why its required material for any physics degree.

You seem to have some mental block in accepting that you don't understand everything you believe you do. Is it so hard to allow the possiblity that you might not have a perfect grasp of something you don't know very well and which you have no experience of? You keep telling me I don't understand it but I have evidence I do. I've demonstrated to the people who literally write the book on SR that I can do it. You haven't done anything of the sort and you believe you're the final word on something you don't even grasp.

I might come across as arrogant but at least I can justify my claims about !"I can do...." or "I have experience in....". You just go into denial and demand Pete and I provide you with something we've already provided you with and which you keep ignoring. The fact you're unwilling to submit your work to journals proves you know you're a fraud.

11. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Is there something wrong with your ability to use the word 'proof' in the correct place?

If someone puts forward 'a proof' which is then shown to be wrong it was never a proof in the first place, it was a flawed argument. You keep saying your argument is proof or asking me to provide a disproof of your proof. If I can disprove your 'proof' your 'proof' was never 'a proof'.

This isn't hard to grasp. It just illustrates how little experience you have with mathematical logic and methods, despite you desperately wanting people to believe you're well read.

And I've already given pictures. Pete and I have been over these things with you. I provide pictures, equations and explanation, you ignore them and then demand I provide pictures and equations. Do you think people don't notice I've already done is? Do you think people won't be able to scroll up through a thread and see I've given them? A few posts up I provide the algebra which proves that Lorentz transformations map the light cone in one frame to the light cone in another. It is literally putting in the definitions of (x',t') into the space-time interval expression. This is stuff 1st years do for homework. It's without the grasp of anyone who has done basic algebra.

I told you, including giving you the diagram made of circles and dots, that although the light cone maps to the light cone the points on the light cone are moved about. I also said, not just in this thread but weeks ago when you and I first discussed this, that the region inside the light cone is moved about but all points inside the light cone remain inside the light cone. Your diagram is simply an example of that. You've taken weeks to arrive at something I've already explained to you and after I gave you the diagram! And yet despite you arriving at the same diagram I gave you you think you've proven something new because you then make the wrong conclusions from the diagram. As I've said, this isn't a matter of algebra, its your interpretation of what the results mean which is the problem.

If you draw a light cone circle and then a series of smaller concentric circles and then apply a Lorentz boost you'll find the centre of the circles moves, as I gave in my diagram and as the diagram you gave implies (you plotted the Lorentz transformations of the radial lines) the circles will not longer be concentric but they'll all still be inside the light cone and the light cone will not have moved. The fact the circles aren't concentric is not a problem, its a trivial implication of coordinate transformations. Even in basic geometry you get such things, such as stereographic projections. Circles and lines map to circles and lines in a different but equivalent layout. If you'd ever done basic geometry and vector calculus taught in the courses leading up to special relativity you'd grasp this. But instead you skipped to relativity and assumed the information you didn't learn isn't important. Wrong. That's why its required material for any physics degree.

You seem to have some mental block in accepting that you don't understand everything you believe you do. Is it so hard to allow the possiblity that you might not have a perfect grasp of something you don't know very well and which you have no experience of? You keep telling me I don't understand it but I have evidence I do. I've demonstrated to the people who literally write the book on SR that I can do it. You haven't done anything of the sort and you believe you're the final word on something you don't even grasp.

I might come across as arrogant but at least I can justify my claims about !"I can do...." or "I have experience in....". You just go into denial and demand Pete and I provide you with something we've already provided you with and which you keep ignoring. The fact you're unwilling to submit your work to journals proves you know you're a fraud.
No, I am not a fraud.

If I were you could prove it and you are dying to do that, I know.

I have justified my claims but you and Pete talk.

Here is how you two work. You are wrong Jack_. Then the other says you are wrong Jack_.

Then you both say, you proved me wrong.

If looks like you are not up to the task.

I have a question for you.

What is your view of why MMX and Sagnac disagree on resuilts. I am not trying to trap you.

The original Sagnac experiment used straight light paths.

12. Jack, the problem is that you are boring. I've engaged you at length in discussion, but you repeatedly ignored what I said. Why should I dance to your tune?
Go back and read the earlier threads. That's where you'll find the detailed argument.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Ass...rouscranus.jpg
Ferrous Cranus
Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

13. Originally Posted by Pete
Jack, the problem is that you are boring. I've engaged you at length in discussion, but you repeatedly ignored what I said. Why should I dance to your tune?
Go back and read the earlier threads. That's where you'll find the detailed argument.

