Prove SR is consistent

[chinglu]

Assume 2 frames are in relative motion in the standard configuration. When the two origins are common, a light pulse is emitted from the origins.

Can anyone prove SR is logically consistent under these conditions?

I think that means a point (x,y,z,t) is on the spherical light wave (SLW) in the unprimed frame if and only if the corresponding point (x',y',z',t') is on the spherical light wave (SLW) in the primed frame.

Now, if this is not correct, please indicate why.

In any event, please provide a proof.

Thanks

 

[krash661]

Assume 2 frames are in relative motion in the standard configuration. When the two origins are common, a light pulse is emitted from the origins.

Can anyone prove SR is logically consistent under these conditions?

I think that means a point (x,y,z,t) is on the spherical light wave (SLW) in the unprimed frame if and only if the corresponding point (x',y',z',t') is on the spherical light wave (SLW) in the primed frame.

Now, if this is not correct, please indicate why.

In any event, please provide a proof.

Thanks

unbelievably hilarious.

 

[brucep]

Assume 2 frames are in relative motion in the standard configuration. When the two origins are common, a light pulse is emitted from the origins.

Can anyone prove SR is logically consistent under these conditions?

I think that means a point (x,y,z,t) is on the spherical light wave (SLW) in the unprimed frame if and only if the corresponding point (x',y',z',t') is on the spherical light wave (SLW) in the primed frame.

Now, if this is not correct, please indicate why.

In any event, please provide a proof.

Thanks

Like 2 rockets in freefall intersecting at a common place and time [a big boom] and the 'big boom' results in a fireball [a bunch of light pulses spewing into the surrounding spacetime] can relativity theory describe the path of the rockets and the resulting fireball? Sure. But you need to know how the theory works. And you've made it clear that you're not really interested in what relativity predicts for these geodesics. You're only interested in spewing nonsense. Like asking somebody to prove that the theory of relativity is logically consistent. Read a text. The answer to your query can be found there.

Should be interesting to find out who is still interested in teaching you 'science stuff'.

 

[chinglu]

Like 2 rockets in freefall intersecting at a common place and time [a big boom] and the 'big boom' results in a fireball [a bunch of light pulses spewing into the surrounding spacetime] can relativity theory describe the path of the rockets and the resulting fireball? Sure. But you need to know how the theory works. And you've made it clear that you're not really interested in what relativity predicts for these geodesics. You're only interested in spewing nonsense. Like asking somebody to prove that the theory of relativity is logically consistent. Read a text. The answer to your query can be found there.

Should be interesting to find out whose still interested in teaching you 'science stuff'.

How is this a math proof? SR is a math theory so it should have a proof showing it is consistent. If it does not, then prove that.

 

[brucep]

How is this a math proof? SR is a math theory so it should have a proof showing it is consistent. If it does not, then prove that.

The chance you could understand the proof is nil as evidenced by everything you've posted on this subject. It's not math it's mathematical physics. That means you need to do the physics using the appropriate mathematics. Physics. You just 'skid marked' your last thread forgetting to do the physics. It was explained to you numerous times. You 'always' respond by stonewalling those that explained it to you by 'doing the physics for you'. Stuff your irrelevant 'math'. This thread should be sent to alternative theory because it's just a rehash of what you didn't learn in your last thread.

 

[chinglu]

The chance you could understand the proof is nil as evidenced by everything you've posted on this subject. It's not math it's mathematical physics. That means you need to do the physics using the appropriate mathematics. Physics. You just 'skid marked' your last thread forgetting to do the physics. It was explained to you numerous times. You 'always' respond by stonewalling those that explained it to you by 'doing the physics for you'. Stuff your irrelevant 'math'. This thread should be sent to alternative theory because it's just a rehash of what you didn't learn in your last thread.

You do not have a proof? You can call me all the names you want however if you had said proof you would present it.

Now, if you have this proof, show the readers here you know what you are doing. Why are you so worried about me? Show them.

 

[brucep]

You do not have a proof? You can call me all the names you want however if you had said proof you would present it.

Now, if you have this proof, show the readers here you know what you are doing. Why are you so worried about me? Show them.

You mean like you showing the other readers? LOL. Fool. You want to act like you deserve respect in such a discussion. To late dude. To much whining stonewall.

Go away. Come back after you read the text.

 

[chinglu]

You mean like you showing the other readers? LOL. Fool. You want to act like you deserve respect in such a discussion. To late dude. To much whining stonewall.

Go away. Come back after you read the text.

"To late dude" try too.

Anyway, you do not have a proof. I thought so.

Hopefully, someone that knows what they are doing will provide this proof. If not, then SR would be a theory based strictly on faith, sort of religion.

I am certain that is not true, so why not move along and let someone answer this who knows what they are doing.

 

[PhysBang]

Hopefully, someone that knows what they are doing will provide this proof. .

Many people have shown you "proofs". You are either too trollish or too mentally ill to accept them.

 

[paddoboy]

"
Hopefully, someone that knows what they are doing will provide this proof. If not, then SR would be a theory based strictly on faith, sort of religion.
I am certain that is not true, so why not move along and let someone answer this who knows what they are doing.

I predict this thread will also end up in the fringe section, and your insidious method of virtually rehashing in another guise, what was previously shifted to the fringe section should not go unnoticed.

 

[paddoboy]

Now, if you have this proof, show the readers here you know what you are doing. Why are you so worried about me? Show them.

It's you chinglu, not other readers. No one has ever yet back up any of your insidiously hidden agenda in trying to invalidate SR/GR.
YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. GET IT?

Hopefully, someone that knows what they are doing will provide this proof. If not, then SR would be a theory based strictly on faith, sort of religion.

Plenty have provided proof over more than a 100 years....Many giants of the past and present still sing the praises of how well SR and GR align with reality......
Plenty of SR/GR educated people on this and other forums have also shown you, many times over many posts, in many forums, but to no avail.
Like most Creationists God Botherers, you are not interested in the truth, and are just on a zealously evanegalistic crusade, to discredit SR/GR Evolution/Abiogenesis, as all can logically show up the invalid nature of the claims the likes of you and others that believe such myth must push to gain any semblance of respectibility.
Guess what? You fail.

 

[brucep]

"To late dude" try too.

Anyway, you do not have a proof. I thought so.

Hopefully, someone that knows what they are doing will provide this proof. If not, then SR would be a theory based strictly on faith, sort of religion.

I am certain that is not true, so why not move along and let someone answer this who knows what they are doing.

You need a brain transplant. If the theory of relativity wasn't logically consistent the transformation equations wouldn't work. Your entire troll is to model a thought experiment with unphysical parameters and claim it is the theoretical models fault. Then you expect folks to give a shit about your intellectual dishonest analysis. Go tout yourself to the creationist bunch where fact and logic take a back seat to ideology.