# Nobel Prize for Relativity

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Uno Hoo, Mar 20, 2010.

1. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,227
I'm not quite sure what you're promoting here, especially with the comment on taking "responsibility for their actions and decisions".
So you want to suggest (or argue) that the Nobel Committee, and science, will sweep under the carpet anything that shows relativity to be wrong? On the grounds of "social responsibility".

That they'll ignore (and maybe suppress) anything that overthrows current knowledge because they don't want to admit that "we got it wrong"?
That they will continue to promote the "pillars of science" even after work has been published that show these pillars to be hollow?

And then you go on to claim that you know what you're talking about?
Wow...

3. ### przyksquishyValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,203
If you want to understand where he's coming from, browse around his website: http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/.

5. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
How? What actions and decisions of mine are you referring to?

This is nonsense. The fact relativity and quantum theory have lasted for decades is not a matter of people refusing to accept anything against them but because no one has found anything against them.

Take the Standard Model for instance. I know people who devote all of their research to doing huge statistical analysis of particle accelerator results so that they can check to an enormous accuracy the predictions of the model. They want to find a deviation because it implies new physics can be examined and our understanding expanded. We know the SM isn't exactly true and we're desperate to find out where and how it breaks down.

I fail to see what any of this has to do with what I said.

Well either you knew a very very small number of scientists or you're simply making up a lie in order to 'justify' your point of view.

I have a degree in mathematics and a PhD in physics. I have met loads of scientists who are willing to admit they are wrong. In fact I admit I've been wrong a fair few times so your argument, that you've never met such a person, is now nullified as you've 'met' me.

I heavily suspect you're lying about having done a PhD in a science area because of what you said about peer review. To claim that a falsification of an idea which has passed peer review would mean the description of peer review shows you're ignorant of what peer review is and how the scientific method works. Peer review existed pre-1900 and such people as Newton and Maxwell had published tons of material which had passed peer review. Then in 1905 Newton was demonstrated wrong and again in 1915. Maxwell was demonstrated wrong on the quantum level in the 1920s. Peer review survived.

In fact it was the Royal Society which sent an expedition to observer the eclipse in 1919 which demonstrated Einstein's GR was a superior theory to Newton's gravitational models. Despite Newton having been head of the Royal Society and perhaps the greatest physicist ever it was the Royal Society which did the experiment which proved him wrong and then informed the world.

Actually, having just seen your website I am certain that either you lied about having a PhD and postdoc qualifications or the subject within which you have such qualifications is not a science one. Or a mathematical one, given what you say about the structure of Lorentz transformations. If you knew anything about group theory (which is essential for any kind of particle physics or GR) you'd know that they are mathematically consistent.

You are arguing from a position of willful ignorance and fabricating claims about the community. You have no clue about the role peer review plays or how science is utterly dependent on the face people can publish work which invalidates previous work, how else would it move on? If your claims were right we'd still be using Newtonian mechanics for everything as no one in the early 1900s would have accepted relativity.

7. ### tsmidRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
368
Really? What's your actual name then and where do you work?

My credentials can easily be checked out if you put some effort into it (which I see you haven't done).

If you are not prepared to reveal your actual identity here, then this just confirms what I said with regard to the responsibility that some scientists are not prepared to take on (or as it may be, you are just not a scientist at all).

Thomas

8. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
I find it hard to believe someone with your view of the scientific community can actually be in it or has been in it at some point. I don't deny there are some people who won't admit when they are wrong but its by no means the totality you're claiming. Certainly your comment on peer review is just flat out wrong.

And you're right, I didn't put any effort to check who you are because frankly I don't care. Your website simply confirmed for me that you haven't a clue. You dismiss things like GR's use of differential geometry while making it clear you don't understand it. Likewise for other pages. Even if you have worked at Harvard for the last 30 years the things you said about peer review and the scientific community are wrong. Now this is either because you have only known a very very small number of people in the community or you've vastly overstating your claim.

I've PM'd you. BenTheMan will happily confirm I'm in the string theory community, as he's in it too.

Or rather that I tend to get spam from idiots. I have no problem telling specific people who I am but I prefer to not advertise it. Generally I don't need to provide such information as I don't generally go to 'argument by authority' when disagreeing with someone because I can justify my claims or put my maths where my mouth is. Besides, I don't pretend to represent my university in any official manner, my views are my own and thus I don't say where I work very much.

