Time Dilation achieves isotropic Speed

When Lorentz invented time dilation as part of his contraction
hypothesis he did so to allow the speed of light to remain constant.
He thought that if the length of a moving object contracted, its
time had to slow down or the speed of light would not be constant.
However, Lorentz achieved the opposite effect with his thought
process.

Example:
An object of 100m length traveling with a speed of 200000km/sec would
according to the Lorentz transformation

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-200000km/sec^2/300000km/sec^2) = 1.3416408

shrink to 74.535599m (100/gamma). At rest, light will cover 100m in
100m/300000000m/sec = 0.000000333333sec. Time dilation will expand
this fraction of time to 0.00000044721360 seconds
(0.000000333333secs*1.3416408) for an object with the speed of
200000km/sec.

In the dilated time of 0.00000044721360 seconds, light at 300000000m/
sec will transit a distance of 134.16408m (300000000m/
sec*0.000000044721360sec) but if light had slowed down to 223607021m/
sec, light would exactly cover the original 100m in the dilated time
of 0.000000044721360sec (223607021m/sec*0.00000044721360sec=100m).
Clearly, if the speed of light had not been reduced, the law of
physics d=v*t would have been violated.

Peter Riedt

"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
...
Time Dilation achieves isotropic Speed

When Lorentz invented time dilation as part of his contraction
hypothesis he did so to allow the speed of light to remain constant.
He thought that if the length of a moving object contracted, its
time had to slow down or the speed of light would not be constant.

And there also has to be a change in simultaneity as well

However, Lorentz achieved the opposite effect with his thought
process.

This should be good for a laugh again...

Example:
An object of 100m length traveling with a speed of 200000km/sec would
according to the Lorentz transformation

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-200000km/sec^2/300000km/sec^2) = 1.3416408

shrink to 74.535599m (100/gamma).

If you mean that a stationary obserer would measure as the distance between
the endpoint of the moving rod at a given instance of time in the stationary
system .. then yes

At rest, light will cover 100m in
100m/300000000m/sec = 0.000000333333sec.

OK

Time dilation will expand
this fraction of time to 0.00000044721360 seconds
(0.000000333333secs*1.3416408) for an object with the speed of
200000km/sec.

If you mean that at the location of the stationary observer, an interval
that is 0.000000333333 on the moving clock will take 0.00000044721360 on the
observers clock .. then yes.

In the dilated time of 0.00000044721360 seconds, light at 300000000m/
sec will transit a distance of 134.16408m (300000000m/
sec*0.000000044721360sec) but if light had slowed down to 223607021m/
sec, light would exactly cover the original 100m in the dilated time
of 0.000000044721360sec (223607021m/sec*0.00000044721360sec=100m).
Clearly, if the speed of light had not been reduced, the law of
physics d=v*t would have been violated.

You are clearly confused about relativity.

Let's look at this more clearly...

Let us assume our coordinates are such that at x=0,t=0 we also have x'=0,
t'=0
Let us assume that we have a moving rod of length L travelling at speed v
Let us assume the light is shining along the rod in the direction of travel
Let us assume the light is emitted at t=t'=0, when the rear end of the rod
is at x=x'=0

In the stationary frame of reference, the rod is moving while the light is
travelling at c
So the light gets to the other end of the rod, as seen by the stationary
observer, at x, t where
t = L / (c - v)
x = c . t ... because x / t = c

That corresponds in the rods frame of reference to a point (x',t')

x' = gamma . ( x - v.t ) ... Lorentz
x' = gamma . ( c.t - v.t ) ... subs for x
x' = gamma . ( c - v ) . t ... factorise
x' = gamma . ( c - v ) . L / (c - v) ... subs for t
x' = gamma . L ... cancel

t' = gamma . ( t - v.x / c^2 ) ... Lorentz
t' = gamma . ( t - v.t / c ) ... subs for x
t' = gamma . (1 - v/c ) . t ... factorise
t' = gamma . (c - v) / c . L / (c - v) ... subs for t
t' = gamma . L / c ... cancel

so the speed of light as seen in the moving rods frame is

c' = x' / t'
c' = gamma . L / ( gamma . L / c )
c' = c

So you can see that the speed of light as measuring in the frame of the
moving frame is c as well

