I have no idea what you are saying. If C' and M are co-located, the light postulate puts the light pulse at P1. That is the only correct answer.
Now, are you claiming the light pulse is at 2 different places if C' and M are co-located?
SR Issue
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
I have no idea what you are saying. If C' and M are co-located, the light postulate puts the light pulse at P1. That is the only correct answer.
Now, are you claiming the light pulse is at 2 different places if C' and M are co-located?
You are not getting it. This is not an observer issue. If C' and M are co-located, the light is at P1 period. Observers do not matter here.
So, it is at P1 in the primed system. Oh, LT says it is at P2. That is wrong. That is not where the light is if C' and M are co-located.
Now, indicate why P2 is correct.
Two points...You keep asking for proof.
SR is quite factual, as has been observationally shown for more then a 100 years.
And of course you and I both being just nobodies as far as the mathematics of SR is concerned, but where I am one rung up the ladder from you, is the fact I recognise all the observational and practical evidence of SR, while you are blinkered and burdened with religious dogma and creationism... :shrug:
And that's why you are in the fringe alternative hypothesis section.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
You have no idea what I am saying!!!???!!! LOL!!!!!!
Let's make it simple for you. Are you claiming that P2 and E are not simultaneous according to the unprimed frame?
You are not being clear. Why are you asking me questions. You should take time to explain yourself.
Let me make it simple for you.
E and P1 are simultaneous for the primed frame.
E and P2 are simultaneous for the unprimed frame.
However, when event E is true, the correct answer for the location of the light in the primed frame is P1.
When event E is true, LT claims the light is at P2 in the primed frame which is false. LT got the wrong answer.
Otherwise, you are claiming E/P1 simultaneous primed and E/P2 simultaneous unprimed where P1 and P2 are primed 4-coordinates, therefore given event E is true, light is at both P1 and P2 in the primed frame, which is a contradiction.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Excellent. I agree.
Also, E and P1 are NOT simultaneous according to the unprimed frame.
And, E and P2 are NOT simultaneous according to the primed frame.
No, that is false, as written. If you want to be clear, you should say:
"According to the primed frame, when event E is true, the correct answer for the location of the light in the primed frame is P1."
And you could also say:
"According to the unprimed frame, when event E is true, the correct answer for the location of the light in the unprimed frame is P2."
That would correctly give you the reciprocal symmetry of LT & SR, and you cannot claim one frame is correct or the other frame is wrong. Agreed?
----------------------
Assuming you agree to the above, we can reduce your argument to the fact that applying the LT to P2 does not produce P1, and applying the LT to P1 does not produce P2. But given they are two different events, the LT is not supposed to transform one to the other. Hence your argument is lost.
Applying the LT to P1 just produces P1 using the coordinates of a different frame. Likewise, applying the LT to P2 just produces P2 using the coordinates of a different frame. That is all the LT is supposed to do.
Well Neddy, since he has openly stated that time dilation, length contraction and the validity of all FoR's with regards to relativity is false, I predict he'll be once again telling some of his many falsehoods, and confusing statements when he returns.
chinglu, you've been soundly routed in your vane attempt to again invalidate SR.....And yet you continue trying to invalidate accepted SR and other science aspects in other threads such as Evolution and Abiogenesis.
Of course your continued efforts in trying to invalidate SR, probably stems from the issue of how starlight from the most distant galaxies is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale.
Remembering that under normal circumstances we would be inclined to think that it should take billions of years for their starlight to reach us. Yet, the mythical bible teaches that the universe is only thousands of years old.
Is this the nonsense you continue to try and support chinglu, by every insidious means possible?
Is this the mob you evangelise for?
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress...on-scientist-overthrows-einsteins-relativity/
Of course your continued efforts in trying to invalidate SR, probably stems from the issue of how starlight from the most distant galaxies is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale.
Remembering that under normal circumstances we would be inclined to think that it should take billions of years for their starlight to reach us. Yet, the mythical bible teaches that the universe is only thousands of years old.
Is this the nonsense you continue to try and support chinglu, by every insidious means possible?
Is this the mob you evangelise for?
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress...on-scientist-overthrows-einsteins-relativity/
Last edited:
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Wow!!! If that is chinglu's motivation, then he is even worse off than I thought!!
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Something to keep in mind is that, under the rules of SR, all of the stationary clocks in frame Σ are synchronised to each other using light signals. This process is called Einstein synchronisation. Clocks which have been synchronised according to Einstein synchronisation always measure the speed of light to be the constant c. Therefore frame Σ measures the speed of light to be the constant c.
Likewise, all of the stationary clocks in frame Σ' are synchronised to each other using Einstsein synchronisation, and therefore frame Σ' must also measure the speed of light to be that same constant, c.
Imagine you and I are watching a fast moving train passing by us, and inside the train we are watching some people Einstein synchronise their clocks. One clock is near the rear of the train, and the other clock is near the front of the train. We see the light signals traveling from rear to front as taking more time to travel than the light signals traveling from front to rear. So as we watch, we see the people on the train consistently set the clock near the rear ahead of the clock near the front. Even though they think their clocks are displaying the same times as each other simultaneously, we say their clocks are displaying two different times simultaneously.
The reciprocal is also true. The people on the train can watch me and you Einstein synchronise our clocks, and they can say that we are consistently setting one clock to a different time than the other, even though we think our clocks display the same times as each other simultaneously.
