Rubbish.
Are you claiming simultaneity in the moving frame occurs at one time in the stationary fame?
Rubbish.
$$Please don't do that, Jack. Learn to use $$ tags so you can form your posts in the thread.
$$
You seem to imply that transforming between frames "violates the relativity of simultaneity"?
Why?
As the light sphere emerges from the light emissin point in the rest frame, it strikes various points.
It turns out, and you can see in the pdf I posted to Pete, that t'=r/c for the set of points on the ellipsoid in the pdf post.
Since there exists motion on the time interval for simultaneity in the moving frame in the context of the rest frame and if one frame evolves time the other must in some way, then the radius of the light sphere in the moving frame must remain constant through a time interval in the rest frame while each frame perceives motion of the other.
No. That's where you went wrong.
No, that doesn't even mean anything.Are you claiming simultaneity in the moving frame occurs at one time in the stationary fame?
It's not that hard. Put in a little effort.I have used them and they are useless for long proofs unless I had some kind of editor.
It's what you implied.That is not what I said in the link.
Again, that doesn't mean anything.I said rpenner formed an equality of the light postulate in the rest frame and the light postulate in the moving frame.
Please point out the line in rpenner's post which you think broke the rules.In the link, and I was clear, I said you must use LT to convert from one coordinate system to the other and that proof is the correct one since it uses LT to solve the equations.
Are you claiming simultaneity in the moving frame occurs at one time in the stationary fame?
Good, we have our disagreement.
It is my position when light strikes the point of the rest frame at (-rc/(γ(c+v)),0,0), x'=-r and t'=r/c.
LT will verify.
Note that t = r/(γ(c+v))
It is my position when light strikes the point of the rest frame at (rc/(γ(c-v)),0,0), x'=r and t'=r/c.
LT will verify.
Note that t = r/(cγ(c-v))
You can do the other points and verify, x'=r and t'=r/c on a set of points where t is in the interval [r/(γ(c+v), r/(γ(c-v))].
Still don't know what 'proof' means. Is English not your first language?OK, I supplied a proof in the pdf
Are you so desperate you must put words in people's mouth? Can't you answer my simple direct question of why you haven't submitted it to a journal if you're so sure you're right? I'm more than willing to talk about your pdf provided you can demonstrate some intellectual honesty. Answer my questions, clearly and directly, and I'll be willing to put in some time talking about your work. Until you demonstrate you're even capable of discussion there's no point talking about your 'work'.
Do you know what 'proof' means? Do you know what 'honesty' means? Do you know what 'peer review' means? Do you know what 'Lorentz transform' means?Do you know what that means?
I know you want to believe you've retorted things people have said but you haven't. You've done nothing but display your ignorance. You demand I reply to your work yet you won't answer anything I ask you. How many times have you quoted entire posts of mine and then replied to nothing I said? You don't practice what you preach. And if you believed your work were valid you'd not be on forums, you'd be publishing in journals. Your actions speak louder than you think.You know what, just refute my math in terse language like the in link I posted of an interaction I had with trout.
If you want to discuss LT then answer my question about whether or not you understand they map expanding light spheres to expanding light spheres. If you can't grasp this point then your work, upon which your pdf is based, is utterly invalidated.Good, we have our disagreement.
It is my position when light strikes the point of the rest frame at (-rc/(γ(c+v)),0,0), x'=-r and t'=r/c.
LT will verify.
Note that t = r/(γ(c+v))
It is my position when light strikes the point of the rest frame at (rc/(γ(c-v)),0,0), x'=r and t'=r/c.
LT will verify.
Note that t = r/(cγ(c-v))
You can do the other points and verify, x'=r and t'=r/c on a set of points where t is in the interval [r/(γ(c+v), r/(γ(c-v))].
Still don't know what 'proof' means. Is English not your first language?
Are you so desperate you must put words in people's mouth? Can't you answer my simple direct question of why you haven't submitted it to a journal if you're so sure you're right? I'm more than willing to talk about your pdf provided you can demonstrate some intellectual honesty. Answer my questions, clearly and directly, and I'll be willing to put in some time talking about your work. Until you demonstrate you're even capable of discussion there's no point talking about your 'work'.
Do you know what 'proof' means? Do you know what 'honesty' means? Do you know what 'peer review' means? Do you know what 'Lorentz transform' means?