On Feb 1, 10:04*pm, Peri of Pera wrote:
Time Dilation achieves isotropic Speed

When Lorentz invented time dilation as part of his contraction
hypothesis he did so to allow the speed of light to remain constant.
He thought that if *the length *of a moving object contracted, its
time *had to slow down or the speed of light would not be constant.
However, Lorentz achieved the opposite effect with his thought
process.

Example:
An object of 100m length traveling with a speed of 200000km/sec *would
according to the Lorentz transformation

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-200000km/sec^2/300000km/sec^2) *= 1.3416408

shrink to 74.535599m (100/gamma). At rest, light will cover 100m in
100m/300000000m/sec = 0.000000333333sec. Time dilation will expand
this fraction of *time to 0.00000044721360 seconds
(0.000000333333secs*1.3416408) for an object with the speed of
200000km/sec.

In the dilated time of 0.00000044721360 seconds, light at 300000000m/
sec will transit a distance of 134.16408m (300000000m/
sec*0.000000044721360sec) but if light had slowed down to 223607021m/
sec, light would exactly cover the original 100m in the dilated time
of *0.000000044721360sec (223607021m/sec*0.00000044721360sec=100m).
Clearly, if the speed of light had not been reduced, the law of
physics d=v*t would have been violated.

Peter Riedt

This relates to the concept of the length contraction. Length
contraction does not imply that the object in motion is shorter.
Actually, it is be longer.

In your example, L = 100m, c = 300000000m/s and t = 0.000000333333sec
for v = 200000000m/s, L' = 74.535599m

What it means is that length of 100m in the stationary system is
equivalent to 74.5m in the moving system.

Length of the rod still 100m in the moving system. Its equivalent
length in the stationary system is 100* (100/74.5) = 134.164m.

The equivalent length of the rod is longer in the moving system!!!

Explanation: The same distance between 2 points measured in the moving
system is shorter because the measuring metre stick is longer. Object
elongates at the same rate as the metre stick so the measured length
is unchanged. So as to compare to the stationary system, the moving
object is longer.

Due to time dilation, the equivalent time in the stationary system is
= 0.00000044721360sec which is also longer

d = 134.164 m (equivalent length of 100m of the moving system)
v = 300000000 m/s
t = 0.00000044721360 sec (equivalent time of 0.000000333333s of the
moving system)
v * t = 3 * 10^8 * 44.72136 * 10^(-8) = 134.16 = d

Please note that both of d and t are longer in the moving system.

"snapdragon31" wrote in message
...
On Feb 1, 10:04 pm, Peri of Pera wrote:
Time Dilation achieves isotropic Speed

When Lorentz invented time dilation as part of his contraction
hypothesis he did so to allow the speed of light to remain constant.
He thought that if the length of a moving object contracted, its
time had to slow down or the speed of light would not be constant.
However, Lorentz achieved the opposite effect with his thought
process.

Example:
An object of 100m length traveling with a speed of 200000km/sec would
according to the Lorentz transformation

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-200000km/sec^2/300000km/sec^2) = 1.3416408

shrink to 74.535599m (100/gamma). At rest, light will cover 100m in
100m/300000000m/sec = 0.000000333333sec. Time dilation will expand
this fraction of time to 0.00000044721360 seconds
(0.000000333333secs*1.3416408) for an object with the speed of
200000km/sec.

In the dilated time of 0.00000044721360 seconds, light at 300000000m/
sec will transit a distance of 134.16408m (300000000m/
sec*0.000000044721360sec) but if light had slowed down to 223607021m/
sec, light would exactly cover the original 100m in the dilated time
of 0.000000044721360sec (223607021m/sec*0.00000044721360sec=100m).
Clearly, if the speed of light had not been reduced, the law of
physics d=v*t would have been violated.

