On 04-May-23 1:02 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:00:19 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 03-May-23 10:28 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:15:56 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 03-May-23 9:48 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 6:52:35 PM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 3:52:11 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> In the above example, if the light bulbs are moving in an Aether stationary to me,
>>>>>>> that would make perfect sense.
>>>>>> Right, and it would also make perfect sense if all the laws of physics are (locally) Lorentz invariant... which they are.
>>>>>>> It is indisputable in Newtonian physics that the child will have to use more
>>>>>>> force to throw the ball towards the person he is receding from, in order to
>>>>>>> make the velocity of the ball the same for each of the recipients.
>>>>>> Right, and also in special relativity, although the precise difference in the required force is very slightly different than in Newtonian physics, because Newton's laws are not Lorentz invariant, whereas the actual laws of mechanics are Lorentz invariant.
>>>>>>> The receding star is throwing out light just as the approaching star is. Why is
>>>>>>> the light from the receding star thrown out faster relative to the surface of the star?
>>>>>> You're not paying attention. Again, in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the star is at rest, the light (in vacuum) propagates at the speed c. Also, in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the earth is at rest, the light propagates at c. It is impossible for both of these things to be true... unless those two systems of coordinates are related to each other in a very specific way. This way is known as a Lorentz transformation. Standard inertial coordinates are, by definition, coordinates in terms of which the laws of physics take the same isotropic and homogeneous form, and the fact that the laws are Lorentz invariant (check for yourself) signifies that they take the same form in terms of coordinate systems related by Lorentz transformations.
>>>>>>> Do you at least see the problem?
>>>>>> Well, of course I see "the problem"...everyone saw the problem... this is why Einstein said the two things are seemingly irreconcilable, and then he explained the one and only way in which they can be reconciled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well at least you accept that there is a 'problem'.
>>>> Not on my reading.
>>>>>
>>>>> When viewed from above the double star system looks this picture:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment#/media/File:SitterKonstanz.png
>>>>>
>>>>> (In the diagram the c-v and c+v labels are reversed, since it illustrates the ballistic emission of light)
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me ask it this way: does the application of the Lorentz transformation in both cases give a constant velocity of light towards the Earth?
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> OK so that is settled.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a reason behind the asymmetry in the system clearly viewed in this image, where on one side of the orbit the star emits light at c-v relative to the surface and c+v to the surface of the star?
>>>> You realise that the labels are what would happen if emission theory
>>>> were correct. Since it's not correct, the labels are wrong, and there is
>>>> no asymmetry to explain.
>>>
>>> As I mentioned, the labels are for emission theory. However, if we assume a constant velocity c towards the Earth, the labels are reversed, so one one side it would show a velocity between the surface of the star and the emitted light for example, for the approaching star. Either way, there is assymetry.
>> The only asymmetry is in the incorrect emission model. So why concern
>> yourself with it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Would the wave fronts from the moving stars form a sphere or an ellipse?
>>>> A sphere - both in the frame of the star, and in the frame of an
>>>> observer moving relative to the star. There are not the same spheres,
>>>> but they are nevertheless spheres in the respective frames of reference.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Wow. This is relativity then.
>>>
>>> A sphere in the frame of the star, yes.
>>>
>>> If the star is moving relative to the observer, or the observer is moving relative to the star, another sphere consisting of a different set of photons in each case?
>>>
>>> A spherical wavefront of photons a sphere created out of nothing, where is the energy for that?
>> They're formed from the same photons, but the relativity of simultaneity
>> comes into play, so for example, where and when a photon forms part of
>> the wavefront one second after the emission is frame dependent.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> That is a good explanation, though I cannot accept it. Part of my problem is that the concepts associated with SRT are not concisely stated, not correctly stated, for example 'moving clocks slow down' etc.

"Moving clocks slow down, things contract" is popular science. The
Lorentz transform is perfectly clear. Don't blame special relativity for
misrepresentations made by people who do not understand it.
>
> So each observer is stuck in his own reality if he is moving with respect to another pbserver.
>
> Tell me, in a certain configuration of Relativistic time and space, could you die before you were born?

No, those two events are necessarily time-like separated, and so have a
well-defined order. Birth accordingly occurs before death in all frames.

Sylvia.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:37:09 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:02:31 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > That is a good explanation, though I cannot accept it.
> This is because you are mentally ill. Cannot be fixed.

Your superior intellect cannot differentiate between low IQ and mental illness, none of which are mutually exclusive.

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:30:27 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> .. confirmed by experiments, but the existence of the theory did not automatically mean that it would be confirmed by experiments..

Right, the local Lorentz invariance of all physical laws is not a tautology, it is an empirical fact, subject to empirical falsification on many fronts... which makes it all the more impressive that it has never been falsified (in contrast with the beliefs of its critics, which have all been abundantly falsified).

> If we assume that the light from the star is moving at c in the inertial frame
> of reference that we chose...

Again, it isn't an assumption, and it isn't just c in terms of that single standard system of inertial coordinates, it is c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates, including the system in which each star is at rest at any given moment, and the system in which the center of mass is at rest, and so on.

> if we subtract velocities, we have the relative speeds or closing speeds....

Those are two different things, in normal terminology. In general, if two objects A and B have speeds vA and vB in terms of any given system S of coordinates, the closing speed between them is the difference vA - vB, whereas the term "relative speed" normally refers to the closing speed in terms of a standard system of inertial coordinates in which one of the objects is at rest (meaning that either vA or vB is zero). Thus every relative speed is a closing speed, but not every closing speed is a relative speed. So, let's correct your statement, since you are talking about closing speeds but not relative speeds (and let's dispense with "surface of" since on this scale we can treat it as a point source):

> if we subtract velocities, we have the closing speeds of the star and emitted light working out to be c-v and c+v.

Right, in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the CoM is at rest, the closing speed between the emitted pulses and the star moving toward the earth is c-v, and the closing speed between emitted pulses and the star moving away is c+v. (You shouldn't point to deSitter's drawing to illustrate this, because he was talking about something completely different.)

> The question still arises as to why there are two different phenomena occurring here, where light is emitted at different velocities relative to the surface of the star at different points of the orbit.

You see, you smuggled in this puzzlement by semantically morphing from closing speed to relative speed. As explained above, those are two different things. The relative speed between the pulses and the respective stars is c in every case. The laws of physics governing the behavior of mechanics and electromagnetism, etc., take the same form in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates. So this is all perfectly consistent. The closing speeds between entities are coordinate-dependent quantities (as is velocity itself!), so there is nothing paradoxical about the fact that closing speeds between intrinsically identical pairs of entities are different depending on how those pairs are moving relative to a certain system of coordinates.

> > > Would the wave fronts from the moving stars form a sphere or an ellipse?
>
> > Each pulse of light (emitted in all directions) emanates outward as an expanding spheres in terms of each of the standard inertial coordinate systems. Do you understand this?
>
> To each his own.

