On May 5, 3:48�pm, YBM wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Well, for example, light is emitted at the origins of S and S' when
they coincide. �According to Einstein, the light would propagate in S
as a sphere with a radius of ct, and �in S' as a sphere with a radius
of ct', except that the sphere in S' is an oblate sphere because of
the distance contraction. �

It's a sphere, but it is oblate ? Can't you realize you contradict
yourself ? They are spheres in both frames.

So we consider a photon proceeding from the
origins of S and S' at t=t'=0 in the �-x direction.

So ? Then the equation of movement is x=-ct.
speed is c, velocity is (-c,0,0), LT (with speed c as a
parameter) will show that in S' the equation of movement
is x'=-ct'.

When a time of t
has transpired in S, a time of t' has transpired in S'. �The photon is
at the coordinate x in S and at the coordinate x' in S'. �Both x and
x' are negative. �Both t and t' are positive. �The velocity of the
photon is -c, not c as you insist it would be. �The Lorentz equations
themselves show that x=(-c)t.

I've never said that velocity (which is a vector anyway) is -c or
c. Speed is c anyway, and speed is the value to use in LT, not
velocity. Then the (real) LT would show that if x=-ct then
x'=-ct, just plug this in my demo above, you'll see.

The speed c is squared everywhere it appears in the Lorentz
equations. Have you ever wondered why? Well, there is a reason. (-
c)^2 = c^2
So with regard to whether the Lorentz equations are using speed of
light or velocity of light can only be determined by x and x', since
Einstein says x=ct, x'=ct', and I say that the equations should show
velocity of light. So if x is a negative number in the Lorentz
equation for t', is c positive or negative in Einstein's little
equation? Well, it has to be negative if t is positive, so the
Lorentz equations are using velocity of light, just as I said.


What are you trying to prove ? That by using some kind of signed
speed (what you improperly call "velocity") in the LT instead of
the speed of light they are supposed to use (and are DEFINED as
such) you obtain wrong results ? So what ? Just use the real
LT, you'll get the right ones...

The Lorentz equations and their accompanying distance contraction are
completely unnecessary. Use the correct velocities for photons, and
you can use the Galilean transformation equations.

This is just plain ridiculous...

The Lorentz equation works because it is showing velocity of light,
not speed of light as scientists say it does.

I just used speed of light (not velocity) in the LT, and show you
by trivial algebra that they "works". I suggest you to consider
you failed to grasp many basic points about what are coordinates,
events, transformation, equation of movements, etc. This is quite
obvious...

Well, what is quite obvious to me is that the velocity of a photon
traveling in the -x direction has a velocity of -c, something no
scientist will admit. So here we are. You think I am in doubt about
who is right and who is wrong?

If the equations were
using speed of light, you would be able to reduce them down by the
rules of algebra, and they would still work. �They will not work if
you reduce them down past

� � � � � �t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
with the equations x=ct, x'=ct',

I did. It took 3 lines of elementary algebra.

because if you do, the velocity of a
photon is wrong. �

As you can see, this is not true.

Why not reduce the numerator to t(1-v/c)?
� �If you did, you would have to put a -c into the equation for c
every time x was negative. �

let's try :

� x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c2) = (ct-vt)/(t-vct/c2)
� � � � = t(c-v)/( t (1 - v/c) )
� � � � = c(1 - v/c) / (1 - v/c)
� � � � = c

= x'=ct'

I wonder how you could think that by using different, but valid,
algebraic transformations, one could obtain different results ?
Especially on such trivial ones...

Well, this is not trivial. Your claim is that a photon traveling on
the x' axis in the -x' direction has a velocity of c. I say it has a
velocity of -c. We cannot both be correct. Sorry, but you are the
one who is wrong.

So if you reflect light from a mirror, the
velocity of a photon changes, and you have to change from c to -c.
The Lorentz equations do this automatically with the value of x,
however, they do so at the price of a distance contraction.

Complete nonsense...

So now you are going to explain why a photon traveling with a velocity
of c has a velocity of c after it is reflected back in the direction
it came from with a mirror. We are all eager to hear your
explanation.

� � �So what is your theory about how light exists if nothing can be
accellerated to the speed of light?

Unrelated nonsense.

What a surprise that you would not want to explain your ideas.
Robert B. Winn