Peter Riedt

This relates to the concept of the length contraction. Length
contraction does not imply that the object in motion is shorter.
Actually, it is be longer.

No it is not .. why do you insist on this nonsense?

In your example, L = 100m, c = 300000000m/s and t = 0.000000333333sec
for v = 200000000m/s, L' = 74.535599m

What it means is that length of 100m in the stationary system is
equivalent to 74.5m in the moving system.

Sort of.

Length of the rod still 100m in the moving system. Its equivalent
length in the stationary system is 100* (100/74.5) = 134.164m.

No .. it is 75.4 .. where did you pull than figure from?

The equivalent length of the rod is longer in the moving system!!!

No .. it is not

Explanation:

This should be good for a laugh

The same distance between 2 points measured in the moving
system is shorter because the measuring metre stick is longer.

The contracted length we see comes from the measurement of the length of the
moving object from within the stationary system using a stationary mater
stick . That stick is the same length as when it measures a non-moving
obejct .. it doesn't grow because you are measuring something that is moving
!!!

Object
elongates at the same rate as the metre stick so the measured length
is unchanged.

So .. now you have changed to talk about a moving metre stick measureing a
moving object. In the moving frame there is no change to either the stick
of the object. If the stationary frame measures the moving ruler they will
get a shorter length in exactly the same way that the object has a short
length.

So as to compare to the stationary system, the moving
object is longer.

No .. it is shorter. GEes you are both stubborn and incredibly stupid ..
contraction means 'shorter'. It doesn't mean longer.

Due to time dilation, the equivalent time in the stationary system is
= 0.00000044721360sec which is also longer

You are making the same mistakes as the OP regarding what time dilation
means.

d = 134.164 m (equivalent length of 100m of the moving system)

The 100m rod is 100m long in the moving system. A 134.164 rod in the moving
system would appear to be 100m in the stationary system. You are completely
confused about Sr and LT here.

v = 300000000 m/s
t = 0.00000044721360 sec (equivalent time of 0.000000333333s of the
moving system)
v * t = 3 * 10^8 * 44.72136 * 10^(-8) = 134.16 = d
Please note that both of d and t are longer in the moving system.

No .. they clearly are not .. not to anyone who has a correct understanding
of the physics involved.

You *know* that you do not (yet) understand SR .. why are you inflicting
your misunderstanding onto someone else?

On Feb 2, 1:49*pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in ...

Time Dilation achieves isotropic Speed

When Lorentz invented time dilation as part of his contraction
hypothesis he did so to allow the speed of light to remain constant.
He thought that if *the length *of a moving object contracted, its
time *had to slow down or the speed of light would not be constant.

And there also has to be a change in simultaneity as well

However, Lorentz achieved the opposite effect with his thought
process.

This should be good for a laugh again...

Example:
An object of 100m length traveling with a speed of 200000km/sec *would
according to the Lorentz transformation

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-200000km/sec^2/300000km/sec^2) *= 1.3416408

shrink to 74.535599m (100/gamma).

If you mean that a stationary obserer would measure as the distance between
the endpoint of the moving rod at a given instance of time in the stationary
system .. then yes

At rest, light will cover 100m in
100m/300000000m/sec = 0.000000333333sec.

OK

Time dilation will expand
this fraction of *time to 0.00000044721360 seconds
(0.000000333333secs*1.3416408) for an object with the speed of
200000km/sec.

If you mean that at the location of the stationary observer, an interval
that is 0.000000333333 on the moving clock will take 0.00000044721360 on the
observers clock .. then yes.

In the dilated time of 0.00000044721360 seconds, light at 300000000m/
sec will transit a distance of 134.16408m (300000000m/
sec*0.000000044721360sec) but if light had slowed down to 223607021m/
sec, light would exactly cover the original 100m in the dilated time
of *0.000000044721360sec (223607021m/sec*0.00000044721360sec=100m).
Clearly, if the speed of light had not been reduced, the law of
physics d=v*t would have been violated.