9. ### Jack_BannedBanned

Messages:
1,383
First off, stuff I do here is not my "work". SR is in the way. That is why I do that.

I try to figure out the biases based on responses here. I already understand SR admits multiple light spheres to implement all of its logic.

In any event, you are confident the twins logic would not be published, and you cannot find anything wrong with it. I already know you cannot.

Now, what if everyone is like you?

Whatever the case, I do intend to move forward against SR and you have not seen everything. If you think all I can do is the twins contradiction to take it out, then your logic and opinion is incorrect.

In fact, I will post a simple refutation of SR here.

10. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
I don't believe you do any 'work' in the physics community.

You mistake an unwillingness to devote considerable time to explaining to you things you will not accept as an inability to say those things. I spent 3 or 4 pages in the 'two spheres' thread explaining to you again and again why there is no contradiction. I explained it in words and I walked you through the algebra (which you had trouble with). Despite all that effort you simply refused to listen or understand.

Now why would I want to repeat that in another thread? I demonstrated I know and can do special relativity and provided ample discussion. All of it failed to register with you in any way.

All too often cranks think that because no one is willing to explain things to them then they must be right. No, its because you've made it clear its wasted effort trying to teach you basic physics.

If I'm 'too primitive' then go over my head and submit to a journal? What is keeping you from doing that? Why are you stuck in the pseudo section of a science forum when you could be published in a journal. You can publish anonymously if you don't want to fame. You have no excuse if you believe what you're saying. So the question is, do you really believe what you're saying?

11. ### tsmidRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
368
It makes perfect sense when public persons or institutions are accountable for their actions and decisions. This implies also taking consequences of errors of judgments that have been made. Politicians frequently resign over this. And it would be a farce if scientists could live in an ivory tower where every mistake is somehow redefined as a progress in science, with the failures at best interpreted as god-given misfortunes (which then even have the fortunate side effect that new funds can be applied for repeat experiments, 'further research' etc). Even though this is nonetheless pretty much the situation in today's mainstream science, it is very much conceivable (in my view inevitable) that in case of the destruction of a 'major pillar' of science, institutions like the Nobel Prize or the peer review process would not survive this in their present form (at least that's how it should be if scientists are accountable and responsible for their work and decisions).

I can see from the web reference which you gave in your PM that you haven't even published a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal (the few arxiv articles that you published don't really count as peer-reviewed papers). So on what grounds are you questioning my own experiences? In any case, they are my own experiences, and I am entitled to base my view of the scientific process on them (and just in order strengthen your faith in what I said, see the following link http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/ ).

Spam is in my experience not at all a problem when you post with your real name, at least when you conduct yourself properly in the forum. The latter is however much more unlikely when you post anonymously, because then you can not be hold personally accountable for what you say. I can only recommend posting under your real name, as it forces you to think first and write later in order to post something you can personally stand for in all respects. You will gain a lot of discipline through this which in return will also benefit your actual scientific work.
Interestingly enough, anonymous peer reviews (which are the norm with most papers) are often similarly abusive as anonymous posts in forums like these, so this just goes to strengthen my point that accountability for what you are doing and writing as a scientist can only be a good thing.

Thomas

12. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
So the fact peer review survived Newton being proven wrong and then classical physics being proven wrong and then even 'Einstein's biggest blunder' doesn't mean anything to you? Peer review dates back centuries and science has been knocked down and rebuilt many many times.

Its funny you had a go at me for supposedly not doing my research on your background. If you'd bothered to check you'd find that all three of those papers have been published, two in JHEP and one in Physics Review D. But good way to show you obviously don't practice what you preach.

And besides, even if I hadn't got work published I would still have submitted those papers so I'd have experience of peer review. Its hard to do a PhD and not have any experience of peer review. Close to impossible actually.

So you're entitled to your experiences and I'm not? You demanded I say who I am and what I do when I pointed out I had a different experience than you and now that I've demonstrated I have encountered peer review suddenly your experience is enough?

Your experience, even if not tinted with bitterness, is not the norm. If the other postgrads/postdocs on these forums were asked I'd imagine we'd see them having quite different experiences from you.

