Time doesn't run regularly when he's moving fast. It slows down. From his perspective, time is moving regular. So a few seconds might go by for him while years might go by to somebody moving slower. The why and how is what we are trying to figure out. We know is that there is a speed C that is constant no matter what. When one observer is moving slower than another observer, time flows faster for the slower observer than it does for the faster observer.
Since we've been talking about his perspective all the them then where's the contention? His clock runs regularly, whatever speed he's doing. Um no. I'm trying to find out why you think his clock stops when he reaches C.
No. Because C is constant. Thus, how is it possible for time to flow in the frame of reference of an observer moving at C? Say you have 2 observers at origin, O1 observes O2 moving at C in the east direction. O2 observes O1 moving at C in the west direction. Meanwhile, they both perceive themselves as stationary. Relative to O1, O2 is traveling at C. Relative to O2, O1 is traveling at C. Whose time isn't flowing?
How is it NOT possible? You're still speculating based on your own fallacious understanding (although I consider that too strong a word for this case). Badly worded: if they're both at the origin how are they moving? According to whom? Each of them observes their own clock running normally.
To each observer, the other is moving at C. And to each observer, time isn't flowing for the other observer. If O1 sees O2 moving east a C, 1 year will go by for O1 when O2 is 1ly away. But how can this be if relative to O2, time isn't flowing for O1 while O2 is stationary? What happened?
So you're using the fact you can't do any coordinate transformations in special relativity because you don't know any special relativity as a justification for special relativity being wrong? Basic "Who measures what and where?" questions are covered in any undergrad course on relativity and are very much within the reach of anyone competent at high school mathematics. Get ahold of some lecture notes.
You are correct, and this is why Einstein's SR is a failure as a true theory of relativity. Einstein agrees that all motion is relative but in his theory the fates of a moving and stationary observers are different. The problem is Einstein's SR contains absolutism to reference frames and still claims to be a theory of relativity. Impossible indeed. edit: Also, only clocks retard time never does. It is frame invariant.
Then you should be able to explicitly demonstrate that via a series of frame transformations and physical world lines that SR predicts two different answers for something. Something tells me you won't.....
You are perfectly correct when you say that you (I assume you are writing generically) should be able..... However, in this forum, a post that presents such a demonstration lasts for one minute, or two at the most, before getting canned and deep sixed by the site goons. You are making a brilliant observation when you reveal that "Something tells you that you won't......". (He said, his words dripping with sarcasm). Of course "you won't". The goons, including you, good buddy, are going to make sure that "you won't". Might makes right round here. One of the dear old beloved ex participants of this site has been publishing such demonstrations somewhere else for a while now. You know who, perhaps. Perhaps not. Special Relativity definitely predicts that different observers will observe contradictorily varied results of the same event. But Hell will be frozen over solid to the core before you know who posts the good news in this rag site again. You, Alphaneumetric, are a lying hypocrite when you tauntingly write of the lack of such demonstration. You are a lying hypocrite because you would be, as you have already been, eagerly the one to throw the first stone when someone has submitted such an alleged demonstration.
P S: So your thing is 100%. Nice. What you haven't figured out yet is that they have you pegged as a real good mather. You are going to be their computer. You don't know what that means. During the first half of the 1900s, before the advent of electric computers, people with a natural talent to easily do complex math were prized as being "computers". The syndrome was: little or no creative ability, often IQ below average, but an instinctive ability to do prodigeous math calculation in their head. Idiot savants. Physicists in charge of the creative thrust of important projects had to have idiot savants to carry out the maths. Salud.
I have yet to see anyone use Lorentz transformations to examine the system described a few posts up to illustrate their claim special relativity has a contradiction. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate special relativity has a contradiction at all. How am I a lying hypocrite for stating a fact? Yes, it's a fact a lot of people can't accept but its a fact none-the-less. Anyone how has such evidence shouldn't be posting it on forums, they should be submitting it to a journal. Mathematical proof special relativity is inconsistent would be HUGE. Journals would love to have something like that, if correct, because it would be one of the most cited papers in history. Anyone who 'publishes' original work on a forum is automatically illustrating hack behaviour. Anyone with decent work can submit it to a journal. If an article can't stand up on its own then its not valid or not sufficiently well developed. In the Manhattan project Feynman, the guy who did the nuclear physics, used dozens of secretaries as his make-shift computer. He worked out the theory and then gave it to someone who didn't understand the theory but could do simple things like add two numbers or square root or multiple. Put them together in the right order, which Feynman also worked out, and you have a very simple algorithm hardwired into your 'computer'. Ah, so the fact I'm good at mathematics means I have little or not creative ability and possibly a below average IQ? Wow, you got that all from the fact I don't accept baseless claims and without knowing me or having any knowledge about any of my work. My thesis was done with almost no help from my supervisor, not a single result came from her. I have a paper I write entirely myself, which makes absolutely no use of a computer in any way. You make the mistake of thinking that because I'm good at physics and mathematics I must therefore be good at nothing but 'idiot savant' number crunching. Tell you what, rather than you making up your own little imaginary narrative for people you don't know and their work, which you also don't know, why don't you spend your time writing up a clear, coherent and airtight proof to the inconsistency of special relativity and submit it to a journal. You know, put your physics where your mouth is. I'll go toe to toe with anyone when it comes to the areas of maths and physics I claim to know about, I have nothing to hide. I have original published work in peer reviewed respected journals. All the special relativity nay-sayers in this and other threads don't. Many talk about working on some amazing model of everything but nothing ever materialises and they never put their physics where their mouth is. I don't apologise for actually knowing things. Knowledge isn't a dirty word or a disease, you shouldn't shy away from it. The fact you try to insult me for actually being good at something, something so many hacks here wish they were good at but aren't, is laughable.
How are other posters on the forum capable of stopping other posters working out some Lorentz transformations?