You are clearly confused about relativity.

Let's look at this more clearly...

Let us assume our coordinates are such that at x=0,t=0 we also have x'=0,
t'=0
Let us assume that we have a moving rod of length L travelling at speed v
Let us assume the light is shining along the rod in the direction of travel
Let us assume the light is emitted at t=t'=0, when the rear end of the rod
is at x=x'=0

In the stationary frame of reference, the rod is moving while the light is
travelling at c
So the light gets to the other end of the rod, as seen by the stationary
observer, at x, t where
t = L / (c - v)
x = c . t ... because x / t = c

That corresponds in the rods frame of reference to a point (x',t')

x' = gamma . ( x - v.t ) ... Lorentz
x' = gamma . ( c.t - v.t ) ... subs for x
x' = gamma . ( c - v ) . t ... factorise
x' = gamma . ( c - v ) . L / (c - v) ... subs for t
x' = gamma . L ... cancel

t' = gamma . ( t - v.x / c^2 ) ... Lorentz
t' = gamma . ( t - v.t / c ) ... subs for x
t' = gamma . (1 - v/c ) . t ... factorise
t' = gamma . (c - v) / c . L / (c - v) ... subs for t
t' = gamma . L / c ... cancel

so the speed of light as seen in the moving rods frame is

c' = x' / t'
c' = gamma . L / ( gamma . L / c )
c' = c

So you can see that the speed of light as measuring in the frame of the
moving frame is c as well


Jecko,
The questions a If time slows down and there is more time to do
things will light go a longer distance or is the speed of light
reduced? Either must occur to preserve the law of physics d=v/t.
Peter Riedt

"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
...
On Feb 2, 1:49 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in
...

Time Dilation achieves isotropic Speed

When Lorentz invented time dilation as part of his contraction
hypothesis he did so to allow the speed of light to remain constant.
He thought that if the length of a moving object contracted, its
time had to slow down or the speed of light would not be constant.

And there also has to be a change in simultaneity as well

However, Lorentz achieved the opposite effect with his thought
process.

This should be good for a laugh again...

Example:
An object of 100m length traveling with a speed of 200000km/sec would
according to the Lorentz transformation

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-200000km/sec^2/300000km/sec^2) = 1.3416408

shrink to 74.535599m (100/gamma).

If you mean that a stationary obserer would measure as the distance
between
the endpoint of the moving rod at a given instance of time in the
stationary
system .. then yes

At rest, light will cover 100m in
100m/300000000m/sec = 0.000000333333sec.

OK

Time dilation will expand
this fraction of time to 0.00000044721360 seconds
(0.000000333333secs*1.3416408) for an object with the speed of
200000km/sec.

If you mean that at the location of the stationary observer, an interval
that is 0.000000333333 on the moving clock will take 0.00000044721360 on
the
observers clock .. then yes.

In the dilated time of 0.00000044721360 seconds, light at 300000000m/
sec will transit a distance of 134.16408m (300000000m/
sec*0.000000044721360sec) but if light had slowed down to 223607021m/
sec, light would exactly cover the original 100m in the dilated time
of 0.000000044721360sec (223607021m/sec*0.00000044721360sec=100m).
Clearly, if the speed of light had not been reduced, the law of
physics d=v*t would have been violated.

You are clearly confused about relativity.

Let's look at this more clearly...