Your website shows you have a big issue with academia and research. I keep seeing you say "which got rejected...". It seems to me you have a case of sour grapes. Boo frickin' woo. Your work got repeatedly turned down and now you claim there's something rotten in the core of the scientific methodology and peer review. Your website has you dismissing things you clearly haven't spent any time learning or understanding, like relativity.

Because its so obviously benefited your work, which is repeatedly turned down. I'm surprised you post under your name given the laughable things you say about the mainstream community on your website. It's as if you're wanting to broadcast your ignorance.

Still sounds like sour grapes. If you have repeatedly tried to submit work which has been turned down you'll find reviewers get more and more blunt. Abuse is not allowed, a modicum of professionalism is needed and editors will not send work to reviewers if they are known to simply be abusive. And how do I know that? My father edits a journal.

The journal process isn't perfect but its worked well for the last few centuries. If reviewers were not anonymous it would reduce the number of people doing it because people who have sour grapes may badger them. Saying to someone "Your work is not good enough" is easier if its done anonymously. Yes, this can in some cases result in worthy papers being turned down but its a small price to pay. If someone felt compelled to pass a paper because the author was putting pressure on them then the general quality of journals would drop. No system is perfect but removing anonymity in reviewers would make the system worse. Your experience is not the norm. But if your website is a reflection of your knowledge in physics I am not surprised you got work rejected a fair few times. I hope you understand your PhD area a hell of a lot better than you understand the topics you talk about on your website.

13. ### Jack_BannedBanned

Messages:
1,383
Well, each time you attempted to explain things, you found out you were wrong.,

Next, I produce a point for LT such that t' = t.

You could not figure out the math and I walked you through it. Now, I will not supply the link to the fact. Howdver this is the second time you attempted to pating an incorrect picture of events.

One more time and I will post links demonstrating how you could not prove t'=t without my help.

Further, you did not even know such a point existed. You learned this from me.

Why not be factual with your posts?

14. ### Jack_BannedBanned

Messages:
1,383
I changed my mind.
I will demonstrate you could not do the algebra.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2486033&postcount=37

As I said, this is my work, but I guess you are calling me a liar.

Proof. It is ugly and I hope I have all the parens correct.

t' = ( t - vx/c² )λ

set x = (rλv)/(c(1+λ)) and t = r/c

t' = ( r/c - (rλv²)/(c³(1+λ)) )λ
t' = rλ/c( 1 - (λv²)/(c²(1+λ)) )

t' = r/c( λ - (λ²v²)/(c²(1+λ)) )

t' = r/c( (λc² + λ²c² - (λ²v²))/(c²(1+λ)) )

t' = r/c( (λc² + λ²(c² - v²))/(c²(1+λ)) )

since
λ = 1/√( 1 - (v/c)²)
then
λ² = c²/( c² - v²)
substitute for λ²
t' = r/c( (λc² + c²/( c² - v²))(c² - v²))/(c²(1+λ)) )
t' = r/c( (λc² + c²))/(c²(1+λ)) )
t' = r/c( c²(λ + 1))/(c²(1+λ)) )
Hence,
t' = r/c = t

15. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
Do you have some issue where you constantly project onto other people?

No, you found two events whose times in two different coordinates are the same numerical value. You did not find a point where t'=t because they were different points. You found two points, one of which happened in Frame A at time t=T and the other happened in Frame B at time t'=T. This is not the same as t=t' for a single point. The very fact you're still saying this proves how little you understand.

This is simply a flat out lie. Are you so desperate you're reduced to telling point blank lies? The existence of two events such that t=T and t'=T was obvious from the symmetric setup you were talking about. I said as much. And the mathematics I went through with you several times after you repeatedly claimed that the intersection points had non-zero y and z values (and y' and z' in the other frame). You failed to understand the mathematics or even the physical setup you had come up with.

Complete and utter bullshit. How many times did I have to explain to you you weren't even doing the equations of the spheres properly?

QUOTE=Jack_;2506745]Why not be factual with your posts?[/QUOTE]I can only assume you're speaking to yourself there.

I see you struggle with basic algebra and don't understand geometry. I said that I know there are two events such that t=T for one and t'=T for the other. These are when the light sphere hits one of the other spheres in each frame. This is not the same as saying t'=t because that implies the coordinate times are sync'd throughout. You have worked out the times for two different events in different frames.