That isn't an answer, that's just running away. This isn't a matter of taste, like what's your favorite color, we're talking about objectively verifiable facts.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:41:58 AM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 04-May-23 1:02 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:00:19 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 03-May-23 10:28 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:15:56 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 03-May-23 9:48 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 6:52:35 PM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 3:52:11 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> In the above example, if the light bulbs are moving in an Aether stationary to me,
> >>>>>>> that would make perfect sense.
> >>>>>> Right, and it would also make perfect sense if all the laws of physics are (locally) Lorentz invariant... which they are.
> >>>>>>> It is indisputable in Newtonian physics that the child will have to use more
> >>>>>>> force to throw the ball towards the person he is receding from, in order to
> >>>>>>> make the velocity of the ball the same for each of the recipients..
> >>>>>> Right, and also in special relativity, although the precise difference in the required force is very slightly different than in Newtonian physics, because Newton's laws are not Lorentz invariant, whereas the actual laws of mechanics are Lorentz invariant.
> >>>>>>> The receding star is throwing out light just as the approaching star is. Why is
> >>>>>>> the light from the receding star thrown out faster relative to the surface of the star?
> >>>>>> You're not paying attention. Again, in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the star is at rest, the light (in vacuum) propagates at the speed c. Also, in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the earth is at rest, the light propagates at c. It is impossible for both of these things to be true... unless those two systems of coordinates are related to each other in a very specific way. This way is known as a Lorentz transformation. Standard inertial coordinates are, by definition, coordinates in terms of which the laws of physics take the same isotropic and homogeneous form, and the fact that the laws are Lorentz invariant (check for yourself) signifies that they take the same form in terms of coordinate systems related by Lorentz transformations.
> >>>>>>> Do you at least see the problem?
> >>>>>> Well, of course I see "the problem"...everyone saw the problem... this is why Einstein said the two things are seemingly irreconcilable, and then he explained the one and only way in which they can be reconciled.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well at least you accept that there is a 'problem'.
> >>>> Not on my reading.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When viewed from above the double star system looks this picture:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment#/media/File:SitterKonstanz.png
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (In the diagram the c-v and c+v labels are reversed, since it illustrates the ballistic emission of light)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let me ask it this way: does the application of the Lorentz transformation in both cases give a constant velocity of light towards the Earth?
> >>>> Yes.
> >>>
> >>> OK so that is settled.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is there a reason behind the asymmetry in the system clearly viewed in this image, where on one side of the orbit the star emits light at c-v relative to the surface and c+v to the surface of the star?
> >>>> You realise that the labels are what would happen if emission theory
> >>>> were correct. Since it's not correct, the labels are wrong, and there is
> >>>> no asymmetry to explain.
> >>>
> >>> As I mentioned, the labels are for emission theory. However, if we assume a constant velocity c towards the Earth, the labels are reversed, so one one side it would show a velocity between the surface of the star and the emitted light for example, for the approaching star. Either way, there is assymetry.
> >> The only asymmetry is in the incorrect emission model. So why concern
> >> yourself with it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would the wave fronts from the moving stars form a sphere or an ellipse?
> >>>> A sphere - both in the frame of the star, and in the frame of an
> >>>> observer moving relative to the star. There are not the same spheres,
> >>>> but they are nevertheless spheres in the respective frames of reference.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> Wow. This is relativity then.
> >>>
> >>> A sphere in the frame of the star, yes.
> >>>
> >>> If the star is moving relative to the observer, or the observer is moving relative to the star, another sphere consisting of a different set of photons in each case?
> >>>
> >>> A spherical wavefront of photons a sphere created out of nothing, where is the energy for that?
> >> They're formed from the same photons, but the relativity of simultaneity
> >> comes into play, so for example, where and when a photon forms part of
> >> the wavefront one second after the emission is frame dependent.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > That is a good explanation, though I cannot accept it. Part of my problem is that the concepts associated with SRT are not concisely stated, not correctly stated, for example 'moving clocks slow down' etc.
> "Moving clocks slow down, things contract" is popular science. The
> Lorentz transform is perfectly clear. Don't blame special relativity for
> misrepresentations made by people who do not understand it.

Ah yes, but I frequently thought that these people were on your side of the fence.

Some textbooks are also ..um ... less than correct, as I understand. Not to mention professors, God forbid.

> >
> > So each observer is stuck in his own reality if he is moving with respect to another pbserver.
> >
> > Tell me, in a certain configuration of Relativistic time and space, could you die before you were born?
> No, those two events are necessarily time-like separated, and so have a
> well-defined order. Birth accordingly occurs before death in all frames.
>
> Sylvia.

Nice to know. Life after death may be a timeless environment which will really wreak havoc with Relativity, should be fun.

As a concept, God will have instant access to all information, meaning if that knowledge is real, Relativity is rendered obsolete.

But I digress.

My question has not been answered.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:23:53 AM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:30:27 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > .. confirmed by experiments, but the existence of the theory did not automatically mean that it would be confirmed by experiments..
> Right, the local Lorentz invariance of all physical laws is not a tautology, it is an empirical fact, subject to empirical falsification on many fronts... which makes it all the more impressive that it has never been falsified (in contrast with the beliefs of its critics, which have all been abundantly falsified).

Would action at a distance falsify Lorentz?

> > If we assume that the light from the star is moving at c in the inertial frame
> > of reference that we chose...
>
> Again, it isn't an assumption, and it isn't just c in terms of that single standard system of inertial coordinates, it is c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates, including the system in which each star is at rest at any given moment, and the system in which the center of mass is at rest, and so on.

Velocity c in every standard system of inertial coordinates.
>
> > if we subtract velocities, we have the relative speeds or closing speeds...
>
> Those are two different things, in normal terminology. In general, if two objects A and B have speeds vA and vB in terms of any given system S of coordinates, the closing speed between them is the difference vA - vB, whereas the term "relative speed" normally refers to the closing speed in terms of a standard system of inertial coordinates in which one of the objects is at rest (meaning that either vA or vB is zero). Thus every relative speed is a closing speed, but not every closing speed is a relative speed. So, let's correct your statement, since you are talking about closing speeds but not relative speeds (and let's dispense with "surface of" since on this scale we can treat it as a point source):

Yes, point source.

In any system of coordinates, where if two objects A and B have speeds vA and vB and vA and vB are not zero, then closing speed is vA-vB.

Relative speed is, where in a system of coordinates S, then vA or vB is zero, relative speed is vA or vB as the case may be.
Maybe clumsily stated, I understand it.

So what makes the two situations different, is it that closing speed can be -2c to 2c and relative speed can only vary between c and -c?

That is one heck of a stipulation.

>
> > if we subtract velocities, we have the closing speeds of the star and emitted light working out to be c-v and c+v.
>
> Right, in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the CoM is at rest, the closing speed between the emitted pulses and the star moving toward the earth is c-v, and the closing speed between emitted pulses and the star moving away is c+v. (You shouldn't point to deSitter's drawing to illustrate this, because he was talking about something completely different.)
>
> > The question still arises as to why there are two different phenomena occurring here, where light is emitted at different velocities relative to the surface of the star at different points of the orbit.
>
> You see, you smuggled in this puzzlement by semantically morphing from closing speed to relative speed. As explained above, those are two different things. The relative speed between the pulses and the respective stars is c in every case. The laws of physics governing the behavior of mechanics and electromagnetism, etc., take the same form in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates. So this is all perfectly consistent. The closing speeds between entities are coordinate-dependent quantities (as is velocity itself!), so there is nothing paradoxical about the fact that closing speeds between intrinsically identical pairs of entities are different depending on how those pairs are moving relative to a certain system of coordinates.