Let us assume our coordinates are such that at x=0,t=0 we also have x'=0,
t'=0
Let us assume that we have a moving rod of length L travelling at speed v
Let us assume the light is shining along the rod in the direction of
travel
Let us assume the light is emitted at t=t'=0, when the rear end of the
rod
is at x=x'=0

In the stationary frame of reference, the rod is moving while the light
is
travelling at c
So the light gets to the other end of the rod, as seen by the stationary
observer, at x, t where
t = L / (c - v)
x = c . t ... because x / t = c

That corresponds in the rods frame of reference to a point (x',t')

x' = gamma . ( x - v.t ) ... Lorentz
x' = gamma . ( c.t - v.t ) ... subs for x
x' = gamma . ( c - v ) . t ... factorise
x' = gamma . ( c - v ) . L / (c - v) ... subs for t
x' = gamma . L ... cancel

t' = gamma . ( t - v.x / c^2 ) ... Lorentz
t' = gamma . ( t - v.t / c ) ... subs for x
t' = gamma . (1 - v/c ) . t ... factorise
t' = gamma . (c - v) / c . L / (c - v) ... subs for t
t' = gamma . L / c ... cancel

so the speed of light as seen in the moving rods frame is

c' = x' / t'
c' = gamma . L / ( gamma . L / c )
c' = c

So you can see that the speed of light as measuring in the frame of the
moving frame is c as well

Jecko,
The questions a

Ahh .. so now you are asking questions instead of making bold statements
that SR and LT is wrong .. that at least is an improvement

If time slows down

At a given point in the stationary frame .. but that's not what is happening
here.

and there is more time to do
things will light go a longer distance or is the speed of light
reduced? Either must occur to preserve the law of physics d=v/t.

Relativity of simultaneity .. look it up. That is why Lorentz Transforms
work .. they combine the three effects that you need to have together to
make a constant speed of light work: length contraction, time dilation, and
relativity of simultaneity. If you ignore one of those, then the other two
*seem* contradictory (which is what you are doing).

On Feb 3, 9:36 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in ...





On Feb 2, 1:49 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in
messagenews:bb01e949-a208-4aa8-a317-e490b88df__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i ...

Time Dilation achieves isotropic Speed

When Lorentz invented time dilation as part of his contraction
hypothesis he did so to allow the speed of light to remain constant.
He thought that if the length of a moving object contracted, its
time had to slow down or the speed of light would not be constant.

And there also has to be a change in simultaneity as well

However, Lorentz achieved the opposite effect with his thought
process.

This should be good for a laugh again...

Example:
An object of 100m length traveling with a speed of 200000km/sec would
according to the Lorentz transformation

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-200000km/sec^2/300000km/sec^2) = 1.3416408

shrink to 74.535599m (100/gamma).

If you mean that a stationary obserer would measure as the distance
between
the endpoint of the moving rod at a given instance of time in the
stationary
system .. then yes

At rest, light will cover 100m in
100m/300000000m/sec = 0.000000333333sec.

OK

Time dilation will expand
this fraction of time to 0.00000044721360 seconds
(0.000000333333secs*1.3416408) for an object with the speed of
200000km/sec.

If you mean that at the location of the stationary observer, an interval
that is 0.000000333333 on the moving clock will take 0.00000044721360 on
the
observers clock .. then yes.

In the dilated time of 0.00000044721360 seconds, light at 300000000m/
sec will transit a distance of 134.16408m (300000000m/
sec*0.000000044721360sec) but if light had slowed down to 223607021m/
sec, light would exactly cover the original 100m in the dilated time
of 0.000000044721360sec (223607021m/sec*0.00000044721360sec=100m).
Clearly, if the speed of light had not been reduced, the law of
physics d=v*t would have been violated.

You are clearly confused about relativity.

Let's look at this more clearly...