With two sets of relatively moving clocks, each synchronised in this way, the two frames can never agree on the simultaneity of events which are spacially separated along the axis of motion between the frames. Therefore simultaneity must be a frame-dependent concept under this arrangement. What chinglu objects to, really, is just relativity of simultaneity (ROS). But ROS is an unavoidable consequence of having both frames synchronise their clocks using Einstsein synchronisation. Thus chinglu's argument is doomed to fail.
Likewise, all of the stationary clocks in frame Σ' are synchronised to each other using Einstsein synchronisation, and therefore frame Σ' must also measure the speed of light to be that same constant, c.
Imagine you and I are watching a fast moving train passing by us, and inside the train we are watching some people Einstein synchronise their clocks. One clock is near the rear of the train, and the other clock is near the front of the train. We see the light signals traveling from rear to front as taking more time to travel than the light signals traveling from front to rear. So as we watch, we see the people on the train consistently set the clock near the rear ahead of the clock near the front. Even though they think their clocks are displaying the same times as each other simultaneously, we say their clocks are displaying two different times simultaneously.
The reciprocal is also true. The people on the train can watch me and you Einstein synchronise our clocks, and they can say that we are consistently setting one clock to a different time than the other, even though we think our clocks display the same times as each other simultaneously.
With two sets of relatively moving clocks, each synchronised in this way, the two frames can never agree on the simultaneity of events which are spacially separated along the axis of motion between the frames. Therefore simultaneity must be a frame-dependent concept under this arrangement. What chinglu objects to, really, is just relativity of simultaneity (ROS). But ROS is an unavoidable consequence of having both frames synchronise their clocks using Einstsein synchronisation. Thus chinglu's argument is doomed to fail.
Last edited:
OK.
Here, no point in continuing your post. This is wrong right here. I proved E is true in the primed frame if and only if E is true in the primed frame.
Hence, the event E is true in both frames. That is the part that getting you messed up.
This is good for you to understand there is only one time in the frame. This is one key in understanding what I have presented. The other is that E is true in one frame iff E is true in the other.
Once you get these 2 things down, you are on your way to understanding the correct logic.
He is a clown that makes things up.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
chinglu,
I claim the following are both true, according to SR:
1. According to the primed frame, when event E is true, the correct answer for the location of the light in the primed frame is P1.
2. According to the unprimed frame, when event E is true, the correct answer for the location of the light in the unprimed frame is P2.
As far as I can tell, you are claiming #1 is true but #2 is false. If so, you are making the primed frame the preferred frame. There are no preferred frames in SR.
On the other hand, if you agree that both #1 and #2 are true according to SR, then you are contradicting your own claim that P1 is the only correct answer.
I claim the following are both true, according to SR:
1. According to the primed frame, when event E is true, the correct answer for the location of the light in the primed frame is P1.
2. According to the unprimed frame, when event E is true, the correct answer for the location of the light in the unprimed frame is P2.
As far as I can tell, you are claiming #1 is true but #2 is false. If so, you are making the primed frame the preferred frame. There are no preferred frames in SR.
On the other hand, if you agree that both #1 and #2 are true according to SR, then you are contradicting your own claim that P1 is the only correct answer.
This is true for me above. So, we do not need to mess with this anymore.
What I am saying is E is true for unprimed if and only if it is true for primed.
Then, I conclude the light is at P1 iff it is at P2. This is propositional logic. Since the primed frame light postulate is an axiom, it is not preferred but assumed true. LT is a derivation and is below the light postulate.
Anyway, we seem to be at odds over the below statement.
"E is true for unprimed if and only if it is true for primed"
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
If you agree that both #1 and #2 are true according to SR, then you are contradicting your own claim that P1 is the only correct answer.
No, we are not at odds over that. I agree that E is one single event which both frames agree occurs in one place at one time. There is no disagreement between C' and M that event E happens when they are co-located.
If you think we disagree on this, then you must be seriously confused about what events are in SR. Wow, you are lost man. You'll be better off if you just forget everything you think you know, and start over.
No, once again you spew falsehoods.
Of course you are motivated by Creationists policies...Your opposition and denial of Abiogenesis and Evolution prove that.
Do you deny being permanently banned on other forums, due to your obstinate, persistent non scientific approach to SR?
And how many threads have you had closed in this forum chinglu?
And as I have put to you umpteen times, if you had anything, anything at all, worthy of science in invalidating SR, you would not be here...would you now?
The forum knows who the clown is my dear friend!
Just look in the mirror!
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
LOL. In another of chinglu's threads, (which got put in the cesspool for being so utterly ridiculous), he asks for proof that SR is self consistent. He assumes two frames are in relative motion in the standard configuration, and when the two origins are common, a light pulse is emitted from the origins. He asks if anyone can prove SR is logically consistent under these conditions.
How can he not be aware that the Lorentz Transforms (LT) can be derived from that very arrangement?!?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivations_of_the_Lorentz_transformations#Spherical_wavefronts_of_light
Hopefully he will do some studying during his week long ban.
How can he not be aware that the Lorentz Transforms (LT) can be derived from that very arrangement?!?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivations_of_the_Lorentz_transformations#Spherical_wavefronts_of_light
Hopefully he will do some studying during his week long ban.