Let me re-qoute:

"The closing speeds between entities are coordinate-dependent quantities (as is velocity itself!), so there is nothing paradoxical about the fact that closing speeds between intrinsically identical pairs of entities are different depending on how those pairs are moving relative to a certain system of coordinates."

It may not be paradoxical but is there an assymetry?

So if we define S as the frame in which the Earth, the centre of mass of the stars are at rest, we call the speed of the star towards the Earth as the relative speed?

Then we have to call the third entity, the light itself and the point of emission marked as on the surface of the star as the closing speeds
between the surface of the star and photons?

This closing speed is different in each case but I still maintain that there is an asymmetry that has no physical cause.
The difference is here that identical physical processes give different closing speeds depending on the direction of movement.

If you can accept that as reality, then we are done.

> > > > Would the wave fronts from the moving stars form a sphere or an ellipse?
> >
> > > Each pulse of light (emitted in all directions) emanates outward as an expanding spheres in terms of each of the standard inertial coordinate systems. Do you understand this?
> >
> > To each his own.
> That isn't an answer, that's just running away. This isn't a matter of taste, like what's your favorite color, we're talking about objectively verifiable facts.

I meant it as an answer: basically each person is their own wavefront bubble which is different from everyone elses.

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 9:21:18 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:37:09 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:02:31 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > That is a good explanation, though I cannot accept it.
> > This is because you are mentally ill. Cannot be fixed.
> Your superior intellect cannot differentiate between low IQ and mental illness, none of which are mutually exclusive.
You have both. Congratulations

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 9:55:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> Would action at a distance falsify Lorentz?

Indeed it would, and none has ever been found. (No, quantum entanglement does not entail action at a distance.)

> In any system of coordinates, where if two objects A and B have speeds vA and vB and vA and vB are not zero, then closing speed is vA-vB. Relative speed is, where in a system of coordinates S, then vA or vB is zero, relative speed is vA or vB as the case may be. So what makes the two situations different...?

It isn't just two situations, it is infinitely many, due to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems (which is due to the inertia of energy). Consider two objects moving away from the origin of S in opposite directions on the x axis at velocities +u and -u, so their closing speed is u - (-u) = 2u. But their closing speed in terms of a system S' moving at speed v in terms of S is (u-v)/(1-uv) - (-u-v)/(1+uv) = 2u [(1-v^2)/(1-u^2v^2)]. This confirms that, in terms of S with v=0 we have closing speed 2u, but for any non-zero v we have a different closing speed, and for v=u (meaning the rightward object is at rest in terms of S') this yields the closing speed 2u/(1+u^2), which of course is the relative speed.

So it isn't a binary thing with just two cases, there are infinitely many closing speeds for any pair of objects, depending on the coordinates, just as a single object has infinitely many speeds, depending on the coordinates. This is very elementary. Is there something about this that seems unclear to you?

> That is one heck of a stipulation.

There is no stipulation here. These are objective facts.

> > The closing speeds between entities are coordinate-dependent quantities (as is velocity itself!), so there is nothing paradoxical about the fact that closing speeds between intrinsically identical pairs of entities are different depending on how those pairs are moving relative to a certain system of coordinates.
>
> It may not be paradoxical but is there an assymetry?

To the contrary, the relationship between relatively moving systems of standard inertial coordinates is perfectly symmetrical and reciprocal. Of course, in general the descriptions of phenomena may be more symmetrical in terms of one such system than in terms of another. For example, two identical stars revolving in orbit around each other have symmetrical motions in terms of the CoM coordinates, but in terms of other coordinates the descriptions of their motions are formally not symmetrical. Needless to say, this isn't changing the phenomena, it depends on the relationship between the phenomena and a coordinate system. This is extremely elementary reasoning, applicable to Newtonian physics as well as special relativity, so it is strange that you are puzzled by this.

> If we define S as the frame in which the Earth, the centre of mass of the stars are at
> rest, we call the speed of the star towards the Earth as the relative speed?

That would be the relative speed of the star and the earth.

> Then we have to call the third entity, the light itself and the point of emission marked as on the surface of the star as the closing speeds between the surface of the star and photons?

That sentence doesn't parse in English, and it is conceptually completely garbled. Perhaps you were struggling to ask something like : In terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the earth is at rest, the light emitted from the approaching star has speed c and the approaching star has speed v, so is c-v the closing speed between the pulse of light and the star in terms of these coordinates? The answer of course is yes. And the speed of the pulse in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the star is at rest is c. We covered this already, remember?

> I still maintain that there is an asymmetry that has no physical cause.

See above. Asymmetries between objects and coordinate systems are trivial, part of ordinary every-day kinematics that every human (and even most animals) easily grasp. You seem to be just pretending to be unable to grasp this. It has not some unique feature of special relativity. You have one speed in terms of one system of coordinates, and a different speed in terms of a different system of coordinates... are you seeking a physical cause of this asymmetry? You seem to be just constructing witless sophistries.

> The difference is here that identical physical processes give different closing speeds depending on the direction of movement. If you can accept that as reality, then we are done.

Huh? You are profoundly confused. Again, objects have different speeds in terms of different coordinate systems, but they have invariant speed 0 in terms of their rest frame, and likewise pairs of objects have different closing speeds in terms of different coordinate systems, but they have an invariant relative speed, i.e., the closing speed in terms of the rest frame of one of the objects. This is simple grade school kinematics. And now... your cover your ears and make loud whooping sounds as you run away from the explanation.