I can't decide which of the following describes you best.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/lamer.jpg
[i]Lamer
Mediocrity is Lamer's salient characteristic, yet the word "mediocre" seems inadequate to fully encompass the crushing dullness of his personality. Not one of his utterances demonstrates the faintest insight on any topic, no glimmer of wit or humor brightens his conversation, nor does stone ignorance of the subject at hand discourage him from sharing his views. He isn't even obnoxious enough to justify banning him from the forum. He's a very weak Warrior in the conventional sense, but not even the most stalwart opponent can withstand prolonged contact with this truly fearsome Warrior.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Ass...rouscranus.jpg
Ferrous Cranus
Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.
Right Pete.

There are proofs here.

I see you ran from those.

Everyone is watching you.

They wonder why you do not use math.

14. Originally Posted by Jack_
Right Pete.

There are proofs here.

I see you ran from those.

Everyone is watching you.

They wonder why you do not use math.
Boring, Jack. I've done the math already. My work, and your ignorance of it, is there for all to see. I'm not wasting my time again.

15. Originally Posted by Pete
Boring, Jack. I've done the math already. My work, and your ignorance of it, is there for all to see. I'm not wasting my time again.

Pete, you do not do math I do.

Post it now and show everyone.

If you do , I will rip it apart.

16. Your lies are transparent, Jack.
The record shows that I've posted more math then you could handle already. It was time consuming work, and you didn't even pretend to understand it.

Come back when you have a coherent reponse to all you previously ignored.
Or, just keep wasting your life blowing your own horn. It's up to you.

I sincerely hope you have a fulfilling life, but I can't waste my time with you.

17. Originally Posted by Jack_
Pete, you do not do math I do.

Post it now and show everyone.

If you do , I will rip it apart.
You tell the same lies again and again as if people aren't going to be able to scroll up through the thread or find other threads you've started in pseudo. You act as if your claims can't be checked.

Which only serves to illustrate the weakness of your argument.

18. Jack, my life is busier than normal but I still intend to examine your alleged paradoxes when I get a break. I think this sums up one of them (correct me if I'm wrong):

Given any light source, there are infinite frames within which the light appears to spherically radiate and this causes a contradiction.

Without getting into the heavy lifting it seems that you are making observations from a "super-privileged" vantage point by accessing multiple frames. I believe Einstein would require that agents actually observe the outward radiation by way of mirrors arranged spherically relative to each frame being referenced. I'm not able to do this on the back of a napkin but, frankly, I have faith that 100 years of folks devoting their lives to understanding SR would have already encountered and addressed such a fundamental issue.

19. Originally Posted by RJBeery
Jack, my life is busier than normal but I still intend to examine your alleged paradoxes when I get a break. I think this sums up one of them (correct me if I'm wrong):

Given any light source, there are infinite frames within which the light appears to spherically radiate and this causes a contradiction.

Without getting into the heavy lifting it seems that you are making observations from a "super-privileged" vantage point by accessing multiple frames. I believe Einstein would require that agents actually observe the outward radiation by way of mirrors arranged spherically relative to each frame being referenced. I'm not able to do this on the back of a napkin but, frankly, I have faith that 100 years of folks devoting their lives to understanding SR would have already encountered and addressed such a fundamental issue.

Great, actual debate without nonsense.
Yes, the bold is what I am saying exactly.

But, it is not me that made the ."super-privileged" leap of faith. It was Einstein. The fundamental component to SR is the clock sync. Without it, SR id dead. In fact, the clock sync is the basis for LT construction.

Now, the clock sync asserts the light path is precisely the path between the light emission point in the frame and the light receiver. But, Einstein went even further, he asserted,
We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

This is extremely aggressive for a theory of science. Free from contradictions asserts a tautological truth.

Therefore, Einstein asserted it is a tautological truth that for all light emissions and for all possible frames therefrom, the light path is precisely from the light emission point in the frame to the light receiver. More generally, light proceeds spherically from the light emission point in all frames.

Consequently, Einstein asserted the ."super-privileged" logic that each frame must carry its own personal light sphere and that is a tautological truth to support his individual frame tautological truth that the light emission point in that frame is logically valid.

Then of course, this implies one light sphere emerges into an infinite number of light spheres.

20. Originally Posted by Pete
The record shows that I've posted more math then you could handle already. It was time consuming work, and you didn't even pretend to understand it.

Come back when you have a coherent reponse to all you previously ignored.
Or, just keep wasting your life blowing your own horn. It's up to you.

I sincerely hope you have a fulfilling life, but I can't waste my time with you.
You did nothing in that thread to refute the stationary view of each frame.
Then you did nothing to refute the comparison adter the experiment.

This is just talk.

Further, I have many proofs in this thread. At this point, they are all logically secure.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•