Frame A measures T seconds pass before the light hits sphere A.
Frame B measures T seconds pass before the light hits sphere B.

DIFFERENT EVENTS. How fucking hard is that to grasp? They happen at different places, so they are different events. Its not surprising that in the symmetric system the observers are going to see symmetric things but this is not a contradiction. I explained this to you many times. Different people measuring the same quantity of time passing between different events at different places isn't a contradiction. It would be a contradiction if they didn't measure the same quantity of time because that would mean they measure asymmetrically a symmetric system.

You have failed to understand what I've been saying, you have failed to grasp relativity, you have failed to show any contradiction, you have failed to sdhow you have any learning capacity. Well done, you must be so proud. Maybe you can your 'work' up on Tsmid's website, it seems the appropriate place for misunderstandings of science.

16. ### Jack_BannedBanned

Messages:
1,383
You just do not know what you are doing. I proved using both x equations under LT, the point is the same in both frames.

If you can disprove it, show the math instead of the talk.

Again, there exists a common point to each frame such that LT maps them to the same point in the other frame and also the same time.

You can go back to the thread for a refresher course on this factual logic.

How do you square the above with this statement you made?

It is comical reading your posts. You have a very good sense of humor.

:roflmao:
Remember how you thought the point resided on the x-axis and I had to show you that implies the frame traveled faster than the speed of light>
It was I that taught you the sphere was required to support the point.

You can even go back to the thread and see I introduced the sphere when I introduced the concept.

This is funny. I proved the point was common to both frames using LT. I proved light lands at that point when the same time transpires on the clock at that position for each frame.

I even indicated to you that point can be used for non-colocated frame to frame clock synchronization.

I indicated to you currently frame to frame clock synchronization is currently an open problem.

You might consider solving this 105 year old open problem an achievement, but I consider it minor since the theory of SR is actually the theory of one light sphere emerging into many light spheres.
Tell you what, run your logic through LT to confirm it the way I did. Your logic above cannot do that so you are describing a different condition.

I am not talking about the simultaneity of the two spheres. I am talking about one point at any time t.

Here, this is simple stuff.

If you take the rigid body moving sphere, you will find as light starts hitting the back end of the moving sphere first, those clocks are faster than the corresponding stationary clock at that same position from the LT calculations of the stationary frame. As the light sphere proceeds, the difference reduces until they are equal and then the corresponding moving clocks beat slower than the stationary clocks.

For example, let's take the negative x-axis sphere point of the moving sphere. O believes that point is hit at t = r/(γ( c + v ) ), x = -rc/(γ( c + v ) ) whereas the moving clock transpires r/c at this location which is -r to O' to meet the simultaneity requirements in the moving frame. Then, as the light sphere proceeds intersecting the moving rigid body sphere, the moving clocks on the rigid body sphere are always r/c and the difference between the corresponding stationary clocks becomes smaller until my point is reached in which case the difference is zero.

Then, past that point the difference becomes negative meaning the stationary clocks elapse more time than does the corresponding moving clocks at that position. You should work through a few examples to fully grasp the concept. These are just the basics for really understanding SR.

Now, clearly, the two rigid body sphere's have two intersection points after any time t. But as the light sphere proceeds from O, eventually, it meets those two moving intersection points of the two rigid body spheres. This means at my point, the emerging light sphere, the stationary sphere and the moving sphere are all intersecting at those two intersecting points. Actually, it is quite simple.

Now, here is the big problem. This intersection of all three does not mean that much. Hopefully by now, you realize it is a necessary condition of the setup. But, given the fact that the moving sphere is convinced the origin of the light sphere is located at its moving position, in reality, this implies there are two unique light spheres intersecting at the rigid body spheres intersection point.

Hence, to implement the always measure at c logic, there exists a light sphere centered at the stationary sphere's origin and one riding along with the moving sphere and located at the moving sphere's origin with the radius from each light sphere intersecting at my point.

Note, this does not in any way refute the light postulate.

light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

I suppose you think you bother me with your opinions. You do not. You clearly do not understand the light sphere(s) of SR.