On 04-May-23 2:27 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:41:58 AM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 04-May-23 1:02 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:00:19 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 03-May-23 10:28 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:15:56 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 03-May-23 9:48 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 6:52:35 PM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 3:52:11 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In the above example, if the light bulbs are moving in an Aether stationary to me,
>>>>>>>>> that would make perfect sense.
>>>>>>>> Right, and it would also make perfect sense if all the laws of physics are (locally) Lorentz invariant... which they are.
>>>>>>>>> It is indisputable in Newtonian physics that the child will have to use more
>>>>>>>>> force to throw the ball towards the person he is receding from, in order to
>>>>>>>>> make the velocity of the ball the same for each of the recipients.
>>>>>>>> Right, and also in special relativity, although the precise difference in the required force is very slightly different than in Newtonian physics, because Newton's laws are not Lorentz invariant, whereas the actual laws of mechanics are Lorentz invariant.
>>>>>>>>> The receding star is throwing out light just as the approaching star is. Why is
>>>>>>>>> the light from the receding star thrown out faster relative to the surface of the star?
>>>>>>>> You're not paying attention. Again, in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the star is at rest, the light (in vacuum) propagates at the speed c. Also, in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the earth is at rest, the light propagates at c. It is impossible for both of these things to be true... unless those two systems of coordinates are related to each other in a very specific way. This way is known as a Lorentz transformation. Standard inertial coordinates are, by definition, coordinates in terms of which the laws of physics take the same isotropic and homogeneous form, and the fact that the laws are Lorentz invariant (check for yourself) signifies that they take the same form in terms of coordinate systems related by Lorentz transformations.
>>>>>>>>> Do you at least see the problem?
>>>>>>>> Well, of course I see "the problem"...everyone saw the problem... this is why Einstein said the two things are seemingly irreconcilable, and then he explained the one and only way in which they can be reconciled.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well at least you accept that there is a 'problem'.
>>>>>> Not on my reading.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When viewed from above the double star system looks this picture:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment#/media/File:SitterKonstanz.png
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (In the diagram the c-v and c+v labels are reversed, since it illustrates the ballistic emission of light)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me ask it this way: does the application of the Lorentz transformation in both cases give a constant velocity of light towards the Earth?
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK so that is settled.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a reason behind the asymmetry in the system clearly viewed in this image, where on one side of the orbit the star emits light at c-v relative to the surface and c+v to the surface of the star?
>>>>>> You realise that the labels are what would happen if emission theory
>>>>>> were correct. Since it's not correct, the labels are wrong, and there is
>>>>>> no asymmetry to explain.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I mentioned, the labels are for emission theory. However, if we assume a constant velocity c towards the Earth, the labels are reversed, so one one side it would show a velocity between the surface of the star and the emitted light for example, for the approaching star. Either way, there is assymetry.
>>>> The only asymmetry is in the incorrect emission model. So why concern
>>>> yourself with it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would the wave fronts from the moving stars form a sphere or an ellipse?
>>>>>> A sphere - both in the frame of the star, and in the frame of an
>>>>>> observer moving relative to the star. There are not the same spheres,
>>>>>> but they are nevertheless spheres in the respective frames of reference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow. This is relativity then.
>>>>>
>>>>> A sphere in the frame of the star, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the star is moving relative to the observer, or the observer is moving relative to the star, another sphere consisting of a different set of photons in each case?
>>>>>
>>>>> A spherical wavefront of photons a sphere created out of nothing, where is the energy for that?
>>>> They're formed from the same photons, but the relativity of simultaneity
>>>> comes into play, so for example, where and when a photon forms part of
>>>> the wavefront one second after the emission is frame dependent.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> That is a good explanation, though I cannot accept it. Part of my problem is that the concepts associated with SRT are not concisely stated, not correctly stated, for example 'moving clocks slow down' etc.
>> "Moving clocks slow down, things contract" is popular science. The
>> Lorentz transform is perfectly clear. Don't blame special relativity for
>> misrepresentations made by people who do not understand it.
>
> Ah yes, but I frequently thought that these people were on your side of the fence.
>
> Some textbooks are also ..um ... less than correct, as I understand. Not to mention professors, God forbid.
>
>>>
>>> So each observer is stuck in his own reality if he is moving with respect to another pbserver.
>>>
>>> Tell me, in a certain configuration of Relativistic time and space, could you die before you were born?
>> No, those two events are necessarily time-like separated, and so have a
>> well-defined order. Birth accordingly occurs before death in all frames.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Nice to know. Life after death may be a timeless environment which will really wreak havoc with Relativity, should be fun.
>
> As a concept, God will have instant access to all information, meaning if that knowledge is real, Relativity is rendered obsolete.
>
> But I digress.
>
> My question has not been answered.
>

I don't think all your questions ever will, because you seem determined
to find some issue with special relativity.

What motivates you here, I don't know, but I now doubt that it's a
search for knowledge.

I mentioned "concern troll" before.

Sylvia.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:30:12 AM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 9:55:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Would action at a distance falsify Lorentz?
> Indeed it would, and none has ever been found. (No, quantum entanglement does not entail action at a distance.)
>
> > In any system of coordinates, where if two objects A and B have speeds vA and vB and vA and vB are not zero, then closing speed is vA-vB. Relative speed is, where in a system of coordinates S, then vA or vB is zero, relative speed is vA or vB as the case may be. So what makes the two situations different...?
>
> It isn't just two situations, it is infinitely many, due to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems (which is due to the inertia of energy). Consider two objects moving away from the origin of S in opposite directions on the x axis at velocities +u and -u, so their closing speed is u - (-u) = 2u. But their closing speed in terms of a system S' moving at speed v in terms of S is (u-v)/(1-uv) - (-u-v)/(1+uv) = 2u [(1-v^2)/(1-u^2v^2)]. This confirms that, in terms of S with v=0 we have closing speed 2u, but for any non-zero v we have a different closing speed, and for v=u (meaning the rightward object is at rest in terms of S') this yields the closing speed 2u/(1+u^2), which of course is the relative speed.
>
> So it isn't a binary thing with just two cases, there are infinitely many closing speeds for any pair of objects, depending on the coordinates, just as a single object has infinitely many speeds, depending on the coordinates. This is very elementary. Is there something about this that seems unclear to you?
> > That is one heck of a stipulation.
> There is no stipulation here. These are objective facts.
> > > The closing speeds between entities are coordinate-dependent quantities (as is velocity itself!), so there is nothing paradoxical about the fact that closing speeds between intrinsically identical pairs of entities are different depending on how those pairs are moving relative to a certain system of coordinates.
> >
> > It may not be paradoxical but is there an assymetry?
> To the contrary, the relationship between relatively moving systems of standard inertial coordinates is perfectly symmetrical and reciprocal. Of course, in general the descriptions of phenomena may be more symmetrical in terms of one such system than in terms of another. For example, two identical stars revolving in orbit around each other have symmetrical motions in terms of the CoM coordinates, but in terms of other coordinates the descriptions of their motions are formally not symmetrical. Needless to say, this isn't changing the phenomena, it depends on the relationship between the phenomena and a coordinate system. This is extremely elementary reasoning, applicable to Newtonian physics as well as special relativity, so it is strange that you are puzzled by this.
>
> > If we define S as the frame in which the Earth, the centre of mass of the stars are at
> > rest, we call the speed of the star towards the Earth as the relative speed?
> That would be the relative speed of the star and the earth.
> > Then we have to call the third entity, the light itself and the point of emission marked as on the surface of the star as the closing speeds between the surface of the star and photons?
> That sentence doesn't parse in English, and it is conceptually completely garbled. Perhaps you were struggling to ask something like : In terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the earth is at rest, the light emitted from the approaching star has speed c and the approaching star has speed v, so is c-v the closing speed between the pulse of light and the star in terms of these coordinates? The answer of course is yes. And the speed of the pulse in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the star is at rest is c. We covered this already, remember?
> > I still maintain that there is an asymmetry that has no physical cause.
> See above. Asymmetries between objects and coordinate systems are trivial, part of ordinary every-day kinematics that every human (and even most animals) easily grasp. You seem to be just pretending to be unable to grasp this. It has not some unique feature of special relativity. You have one speed in terms of one system of coordinates, and a different speed in terms of a different system of coordinates... are you seeking a physical cause of this asymmetry? You seem to be just constructing witless sophistries.
> > The difference is here that identical physical processes give different closing speeds depending on the direction of movement. If you can accept that as reality, then we are done.
> Huh? You are profoundly confused. Again, objects have different speeds in terms of different coordinate systems, but they have invariant speed 0 in terms of their rest frame, and likewise pairs of objects have different closing speeds in terms of different coordinate systems, but they have an invariant relative speed, i.e., the closing speed in terms of the rest frame of one of the objects. This is simple grade school kinematics. And now... your cover your ears and make loud whooping sounds as you run away from the explanation.