Please answer this question : Do you understand that Lorentz transformations always map an expanding light sphere to an expanding light sphere. If you can't discuss this there's no point in discussing your 'work' as you are incapable of honest open discussion.
I know you want to believe you've retorted things people have said but you haven't. You've done nothing but display your ignorance. You demand I reply to your work yet you won't answer anything I ask you. How many times have you quoted entire posts of mine and then replied to nothing I said? You don't practice what you preach. And if you believed your work were valid you'd not be on forums, you'd be publishing in journals. Your actions speak louder than you think.
If you want to discuss LT then answer my question about whether or not you understand they map expanding light spheres to expanding light spheres. If you can't grasp this point then your work, upon which your pdf is based, is utterly invalidated.
No, that doesn't even mean anything.
Please point out the line in rpenner's post which you think broke the rules.
No, because "simultaneity" is a feature of events, not of frames, as I have explained to you many time previously. Did you not understand?
I don't see where the disagreement is in this. If you've applied the Lorentz transformation correctly, then I will agree with you as to the spacetime coordinates of various events.
Are you disputing the Lorentz transformation?
What do you think we disagree about?
No, because "simultaneity" is a feature of events, not of frames, as I have explained to you many time previously. Did you not understand?
Yes, but I am using the context of the light postulate in which light proceeds spherically from the light emission point of the frame.
I applied LT correctly.
I am not sure at this point if we disagree.
No, Jack, we've covered this before. "Sumultaneity occurs" is a phrase that you made up. It means nothing to anyone else.Sure it does. Go back to Einstein's mirror in the moving frame to develop LT.Pete said:No, that doesn't even mean anything.Jack said:Are you claiming simultaneity in the moving frame occurs at one time in the stationary fame?
Well, your syntax is so garbled I can neither agree nor disagree with your post.In the moving frame, it is some distance r. In the moving frame, the time to and from the mirror for light travel is r/c.
In the rest frame, those times are
r/(γ(c+v)) and r/(γ(c-v)).
Now, if the light pulse is spherical in the moving frame, light will be a distance r and all clocks in the moving frame read r/c since there is but one time in the moving frame from the context of the moving frame.
On the other hand, from the view of the rest frame, each points that reads t'=r/c, at a different x' coordinate, y>0, and z>0, it will be the case that no t will be the same in the rest frame time from that entire set of points after applying LT.
Do you agree or disagree?
Jack, you didn't mention a single line from rpenner' s post in your pdf.I did this specifically in the pdf file. I even wrote his name at the step.Pete said:Please point out the line in rpenner's post which you think broke the rules.
Jack_:
Good. Then you agree you are wrong to claim that, according to special relativity, time must effectively stop in one frame during the time interval in another frame between events that are simultaneous in the first frame. Is that correct?
OK, you explain this.
Assume that light is a radius r in the moving frame.
Now, use just (-r,0,0), (0,r,0) and (r,0,0) in the moving frame.
t' = r/c for all no?
What time transpired in the rest frame for all this?
You will find there is a different time for all of these in the rest frame, but only one time in the moving frame.
How do you explain this?
So... you say this implies that moving clocks at those locations would be stuck at t'=r/c until they all catch up?OK, you explain this.
Assume that light is a radius r in the moving frame.
Now, use just (-r,0,0), (0,r,0) and (r,0,0) in the moving frame.
t' = r/c for all no?
What time transpired in the rest frame for all this?
Hint: Apply LT.
You will find there is a different time for all of these in the rest frame, but only one time in the moving frame.
So... you say this implies that moving clocks at those locations would be stuck at t'=r/c until they all catch up?
Is that what you're suggesting that SR implies?
One time for the moving frame is a time interval in the rest frame, aka the relativity of simultaneity.
False dichotomy. You should have learnt about such logical fallacies on that imaginary course on logic you want people to believe you took.Refute them or accept them.
I have repeatedly asked you to say whether or not you understand a LT always maps an expanding light sphere to an expanding light sphere. If you answer 'no' to this then you admit you can't apply LT properly, which completely contradicts your claims about being able to put SR into a contradiction. Is this the reason you won't answer my question, you know you'll contradict yourself?I applied LT correctly.
No.
Every event in spacetime has one and only one time coordinate in the rest frame, and one and only one time coordinate in the moving frame.