SR is dead.

The pdf covers it. The points move to the negative x region, thus the LT(2+h) point is closer to the origin, and to the right of LT(2) and thus it gets hit first.

There is no contradiction, no problem, no issue with function maps, nothing. Under a sufficiently large boost in the x direction the 2 points at x=2 and x=2+h are shifted to the left so much that their x' values become quite negative. The LT(2+h) is then closer to the origin, where the light sphere spreads from, and so it gets hit first.

It's shown in the picture in the pdf. The LT slides the points from the right to the left and in the new frame the sphere spreading from the origin hits LT(2+h) first. Where is the problem? You accept my algebra and you've previously accepted my picture. Thus you accept there is nothing wrong. Therefore you accept your initial claim was mistaken. The thread is done.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you claim the next point is hit first in the primed frame and you agree the the start point was hit later and now the light sphere is at the next primed position, do you agree the clock at that position is the correct time yes or no.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why are you asking me questions when it's all in the document? The positions and times are right. It's all as expected. The picture Andrew Banks provided on ViXra is wrong, he mixes frames.

In Frame S the points are in the positive x region. In the Frame S' they are in the negative x region.

You've admitted you agree with my algebra. You've admitted you agree with my picture. You agree with me. Thus you agree your initial claim was false.

I just closed the logic thread because you were asking questions you'd already been given the answers to. Now you're doing it here. See how dishonest you are, time and again?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.