Let us assume our coordinates are such that at x=0,t=0 we also have x'=0,
t'=0
Let us assume that we have a moving rod of length L travelling at speed v
Let us assume the light is shining along the rod in the direction of
travel
Let us assume the light is emitted at t=t'=0, when the rear end of the
rod
is at x=x'=0

In the stationary frame of reference, the rod is moving while the light
is
travelling at c
So the light gets to the other end of the rod, as seen by the stationary
observer, at x, t where
t = L / (c - v)
x = c . t ... because x / t = c

That corresponds in the rods frame of reference to a point (x',t')

x' = gamma . ( x - v.t ) ... Lorentz
x' = gamma . ( c.t - v.t ) ... subs for x
x' = gamma . ( c - v ) . t ... factorise
x' = gamma . ( c - v ) . L / (c - v) ... subs for t
x' = gamma . L ... cancel

t' = gamma . ( t - v.x / c^2 ) ... Lorentz
t' = gamma . ( t - v.t / c ) ... subs for x
t' = gamma . (1 - v/c ) . t ... factorise
t' = gamma . (c - v) / c . L / (c - v) ... subs for t
t' = gamma . L / c ... cancel

so the speed of light as seen in the moving rods frame is

c' = x' / t'
c' = gamma . L / ( gamma . L / c )
c' = c

So you can see that the speed of light as measuring in the frame of the
moving frame is c as well

Jecko,
The questions a

Ahh .. so now you are asking questions instead of making bold statements
that SR and LT is wrong .. that at least is an improvement

If time slows down

At a given point in the stationary frame .. but that's not what is happening
here.

and there is more time to do
things will light go a longer distance or is the speed of light
reduced? Either must occur to preserve the law of physics d=v/t.

Relativity of simultaneity .. look it up. That is why Lorentz Transforms
work .. they combine the three effects that you need to have together to
make a constant speed of light work: length contraction, time dilation, and
relativity of simultaneity. If you ignore one of those, then the other two
*seem* contradictory (which is what you are doing).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jecko,
If the going gets difficult, you hide behind 'observer frames'. Now
you use 'relativity of simultaneity' as another nebulous concept. My
questions are easy to understand but perhaps too difficult to answer.
Don't try again with bull****. It doesn't solve anything.
Peter Riedt

Dear Peri of Pera:

"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 9:36 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
....
Jecko,
If the going gets difficult, you hide behind 'observer
frames'. Now you use 'relativity of simultaneity' as
another nebulous concept. My questions are easy
to understand but perhaps too difficult to answer.
Don't try again with bull****. It doesn't solve
anything.

Why wouldn't Jekyl try again with you? Maybe doesn't expect to
"solve" you, just give you the attention you seem to feel you
deserve.

David A. Smith

"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 9:36 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in
...





On Feb 2, 1:49 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in
messagenews:bb01e949-a208-4aa8-a317-e490b88df__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i ...

Time Dilation achieves isotropic Speed

When Lorentz invented time dilation as part of his contraction
hypothesis he did so to allow the speed of light to remain constant.
He thought that if the length of a moving object contracted, its
time had to slow down or the speed of light would not be constant.

And there also has to be a change in simultaneity as well

However, Lorentz achieved the opposite effect with his thought
process.

This should be good for a laugh again...

Example:
An object of 100m length traveling with a speed of 200000km/sec
would
according to the Lorentz transformation

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-200000km/sec^2/300000km/sec^2) = 1.3416408

shrink to 74.535599m (100/gamma).

If you mean that a stationary obserer would measure as the distance
between
the endpoint of the moving rod at a given instance of time in the
stationary
system .. then yes

At rest, light will cover 100m in
100m/300000000m/sec = 0.000000333333sec.

OK

Time dilation will expand
this fraction of time to 0.00000044721360 seconds
(0.000000333333secs*1.3416408) for an object with the speed of
200000km/sec.

If you mean that at the location of the stationary observer, an
interval
that is 0.000000333333 on the moving clock will take 0.00000044721360
on
the
observers clock .. then yes.

In the dilated time of 0.00000044721360 seconds, light at
300000000m/
sec will transit a distance of 134.16408m (300000000m/
sec*0.000000044721360sec) but if light had slowed down to
223607021m/
sec, light would exactly cover the original 100m in the dilated time
of 0.000000044721360sec (223607021m/sec*0.00000044721360sec=100m).
Clearly, if the speed of light had not been reduced, the law of
physics d=v*t would have been violated.