17. ### CheskiChipsBannedBanned

Messages:
3,538
Jack_[Black] i've been reading your discussion with Alpha Numeric. Are you really this dense or are you tumultuously tugging at AN's chain? Why is it you believe two independent case can't have multiple mutual solutions where in fact t' does equal t? Just because t' can equal t doesn't mean that it's valid to say t' = t for all conditions. In fact; that's the definition of a unique solution.

18. ### Jack_BannedBanned

Messages:
1,383
Am I dense?

You are correct in what you and AN claim. You could have two non-colocated clocks reading the same value so what. I never said you could not. It is just who cares.

That has nothing to do with what I did and what we are talking about.

I proved a co-located point where the clocks at each frame elapsed the same time. He is claiming without any proof in spite of my proof they are not co-located with t'=t. He has no proof to offer. That is because there is none.

Here is the proof the points are co-located.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2484036&postcount=21

Here is the proof, t'=t for this co-located point.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2486033&postcount=37

I do not know what else to do other than mathematically prove my statements.

It is odd to me in the face of math proof, folks go on believing falsehoods.

19. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
And yet I have somehow managed to sit and pass exams on special relativity, general relativity, electrodynamics, quantum field theory and string theory (all of whom have special relativity within them). But what would Cambridge professors know compared to you, right?

Incorrect. If Sphere A is stationary in frame A and Sphere B in frame B then Frame A sees the photon sphere hit Sphere B first. In Frame B it hits Sphere A first. Not the same point. Not even the same side of the origin. One of them has a negative x value and the other a positive one. Draw a few pictures of the spheres and you'll see it. Its really that simple. Your linked 'proof' ignored this. It immediately kills your argument.

See this is why I didn't bother with your twin thread, you have to have things explained to you 10 times and then you still don't get it. An event having the same location in two different frames is not a contradiction. In fact you assume that from the very start as you sync frame clocks at the origin initially. And two different points in two different frames occuring after equal periods of elapsed time as measured by two different observers is not a contradiction.

You have confused yourself by rewriting "Frame A sees event A at time t=T" and "Frame B sees event B at time t'=T" as t=t'. t=t' is only going to be true if you consider specific pairings of events, it not true in general. It is a matter of working out the space-time location of events, not equating frames.

Yet more lies. Its things like this which make it obvious you have a poor grasp of geometry and a very inflated view of your ability. You didn't prove it required things to be faster than light. The point (in a given frame) where the photon sphere intersects the moving sphere is on the x axis. I demonstrated it several times by putting the Lorentz transformed coordinates into the definition of a sphere. You keep whining about how I should prove my claims with maths and I did. All you need to do to see I'm right is draw a space-time worldline diagram. Oh I forgot, you don't understand them.

Mind you, its little more than drawing concentric circles and then squashing one of them. Rocket science this is not. Its little more than putting one expression into another. If you know vector calculus surely you know how to do substitution of variables? Obviously not.

Its not an 'open problem' to the physics community, its little more than a homework problem. The fact you struggle with it doesn't mean others do.

So because people don't use your flawed reasoning its their mistake? Sure.

I can only conclude you're either a troll or just a delusional idiot. And its obvious no one's opinion bothers you because you're delusional about your level of knowledge and ability. You seriously believe everyone whose ever done special relativity has done it wrong and now you're the first to be able to sub equations into one another? Yet at the same time you can't even handle equations of spheres. If you could do that and draw a few simple pictures you'd realise your mistake. But instead you continue with your "Everyone who has ever studied this is wrong, I'm the only one to understand it despite having little mathematical knowledge and no experience with physics".

Obviously rationality doesn't work with you and even walking you through the equations 3 or 4 times has no effect because even spheres seem a little too geometrically complex for you. You keep saying about how I am 'too primitive' or just can't do relativity but I've put my maths where my mouth is. Several people have tried to get you to understand, it now seems that you're simply too self deluded to be reachable.

I stand by my offer to put 1000 of whatever your local currency is on the table and bet you you get rejected for publication in a reputable journal. I've walked you through your mistakes and you have made it clear you believe your own abilities so much you simply won't listen to anyone (no matter how many people or how educated) here so why are you still bothering? No one here accepts your claims. If I'm 'too primitive' why are you're you going over my head? Could it be you know full well you're just spouting crap? Suddenly when asked to put your money where your mouth is you're a little scared?