If you have a frame of reference S, and you have two sources of light A and B moving along the X- axis in opposite directions, the closing speed between the light sources and the photons will be c-v and c+v. This is a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light, and is not unique to the binary star systems.

One can call it asymmetry, but that is a necessary consequence.

Thanks for explaining closing speeds and relative speeds.

> > Would action at a distance falsify Lorentz?
> Indeed it would, and none has ever been found. (No, quantum entanglement does not entail action at a distance.)

OK. So looks like I believe action at a distance is a real thing, hence the conflict.

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:00:19 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 03-May-23 10:28 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:15:56 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 03-May-23 9:48 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 6:52:35 PM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 3:52:11 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> In the above example, if the light bulbs are moving in an Aether stationary to me,
> >>>>> that would make perfect sense.
> >>>> Right, and it would also make perfect sense if all the laws of physics are (locally) Lorentz invariant... which they are.
> >>>>> It is indisputable in Newtonian physics that the child will have to use more
> >>>>> force to throw the ball towards the person he is receding from, in order to
> >>>>> make the velocity of the ball the same for each of the recipients.
> >>>> Right, and also in special relativity, although the precise difference in the required force is very slightly different than in Newtonian .......
> >
> > As I mentioned, the labels are for emission theory. However, if we assume a constant velocity c towards the Earth, the labels are reversed, so one one side it would show a velocity between the surface of the star and the emitted light for example, for the approaching star. Either way, there is assymetry.
> The only asymmetry is in the incorrect emission model. So why concern
> yourself with it?
> >>>
> >>> Would the wave fronts from the moving stars form a sphere or an ellipse?
> >> A sphere - both in the frame of the star, and in the frame of an
> >> observer moving relative to the star. There are not the same spheres,
> >> but they are nevertheless spheres in the respective frames of reference.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Wow. This is relativity then.
> >
> > A sphere in the frame of the star, yes.
> >
> > If the star is moving relative to the observer, or the observer is moving relative to the star, another sphere consisting of a different set of photons in each case?
> >
> > A spherical wavefront of photons a sphere created out of nothing, where is the energy for that?
> They're formed from the same photons, but the relativity of simultaneity
> comes into play, so for example, where and when a photon forms part of
> the wavefront one second after the emission is frame dependent.
>
> Sylvia.

Something you said earlier, to clarify:

Light Source S1 is moving along the x- axis. O1 is stationary. S1 gives off a flash of light while moving.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>S1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Observer O1

The observer at O1 will see a spherical wavefront emanating from S1?

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 3:42:48 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> If you have a frame of reference S, and you have two sources of light A and B
> moving along the X- axis in opposite directions, the closing speed between the
> light sources and the photons will be c-v and c+v. This is a consequence of the
> constancy of the speed of light, and is not unique to the binary star systems.

Right, it is a consequence of the fact that energy has inertia (just as matter does), and hence standard inertial coordinates (in terms of which the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form, i.e., maximally symmetrical) are related by Lorentz transformations. Needless to say, if those sources of light have the same intrinsic frequencies, the light will have different energies and frequencies and wavelengths due to the Doppler effect, such that the behavior is entirely consistent with the laws of physics, regardless of which system we use. Anything else would result in gross asymmetries in the form of the natural laws. Understood?

> > Would action at a distance falsify Lorentz?
>
> Indeed it would, and none has ever been found. (No, quantum entanglement does not entail action at a distance.)

Just to clarify, I presume you are referring to instanteous (superluminal) action at a distance.

> Looks like I believe action at a distance is a real thing, hence the conflict.

Well, if you believe counter-factual things, then there will certainly be conflicts between your beliefs and the facts... by definition. Go ahead and state what phenomena you believe exhibits superluminal conveyance of mass, energy, action, or information, and I'll be happy to explain why it doesn't. Or just run away... up to you.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:50:41 PM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 3:42:48 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If you have a frame of reference S, and you have two sources of light A and B
> > moving along the X- axis in opposite directions, the closing speed between the
> > light sources and the photons will be c-v and c+v. This is a consequence of the
> > constancy of the speed of light, and is not unique to the binary star systems.
> Right, it is a consequence of the fact that energy has inertia (just as matter does), and hence standard inertial coordinates (in terms of which the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form, i.e.., maximally symmetrical) are related by Lorentz transformations. Needless to say, if those sources of light have the same intrinsic frequencies, the light will have different energies and frequencies and wavelengths due to the Doppler effect, such that the behavior is entirely consistent with the laws of physics, regardless of which system we use. Anything else would result in gross asymmetries in the form of the natural laws. Understood?

No, I do not understand. I understand that there is a need to make the laws of physics work seamlessly across frames of reference using the simplest transformations, however since I consider absolute motion not impossible but simply indeterminate, I cannot form an opinion.

In a geocentric universe the Earth was thought to be absolutely at rest, however even this was an unwarranted assumptions, since a geocentric universe did not necessarily mean a geostationary universe.

> > > Would action at a distance falsify Lorentz?
> >
> > Indeed it would, and none has ever been found. (No, quantum entanglement does not entail action at a distance.)
> Just to clarify, I presume you are referring to instanteous (superluminal) action at a distance.

Yes the usual science fiction wormholes and warp drives and so on.
>
> > Looks like I believe action at a distance is a real thing, hence the conflict.
>
> Well, if you believe counter-factual things, then there will certainly be conflicts between your beliefs and the facts... by definition. Go ahead and state what phenomena you believe exhibits superluminal conveyance of mass, energy, action, or information, and I'll be happy to explain why it doesn't. Or just run away... up to you.

Not ready to run away yet.

Let me see if I can explain this concept. Even if information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light, this does not mean that we can make calculations and statements about events if that is the right term, using the laws of physics, about things that have no chance of informing us through the transmission of information through light.