You are clearly confused about relativity.

Let's look at this more clearly...

Let us assume our coordinates are such that at x=0,t=0 we also have
x'=0,
t'=0
Let us assume that we have a moving rod of length L travelling at
speed v
Let us assume the light is shining along the rod in the direction of
travel
Let us assume the light is emitted at t=t'=0, when the rear end of the
rod
is at x=x'=0

In the stationary frame of reference, the rod is moving while the
light
is
travelling at c
So the light gets to the other end of the rod, as seen by the
stationary
observer, at x, t where
t = L / (c - v)
x = c . t ... because x / t = c

That corresponds in the rods frame of reference to a point (x',t')

x' = gamma . ( x - v.t ) ... Lorentz
x' = gamma . ( c.t - v.t ) ... subs for x
x' = gamma . ( c - v ) . t ... factorise
x' = gamma . ( c - v ) . L / (c - v) ... subs for t
x' = gamma . L ... cancel

t' = gamma . ( t - v.x / c^2 ) ... Lorentz
t' = gamma . ( t - v.t / c ) ... subs for x
t' = gamma . (1 - v/c ) . t ... factorise
t' = gamma . (c - v) / c . L / (c - v) ... subs for t
t' = gamma . L / c ... cancel

so the speed of light as seen in the moving rods frame is

c' = x' / t'
c' = gamma . L / ( gamma . L / c )
c' = c

So you can see that the speed of light as measuring in the frame of
the
moving frame is c as well

Jecko,
The questions a

Ahh .. so now you are asking questions instead of making bold statements
that SR and LT is wrong .. that at least is an improvement

If time slows down

At a given point in the stationary frame .. but that's not what is
happening
here.

and there is more time to do
things will light go a longer distance or is the speed of light
reduced? Either must occur to preserve the law of physics d=v/t.

Relativity of simultaneity .. look it up. That is why Lorentz Transforms
work .. they combine the three effects that you need to have together to
make a constant speed of light work: length contraction, time dilation,
and
relativity of simultaneity. If you ignore one of those, then the other
two
*seem* contradictory (which is what you are doing).

Jecko,
If the going gets difficult, you hide behind 'observer frames'.

I'm not hiding anywhere. I am being very open about it .. i showed you the
full working using Lorentz transforms for your scenario.

Now
you use 'relativity of simultaneity' as another nebulous concept.

Its not nebulous .. its simply something you haven't understood .. along
with the rest of SR and LT. Do not criticise from a point of ignorance.

My questions are easy to understand but perhaps too difficult to answer.

They aren't at all difficult to answer. I showed you the correct working
using Lorentz transforms that showed the speed of light was the same in both
frames of reference. Now .. you need ot work out why your understanding of
what SR and LT predict was so wrong.

Don't try again with bull****. It doesn't solve anything.

Indeed .. so stop with yours and do some learning about SR and LT. If you
then still have some genuine problems with understanding .. ask some
questions. If you then think there is really a problem with SR, then post
it, along with your working and ask if anyone can see a problem with your
analysis. That's the way to be taken seriously, and not be thought of as a
troll or an ignorant crackpot.

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...
| Dear Peri of Pera:
|
| "Peri of Pera" wrote in message
| ...
| On Feb 3, 9:36 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
| ...
| Jecko,
| If the going gets difficult, you hide behind 'observer
| frames'. Now you use 'relativity of simultaneity' as
| another nebulous concept. My questions are easy
| to understand but perhaps too difficult to answer.
| Don't try again with bull****. It doesn't solve
| anything.
|
| Why wouldn't Jekyl try again with you? Maybe doesn't expect to
| "solve" you, just give you the attention you seem to feel you
| deserve.

Hahaha!

Why wouldn't Smiffy try again with you?
Maybe [she] doesn't expect to "solve" you, just give you the
attention she seem to feel you deserve, "DEAR" Peri of Pera.

Hint: Keep your arse padlocked.