20. ### Jack_BannedBanned

Messages:
1,383
I am not saying you are not smart, I think you are.
But, passing tests and seeing inconsistencies and new logic is different.

You simply do not understand. Now, if you can pass tests, the point is:

x = vtγ /( 1 + γ )

One in O is positive and one in O' is negative. What would you expect after the motion of the two spheres to co-locate? This is natural.

You are simply not seeing it and not providing any math against the proof I showed they are one point.

My proof is final.

10 times. LT says they are the same point in each frame. How many times will it take for you to accept the results of LT?

If you can pass tests, then certainly you have learned to understand a math proof, no?

I had to put it this way and then prove they are the same point. You can't just say it. You keep leaving off the fact I mathematically proved they are the same point.
Why do you leave off this fact?

Oh, I can prove this also, but not travel faster than the speed of light, emitted and measured at the speed of light. That is different.

Geez, prove frame to frame clock synchronization.

Talk to your buddies at wherever you are.

So, anyway, show me the proof. Oh, you will need to use my point because that is the only way.

Now, put up and show everyone you are honest.

Prove how to synchronize two clocks that can be in relative motion in all 3 dimensions.

I want to see it. You made a bad mistake here claiming you could do this.

Do you realize if frame to frame clock synching can be done then R of S falls?

There is no reason to respond to all the rest of your junk.

21. ### Jack_BannedBanned

Messages:
1,383
Great news. The picture is still up.

Naturally, the two rigid body spheres must always have two intersecting points.

The picture makes it clear with my point at the intersection points of the light spheres and the rigid body spheres.

22. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
But the first time they intersect they do so at a single point. Its after that they intersect with two points. If you move the centre of those circles closer you'll see they touch at a single point along the direction you've moving them. This is pretty obvious. The fact you haven't noticed this and that you couldn't work it out for yourself by simply drawing a few diagrams shows how little you understand it.

As it happens I just made my own pictures of that which demonstrate that the first contact of the photon sphere and the moving sphere is at a single point.

Frame A, where Sphere A (black line) is stationary, Lorentz contracted Sphere B (red dashed line) is moving to the right with speed v and the photon sphere (green dashed line) begins as a point and spreads out.

The intersection happens along the line which joins the two rigid sphere centres. And if you go back and look at the equations of spheres I explained to you many times you'll see the various coordinate labels I've put on the pictures are precisely as I said before.

Frame B, where Sphere B (red line) is stationary, Lorentz contracted Sphere A (black dashed line) is moving to the left with speed v and the photon sphere (green dashed line) begins as a point and spreads out.

Its identical to the first case except that you relabel $(t,x,y) \leftrightarrow (t',x',y')$ and do a parity change on x'. Precisely as I explained to you several times.

No, I understand it perfectly. The problem is you do not. AQll you had to do was draw a few example pictures and you'd have seen it. Alternatively if you understood basic equations like that for a sphere you'd have seen it. I provided explanation and mathematics and now I've given you diagrams.

Because its fucking wrong. For the love of God will you get your head out of your own backside. You keep sying "I've proven it mathematically" or "The contradiction is proven" and you never stop to think that perhaps you've done it wrong given you're shit at vectors and geometry. Come on, surely you realise that if you're crap at something proclaiming yourself better than the entire previous century of mathematicians and physicists is a little silly.

Nice hypocrisy. You've lied about the level of mathematical knowledge and you certainly lied about having taught vector calculus.

The LT doesn't say they are at the same point in each frame. They don't say what you claim they do. I've been through this with you by actually applying Lorentz transformations to coordinate definitions, I have provided you with explicit demonstrations. You haven't provide 'a math proof', you have just shown you don't grasp 1st year stuff.

23. ### Jack_BannedBanned

Messages:
1,383
Very good, nice picture excellent.

What you did not do is mark the intersection points of the two rigid body spheres.

What you should do is mark that and wait for the light sphere to hit it.

You will notice that is at my point.

Keep working at it.

I produced mine from software simulations of vc++ code I wrote according to the rules of SR.

That is why mine is so accurate.

I have been all the places you are just figuring out with software graphics I wrote.

It is quite clear, when SR rules are programmed, they do not work.

Keep at it.

Let me know when you figure out my point and the intersections.

Don't tell me you do not know software.

I validate all my theorems with software simulations. I would feel stupid otherwise.