"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
om...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
...
Riedt's Constancy of Light Rebuttal II

The constancy of the speed of light (isotropy) is one of the principles
of
Special Relativity. That this principle is not tenable can be
illustrated by
a simple thought experiment.

A spaceship of 100m length and 100m width travels at 30000km/sec in
uniform
rectilinear motion through space. Mounted on the square roof are two
light
sensors A and B and one light emitter, E. Emitter E is located in the
front
left corner of the roof, sensor A is located at the back left corner and
sensor B on the front right corner. At rest, distance EA = distance EB =
100m. While the spaceship travels in the direction of AE, light is
emitted
from E to A parallel to the motion and to B perpendicularly. For light
to be
isotropic, it must hit A and B at the same time if observed from another
*frame*.

Wrong. Your assertion that the reception of light at A and the
reception of light at B must be simultaneous in all frames is contrary
to SR and amounts to an up-front assumption that SR is wrong. When
you assume that something is incorrect at the outset, you can easily
lead yourself to the conclusion that it is wrong.

Paul Cardinale

Paul, My arguments simply a
1. The Lorentz transformations are unambiguous, specific and absolute:
x1 =x*sqrt(1-vv/cc), z1=z, y1=y, t1=t*sqrt(1-vv/cc). No additional factors,
angles, clocks in synch, qualifiers or modifiers are stated to be required.

2. Two frames are involved in my thought experiment, frame f1 and frame f2.
EA and EB measured by frame f1 rods are 100m each but measured by frame 2
rods, EA is 98.498m and EB is 100m.

3. Using frame 2 rods, light cannot be isotropic. The Lorentz transforms are
not consistent with the constancy of light principle. SR contradicts itself.

Peter Riedt

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message ...

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
om...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
...
Riedt's Constancy of Light Rebuttal II

The constancy of the speed of light (isotropy) is one of the principles
of
Special Relativity. That this principle is not tenable can be
illustrated by
a simple thought experiment.

A spaceship of 100m length and 100m width travels at 30000km/sec in
uniform
rectilinear motion through space. Mounted on the square roof are two
light
sensors A and B and one light emitter, E. Emitter E is located in the
front
left corner of the roof, sensor A is located at the back left corner and
sensor B on the front right corner. At rest, distance EA = distance EB =
100m. While the spaceship travels in the direction of AE, light is
emitted
from E to A parallel to the motion and to B perpendicularly. For light
to be
isotropic, it must hit A and B at the same time if observed from another
*frame*.

Wrong. Your assertion that the reception of light at A and the
reception of light at B must be simultaneous in all frames is contrary
to SR and amounts to an up-front assumption that SR is wrong. When
you assume that something is incorrect at the outset, you can easily
lead yourself to the conclusion that it is wrong.

Paul Cardinale

Paul, My arguments simply a
1. The Lorentz transformations are unambiguous, specific and absolute:
x1 =x*sqrt(1-vv/cc), z1=z, y1=y, t1=t*sqrt(1-vv/cc).

These are *not* the Lorentz transformations.

This is the Lorentz transformation:
{ t' = g(t-vx/c^2)
{ x' = g(x-vt)
{ y' = y
{ z' = z
where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
These equations are valid for *all* events in space-time.
An event has coordinates (t,x,y,z) in one frame, and the
transformation is used to find the coordinates (t',x',y',z')
of the same event according to another frame.
The inverse transformation to find (t,x,y,z) when (t',x',y',z')
are known, is:
{ t = g(t'+vx'/c^2)
{ x = g(x'+vt')
{ y = y'
{ z = z'

What you have written is *not* valid for all space-time events:
x' = x*sqrt(1-vv/cc),
is *only* valid for events that have t' = 0
t' = t*sqrt(1-vv/cc).
is *only* valid for events that have x' = 0
The other two equations
y' = y
z' = z
happen to be valid for all events.

No additional factors,
angles, clocks in synch, qualifiers or modifiers are stated to be required.

One thing is required though: to know what you are talking about.
It might also help if you would first try to find out what isotropy means.
In fact, it might help if you would start at page 1 of something before
you panic over page 27.

Dirk Vdm

"Peter Riedt" writes:
The constancy of the speed of light (isotropy) is one of the principles of
Special Relativity. That this principle

Experimental fact.

[othewise irrelevant words containing the key phrase]
... at the same time ...

.... which proves that the very concept "at the same time", itself, is no
longer meaningful, granting the constancy of light speed.