For example we know that the Sun is 8 light minutes away, so we make the statement that the sun is emitting photons right now and it will take 8 minutes to reach us. That is a information by calculation or deduction and is equally valid. So we are indeed projecting an absolute lattice of clocks throughout the universe when we do this. If we see an exploded star, we say that that star did not exist for some period of time into the past, since it exploded.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:50:41 PM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 3:42:48 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If you have a frame of reference S, and you have two sources of light A and B
> > moving along the X- axis in opposite directions, the closing speed between the
> > light sources and the photons will be c-v and c+v. This is a consequence of the
> > constancy of the speed of light, and is not unique to the binary star systems.
> Right, it is a consequence of the fact that energy has inertia (just as matter does), and hence standard inertial coordinates (in terms of which the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form, i.e.., maximally symmetrical) are related by Lorentz transformations. Needless to say, if those sources of light have the same intrinsic frequencies, the light will have different energies and frequencies and wavelengths due to the Doppler effect, such that the behavior is entirely consistent with the laws of physics, regardless of which system we use. Anything else would result in gross asymmetries in the form of the natural laws. Understood?
> > > Would action at a distance falsify Lorentz?
> >
> > Indeed it would, and none has ever been found. (No, quantum entanglement does not entail action at a distance.)
> Just to clarify, I presume you are referring to instanteous (superluminal) action at a distance.
>
> > Looks like I believe action at a distance is a real thing, hence the conflict.
>
> Well, if you believe counter-factual things, then there will certainly be conflicts between your beliefs and the facts... by definition. Go ahead and state what phenomena you believe exhibits superluminal conveyance of mass, energy, action, or information, and I'll be happy to explain why it doesn't. Or just run away... up to you.

Then there is this:

#####
2. The Problem

The problem arises from the fact that process theism (as well as other forms of temporalistic theism) seems to presuppose a cosmic "now," while the special theory of relativity has seemed, at least to most interpreters who have discussed the issue, to entail that no such "now" exists.

To begin with relativity physics: I will not repeat here the detailed explanations, which can be found in the articles by Wilcox, Ford, and Fitzgerald, as to why, according to special relativity theory, a cosmic "now" apparently does not exist. The main point is summarized nicely by Fitzgerald:

according to relativity theory there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity for spatially separated events. Certain pairs of events A and B are such that whether A is to be regarded as occurring before B, simultaneously with B, or after B, depends on the coordinate-system with respect to which one judges. These event pairs, which Whitehead calls "contemporaries" of one another, are picked out by the fact that no light signal travelling even in vacuo from either could reach the other. This entails that what counts as "the past" or "the future" is also relative to coordinate-systems. (PS 2:251)

https://www.religion-online.org/article/hartshorne-god-and-relativity-physics/

#####

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:41:52 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Go ahead and state what phenomena you believe exhibits superluminal
> > conveyance of mass, energy, action, or information, and I'll be happy to
> > explain why it doesn't.
>
> Even if information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light....

Well, that settles that. You claimed superluminal conveyance of energy or information, but when I ask you to give me an example, you immediately concede that your claim was false... or at least that you have no interest in defending it rationally.

> We know that the Sun is 8 light minutes away...

In terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the sun is at rest, yes. Of course, in terms of other standard inertial coordinate systems the spatial distance between sun and earth is different.

> so we make the statement that the sun is emitting photons right now...

Well, the meaning of "right now" (simultaneity) is coordinate-dependent. It means "at the same value of the time coordinate". Because of the inertia of energy, relatively moving systems of standard ienrtial coordinates have skewed temporal foliations.

> and it will take 8 minutes to reach us.

In terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the sun is at rest.

> That is a information by calculation or deduction and is equally valid.

Nothing you've said provide any support for your counterfactual claim of superluminal propagation of energy or information, nor for your denial of the abundantly demonstrated local Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. Agreed?

> Problem: I presuppose a cosmic "now," while the special theory of
> relativity entails that no such "now" exists.

Those words don't describe a problem for special relativity, nor even a conflict with your vague pre-supposition. You are free to define "cosmic now" to mean whatever you like. For example, in cosmology we often refer to the isotropic global temporal foliation in terms of which the CMBR and the galaxies are (locally) maximally isotropic. This does not conflict with the facts related to local standard inertial coordinates, in terms of which the laws of physics take the same simple form, regardless of how the system is moving relative to the local CMBR isotropic frame. That's is the meaning of local Lorentz invariance.

> This entails that what counts as "the past" or "the future" is also relative to coordinate-systems.

Well, that's just a misunderstanding. The causal future of an event is the future light cone, and the causal past is the past light cone. These are absolute. Talking about spacelike-separated events as being in each other's past or future for purposes of this kind of discussion is just wrong. People just like to smuggle in the colloquial meanings of those words and conflate them with the causal meanings, to construct witless sophistries. You should disregard any writings that contain misunderstandings like that.

On Thu, 04 May 2023 08:47:02 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:50:41 PM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 3:42:48 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com

> Then there is this:
>
> #####
> 2. The Problem
>
> The problem arises from the fact that process theism (as well as other
> forms of temporalistic theism) seems to presuppose a cosmic "now," while
> the special theory of relativity has seemed, at least to most
> interpreters who have discussed the issue, to entail that no such "now"
> exists.

The real problem is that some people have built a whole religion on the
basis that time and space are somehow related. By using the term 'cosmic
time' you are subtly agreeing with that notion.
Time has nothing whatsoever to do with space. It is universal and
independent dimension that possibly has several subdimensions, just as
space does. Now here is NOW everywhere even if there is no way to
actually prove that.

> #####

--
-- lover of truth

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 4:55:26 AM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:41:52 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Go ahead and state what phenomena you believe exhibits superluminal
> > > conveyance of mass, energy, action, or information, and I'll be happy to
> > > explain why it doesn't.
> >
> > Even if information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light...
>
> Well, that settles that. You claimed superluminal conveyance of energy or information, but when I ask you to give me an example, you immediately concede that your claim was false... or at least that you have no interest in defending it rationally.
>

I have no way of proving that superluminal conveyance of information is possible. Or do I? That raises an interesting question, is it possible to come up with a logical disproof of the second postulate, that is, a set steps that will lead to a contradiction? One way or the other, the matter will be settled.

> > We know that the Sun is 8 light minutes away...
>
> In terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the sun is at rest, yes. Of course, in terms of other standard inertial coordinate systems the spatial distance between sun and earth is different.
>

We choose to use the internal coordinate system in which the sun is at rest.. Of course it would not take a genius to figure out that running after a moving train with a tape measure in hand will not give you an accurate length for the train. When we talk about distances yes that is what we mean.

> > so we make the statement that the sun is emitting photons right now...
>
> Well, the meaning of "right now" (simultaneity) is coordinate-dependent. It means "at the same value of the time coordinate". Because of the inertia of energy, relatively moving systems of standard ienrtial coordinates have skewed temporal foliations.
> > and it will take 8 minutes to reach us.
> In terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the sun is at rest..

Yes we agree, so I have been using and I am used to this coordinate system.

> > That is a information by calculation or deduction and is equally valid.
> Nothing you've said provide any support for your counterfactual claim of superluminal propagation of energy or information, nor for your denial of the abundantly demonstrated local Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. Agreed?
>
Agreed. Can a calculation be considered a superluminal transfer of information? It may seem like a silly question, but I really am not clear about the answer, because of the various statements out there.

> > Problem: I presuppose a cosmic "now," while the special theory of
> > relativity entails that no such "now" exists.
>
> Those words don't describe a problem for special relativity, nor even a conflict with your vague pre-supposition. You are free to define "cosmic now" to mean whatever you like. For example, in cosmology we often refer to the isotropic global temporal foliation in terms of which the CMBR and the galaxies are (locally) maximally isotropic.

I am a big fan of the CMBR frame of refrence.

