SR is dead.

I read that but it is not valuable.

You made the obvious observation that t'2 < t'1 and |x'2| < |x'1|.

But, what you did not address is after further propagation of the light wave in the unprimed frame, then the light like space time interval as measured from the origins is invariant.

That means (t,x,y,z) iff (t',x',y',z'). You cannot escape this truth.

If the space time interval as measured from the origins is invariant, that means the SLW moved closer to the primed origin which contradicts the light postulate in the primed frame.

Any defense you take must refute the invariance of the space time interval as measured from the origins.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wrong, I will try to answer any intelligent question.

You have yet to have one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

nosce animum tuum

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know my soul, it doesn't tolerate polluting trolls.

 

AN, many sorries.

I failed to thank you for opening the thread, so I am in error.

But, thanks.

 

Oh, that imples you can prove why the application of the Kleene recursion theorem is false along the line y=10 which refutes SR.

But, if you refute the Kleene recursion theorem, then you refute set theory.

So, what is your answer?

 

I can prove that you are trolling. Again.

 

You have the post to deal with. Otherwise, declare defeat and withdraw in dishonor.

 

Chinglu you have not shown where my algebra is wrong. I demonstrate that the points map to one aand only one point each and that we expect , nay require, that for large enough v the order changes. Last chance, point to the explicit line of work and demonstrate it invalid or this thread is going back to locked and you're banned for at least several days.

You demand people respond yet you fail to step up. This is trolling and is not contributing.

 

Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner!

Really, the swifter the banhammer is wielded to bring righteous expulsion of this waste of bandwidth the better.

 

Rlativity is no wrong. Rlativity is true. But SR is wrong.

 

Prove it.

 

1. Note that the Lorentz transformations in the transverse extent are absolute (y '= y, z' = z). Why did Einstein transverse scale did absolute? On what basis did he do it? Are justified it? No!

2. If take the absoluteness away the transverse scale, we get a free parameter for each value of which we can build a separate theory of relativity. SR - this is one of an infinite number of theories.

3. Among all these theories there exist one a relativistic theory in which time is absolute. In this theory there is no twin paradox and the paradox of Ehrenfest, no exist limitations on speed, mass is absolute, and Newton's mechanics and Galilean transformations are valid. I call this theory as - "Master Theory".

 

Ah, you are repeating the same nonsense as before. The answer is as before, the transforms derived by Einstein in his paper are for the case when v is aligned with Ox and all the axes are aligned (Ox with O'x', Oy with O'y' and Oz with O'z')

So, as before, I will show you the general Lorentz transforms that affect all spatial directions (as well as time, of course). See here

You have been given this explanation several times before, why do you persist in this nonsense? Because you are unable to learn the simplest things about SR?

We call this "BS Theory".

 

We're talking about different theories. (Your cross-scale are absolute.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

________________________________________________________________

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nah, the only thing that is absolute is your inability to understand basic SR.


[

 

Your argument is no adequate.

 

Why would I claim you algegra is wrong?

I said clearly that your algebra is correct.

I like your algebra combined with the truth of the invariance light like space time interval.

Therefore, the light sphere is at (2+h,10,0) if and only if it is at (LT(2+h),10,0). At that position, in the primed frame, the clock has less elapsed time than does (LT(2),10,0). And again, by the truth of the invariance light like space time interval, that is the correct actual time on that clock.

Therefore, time proceeded backward under the rules of SR.

Now, are you going to address this factual SR logic?

 

You are a very good troll.

 

Actually they are justified. That's what happens when you exponentiate the generator of the Lorentz boost in the x direction, you obtain an element which acts trivially on all tranverse spatial directions.

The maximal set of transforms which preserve the Lorentz metric form the group O(1,3). When parity is taken into account this reduces to SO(1,3). There is no parametrised family of groups.

Then you are in contradiction to reality. Your 'master theory' is experimentally false.