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
...

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
om...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
...
Riedt's Constancy of Light Rebuttal II

The constancy of the speed of light (isotropy) is one of the
principles
of
Special Relativity. That this principle is not tenable can be
illustrated by
a simple thought experiment.

A spaceship of 100m length and 100m width travels at 30000km/sec in
uniform
rectilinear motion through space. Mounted on the square roof are two
light
sensors A and B and one light emitter, E. Emitter E is located in
the
front
left corner of the roof, sensor A is located at the back left corner
and
sensor B on the front right corner. At rest, distance EA = distance
EB =
100m. While the spaceship travels in the direction of AE, light is
emitted
from E to A parallel to the motion and to B perpendicularly. For
light
to be
isotropic, it must hit A and B at the same time if observed from
another
*frame*.

Wrong. Your assertion that the reception of light at A and the
reception of light at B must be simultaneous in all frames is contrary
to SR and amounts to an up-front assumption that SR is wrong. When
you assume that something is incorrect at the outset, you can easily
lead yourself to the conclusion that it is wrong.

Paul Cardinale

Paul, My arguments simply a
1. The Lorentz transformations are unambiguous, specific and absolute:
x1 =x*sqrt(1-vv/cc), z1=z, y1=y, t1=t*sqrt(1-vv/cc).

These are *not* the Lorentz transformations.

This is the Lorentz transformation:
{ t' = g(t-vx/c^2)
{ x' = g(x-vt)
{ y' = y
{ z' = z
where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
These equations are valid for *all* events in space-time.
An event has coordinates (t,x,y,z) in one frame, and the
transformation is used to find the coordinates (t',x',y',z')
of the same event according to another frame.
The inverse transformation to find (t,x,y,z) when (t',x',y',z')
are known, is:
{ t = g(t'+vx'/c^2)
{ x = g(x'+vt')
{ y = y'
{ z = z'

What you have written is *not* valid for all space-time events:
x' = x*sqrt(1-vv/cc),
is *only* valid for events that have t' = 0
t' = t*sqrt(1-vv/cc).
is *only* valid for events that have x' = 0
The other two equations
y' = y
z' = z
happen to be valid for all events.

No additional factors,
angles, clocks in synch, qualifiers or modifiers are stated to be
required.

One thing is required though: to know what you are talking about.
It might also help if you would first try to find out what isotropy means.
In fact, it might help if you would start at page 1 of something before
you panic over page 27.

Dirk Vdm


Dirk, thanks for your reply. I believe isotropy in SR means absolute
constancy of the speed of light.

Peter Riedt

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...


[snip]

One thing is required though: to know what you are talking about.
It might also help if you would first try to find out what isotropy means.
In fact, it might help if you would start at page 1 of something before
you panic over page 27.

Dirk Vdm


Dirk, thanks for your reply. I believe isotropy in SR means absolute
constancy of the speed of light.

It means that in an inertial frame light speed is measured
to be independent of the direction. You can use that to
think about what happens on your square spaceships.

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...


[snip]

One thing is required though: to know what you are talking about.
It might also help if you would first try to find out what isotropy means.
In fact, it might help if you would start at page 1 of something before
you panic over page 27.

Dirk Vdm


Dirk, thanks for your reply. I believe isotropy in SR means absolute
constancy of the speed of light.

It means that in an inertial frame light speed is measured
to be independent of the direction. You can use that to
think about what happens on your square spaceships.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk, my spaceship is only square in the proper frame. During
rectilinear flight at 30,000,000m/sec relative to the home port,
x'=98.498 and y'=100m. Do you agree with that?

Peter Riedt

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message om...
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...


[snip]

One thing is required though: to know what you are talking about.
It might also help if you would first try to find out what isotropy means.
In fact, it might help if you would start at page 1 of something before
you panic over page 27.

Dirk Vdm


Dirk, thanks for your reply. I believe isotropy in SR means absolute
constancy of the speed of light.

It means that in an inertial frame light speed is measured
to be independent of the direction. You can use that to
think about what happens on your square spaceships.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk, my spaceship is only square in the proper frame.

So in the proper frame the signals reach the corners
simultaneously.

During
rectilinear flight at 30,000,000m/sec relative to the home port,
x'=98.498 and y'=100m. Do you agree with that?

No, I do not.

And in the home port frame the signals do not reach the
corners simultaneously.

Dirk Vdm