>This does not conflict with the facts related to local standard inertial coordinates, in terms of which the laws of physics take the same >simple form, regardless of how the system is moving relative to the local CMBR isotropic frame. That's is the meaning of local Lorentz >invariance.

Assume the laws of physics are the same, when referred to the local system of coordinates in which the 'observer' is at rest. The problem is when I try to observe a moving object, create a frame of reference in which that object is at rest, now given the speed of light is the same in both frames, how on Earth do I translate the calculations and measurements of everything else into my frame in a way that preserves those laws? I am no really interested, because I do not believe the speed of light is any sort of a limit, however it remains to be seen if that is provable or not.

> > This entails that what counts as "the past" or "the future" is also relative to coordinate-systems.
> Well, that's just a misunderstanding. The causal future of an event is the future light cone, and the causal past is the past light cone. >These are absolute. Talking about spacelike-separated events as being in each other's past or future for purposes of this kind of >discussion is just wrong. People just like to smuggle in the colloquial meanings of those words and conflate them with the causal >meanings, to construct witless sophistries.

Causal light cone meaning no effects can travel faster than the speed of light?

> You should disregard any writings that contain misunderstandings like that.

This is a huge problem for me. For example I can view fifteen different twin paradox explanations on YouTube including one that says that the other fourteen are wrong.

It is difficult because I have to figure out the official explanation within Relativity for various situations, these are sometimes contradictory.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:26:21 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is it possible to come up with a logical disproof of the second postulate?

Obviously not. You now understand that, in fact, light propagates in vacuum at the speed c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates. Why would your brain even be thinking of disproving something that you now understand to be true? Habit?

> We choose to use the internal [sic] coordinate system in which the sun is at rest.

Sometimes, although for many terrestrial purposes we use the standard inertial coordinates in which the center of the earth is at rest (ECI), or in which the barycenter of the solar system is at rest, and sometimes we use systems that aren't even standard inertial coordiate systems at all.

> When we talk about distances yes that is what we mean.

No, that isn't what you mean - you don't really know what you mean, because you've never thought about it carefully. You don't even really know what a standard system of inertial coordinates is.

> Can a calculation be considered a superluminal transfer of information?

No, obviously not.

> The problem is when I try to observe a moving object, create a frame of
> reference in which that object is at rest, now given the speed of light is
> the same in both frames, how on Earth do I translate the calculations and
> measurements of everything else into my frame in a way that preserves
> those laws?

By the Lorentz transformation. We covered this before, remember?

> I am not really interested, because I do not believe...

Right, you have no real interest in science, you just enjoy rehearsing the same old denialist slogans, over and over, year after year, for your entire life.

> > The causal future of an event is the future light cone, and the causal past is
> > the past light cone. These are absolute and invariant.
>
> Causal light cone meaning no effects can travel faster than the speed of light?

Your brain mnalfunctioned... there was no mention of the phrase "causal light cone". Again, the causal future of an event is the future light cone, and the causal past is the past light cone. These are absolute and invariant.. Thus your erroneous claim that causal past and future are coordinate dependent was based on misunderstanding. Of course, coordinate past and future is coordinate dependent... duh. Your befuddlement is due to conflating the two.

> > You should disregard any writings that contain misunderstandings like that.
>
> This is a huge problem for me.

That is true. One of the most consistent characteristics of people like you is an inability to distinguish sense from nonsense. It's like some people are color blind. You can't distinguish between the writings of a complete dolt and the writings of an intelligent and rational person. They all look the same to you. And since you don't have the intellect to understand things yourself, and must rely on authorities to tell you what to believe, this inability to distinguish between rationality and idiocy is particularly debilitating.

> It is difficult because I have to figure out the official explanation...

That's the charactistic crackpot lament, i.e., they are seeking the "official" (LOL) explanation. But that's all behind you now, right? You now understand standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. All your questions have been clearly and succinctly answered. Right?

On 2023-05-04 15:47:02 +0000, gehan.am...@gmail.com said:

> The problem arises from the fact that process theism (as well as other
> forms of temporalistic theism) seems to presuppose a cosmic "now,"
> while the special theory of relativity has seemed, at least to most
> interpreters who have discussed the issue, to entail that no such "now"
> exists.

What some heretic religion says does not affect what happens in the real
world. The correct religious understanding of time (as described in
"Confessions" by St. Augustine) is consistent with special relativity.

Mikko

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 10:07:01 AM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:26:21 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Is it possible to come up with a logical disproof of the second postulate?
>
> Obviously not. You now understand that, in fact, light propagates in vacuum at the speed c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates.. Why would your brain even be thinking of disproving something that you now understand to be true? Habit?
>

I am free to think, still, and ask the question. Of course if it was possible someone in the past 100 years would have done it - or maybe shouted down as critics.

> > We choose to use the internal [sic] coordinate system in which the sun is at rest.
>
> Sometimes, although for many terrestrial purposes we use the standard inertial coordinates in which the center of the earth is at rest (ECI), or in which the barycenter of the solar system is at rest, and sometimes we use systems that aren't even standard inertial coordiate systems at all.

OK

> > When we talk about distances yes that is what we mean.
> No, that isn't what you mean - you don't really know what you mean, because you've never thought about it carefully. You don't even really know what a standard system of inertial coordinates is.

Searching it.

> > Can a calculation be considered a superluminal transfer of information?
> No, obviously not.

Good. We have agreement here. You realize that subsequently it is possible to come up with data that would have previously been impossible to obtain due to speed of light limitations? For example if an event happened before the other.

> > The problem is when I try to observe a moving object, create a frame of
> > reference in which that object is at rest, now given the speed of light is
> > the same in both frames, how on Earth do I translate the calculations and
> > measurements of everything else into my frame in a way that preserves
> > those laws?
> By the Lorentz transformation. We covered this before, remember?

OK

>
> > I am not really interested, because I do not believe...
>
> Right, you have no real interest in science, you just enjoy rehearsing the same old denialist slogans, over and over, year after year, for your entire life.

I have no interest in coming up with any sort of theory. I am interested in trying to sort out what I have read so far, concerning Special Relativity. There are some good books recommended, I will be going through those and making my own notes.

> > > The causal future of an event is the future light cone, and the causal past is
> > > the past light cone. These are absolute and invariant.
> >
> > Causal light cone meaning no effects can travel faster than the speed of light?
> Your brain mnalfunctioned... there was no mention of the phrase "causal light cone". Again, the causal future of an event is the future light cone, and the causal past is the past light cone. These are absolute and invariant. Thus your erroneous claim that causal past and future are coordinate dependent was based on misunderstanding. Of course, coordinate past and future is coordinate dependent... duh. Your befuddlement is due to conflating the two.

"Because signals and other causal influences cannot travel faster than light (see special relativity), the light cone plays an essential role in defining the concept of causality: for a given event E, the set of events that lie on or inside the past light cone of E would also be the set of all events that could send a signal that would have time to reach E and influence it in some way" - Wikipedia

You probably know the rest of the details about the light cone. Could a relationship between non causal events be established outside the light cone? This question may not make any sense. For example which event happened before the other?

> > > You should disregard any writings that contain misunderstandings like that.
> >
> > This is a huge problem for me.
> That is true. One of the most consistent characteristics of people like you is an inability to distinguish sense from nonsense. It's like some people are color blind. You can't distinguish between the writings of a complete dolt and the writings of an intelligent and rational person. They all look the same to you. And since you don't have the intellect to understand things yourself, and must rely on authorities to tell you what to believe, this inability to distinguish between rationality and idiocy is particularly debilitating.
>
> > It is difficult because I have to figure out the official explanation....
>
> That's the charactistic crackpot lament, i.e., they are seeking the "official" (LOL) explanation. But that's all behind you now, right? You now understand standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. All your questions have been clearly and succinctly answered. Right?

Some questions have been answered, yes.

To be fair, there are many qualified and respected scientists with different conceptions of the universe. It would be difficult for most people to tell, as in real life, what is correct and what is not. Are there parallel universes for example, or is that a matter of opinion?

What if some textbooks are incorrect? You are right though, once you understand a theory well enough you will be able to sort out the incorrect explanations. For example some theories of aerodynamic lift which are incorrect can be now easily seen to be incorrect.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:13:52 PM UTC+5, Mikko wrote:
> On 2023-05-04 15:47:02 +0000, gehan.am...@gmail.com said:
>
> > The problem arises from the fact that process theism (as well as other
> > forms of temporalistic theism) seems to presuppose a cosmic "now,"
> > while the special theory of relativity has seemed, at least to most
> > interpreters who have discussed the issue, to entail that no such "now"
> > exists.
> What some heretic religion says does not affect what happens in the real
> world. The correct religious understanding of time (as described in
> "Confessions" by St. Augustine) is consistent with special relativity.
>
> Mikko

Is this what you mean?

"He compares the “drops of time” that he perceives in everyday life (the ‘drops’ in question refer to a water clock, steadily counting time) to God’s eternity, in which “nothing is transient, but the whole is present” (St Augustine, 2008). In eternity, there is no such thing as transition from past to present to future. Eternity is simply one whole present moment."

https://www.thecollector.com/what-is-time-st-augustine/

On 5/5/2023 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2023-05-04 15:47:02 +0000, gehan.am...@gmail.com said:
>
>> The problem arises from the fact that process theism (as well as other
>> forms of temporalistic theism) seems to presuppose a cosmic "now,"
>> while the special theory of relativity has seemed, at least to most
>> interpreters who have discussed the issue, to entail that no such
>> "now" exists.
>
> What some heretic religion says does not affect what happens in the real
> world. The correct religious understanding of time (as described in
> "Confessions" by St. Augustine) is consistent with special relativity.

You must mean Augustine's circular reasoning then.

whodat wrote
> On 5/5/2023 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> What some heretic religion says does not affect what happens in the
>> real world. The correct religious understanding of time (as described
>> in "Confessions" by St. Augustine) is consistent with special
>> relativity.
>
> You must mean Augustine's circular reasoning then.

you identify like a woman, so. What a shame. How many women are you guys
in here? Only retards in america identify like a woman.

On 5/5/2023 1:50 PM, Weslee Alberici wrote:
> whodat wrote
>> On 5/5/2023 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> What some heretic religion says does not affect what happens in the
>>> real world. The correct religious understanding of time (as described
>>> in "Confessions" by St. Augustine) is consistent with special
>>> relativity.
>>
>> You must mean Augustine's circular reasoning then.
>
> you identify like a woman, so. What a shame. How many women are you guys
> in here? Only retards in america identify like a woman.

With that sort of crazy talk hopefully you are drunk, otherwise
you are in serious trouble. My guess is that you aren't drunk.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 4:07:18 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You now understand that light propagates in vacuum at the speed c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates. Why would you even be thinking of disproving something that you now understand to be true? Habit?
> >
> I am free to think...

Sure, but (again) why would you think about disproving something that you understand to be true?

> Subsequently it is possible to come up with data that would have previously been impossible to obtain due to speed of light limitations. For example if an event happened before the other.

Those two sentences don't parse in English. Could you try again to express what you mean?

> I am interested in trying to sort out what I have read so far, concerning Special Relativity.

But you already fully understand that standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and you understand why this is true, and you understand all the consequences of it. So is your activity now simply to review books to see how well they describe all this?

> "Because signals and other causal influences..." Wikipedia

Are you able to articulate what your intention was in posting those words?

> Could a relationship between non causal events be established outside the light cone?
> For example which event happened before the other?

But we already covered this, remember?

> To be fair, there are many qualified and respected scientists with different conceptions of the universe. It would be difficult for most people to tell, as in real life, what is correct and what is not.

But you already understand local Lorentz invariance, and how we know it is true, and why it is true, and what the consequences of it are. Right? It's like if you have understood a proof of Pythagoras' theorem in Euclidean plane geometry... you know it is true, and why it is true. If someone tells you it's true, you know he is right, and if someone tells you it isn't true, you know he is wrong. There's no need for you to be searching for an authority, you should use your own brain and your own understanding.

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 4:53:58 AM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 4:07:18 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > You now understand that light propagates in vacuum at the speed c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates. Why would you even be thinking of disproving something that you now understand to be true? Habit?
> > >
> > I am free to think...
>
> Sure, but (again) why would you think about disproving something that you understand to be true?

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/aristotle_100584

Right now I am entertaining the thought not accepting it, as it is not required.
>
> > Subsequently it is possible to come up with data that would have previously been impossible to obtain due to speed of light limitations. For example if an event happened before the other.
>
> Those two sentences don't parse in English. Could you try again to express what you mean?

In the train and lightning strikes thought experiment, it is possible to say which lightning strike happened before the other in by
conducting an investigation after the fact.

> > I am interested in trying to sort out what I have read so far, concerning Special Relativity.
> But you already fully understand that standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and you understand why this is true, and you understand all the consequences of it. So is your activity now simply to review books to see how well they describe all this?

I do not need to assume anything is true, just that it works. I need to read more that is all.
>
> > "Because signals and other causal influences..." Wikipedia
>
> Are you able to articulate what your intention was in posting those words?

"Because signals and other causal influences cannot travel faster than light "

Simply stating the assumption.

> > Could a relationship between non causal events be established outside the light cone?
> > For example which event happened before the other?
> But we already covered this, remember?

OK

> > To be fair, there are many qualified and respected scientists with different conceptions of the universe. It would be difficult for most people to tell, as in real life, what is correct and what is not.
> But you already understand local Lorentz invariance, and how we know it is true, and why it is true, and what the consequences of it are. Right? It's like if you have understood a proof of Pythagoras' theorem in Euclidean plane geometry... you know it is true, and why it is true. If someone tells you it's true, you know he is right, and if someone tells you it isn't true, you know he is wrong. There's no need for you to be searching for an authority, you should use your own brain and your own understanding.

"you should use your own brain and your own understanding."

As far as I know that is what I am doing. Pythogoras' theorem can be easily demonstrated to be true visually.
With Special Relativity the background assumptions are not so easily discerned.