Science Forums

# Minkowski SpaceTime diagrams re assigned

## Recommended Posts

• Replies 157
• Created

#### Popular Posts

X = ct, this is 100% correct, BUT ONLY FOR LIGHT.  or only when x and ct are both zero. So you cant just plug x = ct into equations replacing x if that x is not referring to light. X distance is

Its a bit hard to get your mind clear of the barrage of pro einstein propaganda, and see the inconsistencies. I suggest you watch the videos made by Yaseen Al Azzam.   Here is the intro.

#### Posted Images

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Never use the word hyper it sounds gay

I'm totally wasting my time with you guys, as you are mostly just movie fans. Unable to think about Physics past what you have been told by your daddy.

But here goes:

OK we look at Special Relativity Lorentz derivation.

Special Relativity relies totally on one critical principal which is always expressed in the equation x = ct.

Without this equation, there can be no Lorentz transform or Special Relativity, (or General Relativity), its fundamental.

Of course, this equation is just the Classical Physics principal of the relationship between Velocity and Duration (time) “t”  ---- expressed as Distance----    d = vt.

So the upshot is that in any equation where we have a distance, we could just as easily substitute that distance for the velocity and a time according to the ratio d = vt.

Why would we want to do that? Well the reason might be that we have measurements of Velocity and Time, but don’t have direct measurements of distance.

However, IF we did have direct measures of Velocity and Time, then immediately we can just apply the d = vt equation and convert to Distances without any bother.

Likewise if we already had the distance direct measures, we don't need to convert them to velocities and times when we want a distance result.  Just work in directly measured distances.

Ok, so now on to the scenario that leads to Lorentz Gamma derivation.

We are considering a stationary person, and a moving person’s calculations of where a particular “event” –(a faster moving object’s location) takes place, relative to each observer, this is the experiment.

But lets now just focus on the key information.  As the result we want is to determine the Lorentz Gamma factor, we can do that by the use if d= vt. (convert any Velocities and Time directly into Distances.

We will just consider the origin of the experiment, 0 and the final positions of the moving observer and the faster moving object  (Object “K”) under consideration.

So there is no need to bring time or velocity into it at all. We can simply directly measure the distances at the conclusion of the experiment.

If Length Contraction (or Time dilation) is real, then the actual measurements of both observers will show this difference.  Obs2's result will need to be scaled by a correction factor to equal the result of Obs1.

So we start with both observers at the location of Zero where the stationary observer is located.

Then, both the moving guy (Obs 2) AND the faster object (object K) move in the positive x direction UNTIL the Object K has gone a pre set distance. The preset distance from starting point ot K is 500 units. At this point we take distance measurements. The slower moving guy won’t have gone very far, but we mark his position.

Please note that both Obs2 and the Object K are still moving at the original constant velocity, but we are now ONLY looking at a frozen instant when Object K was located at the predetermined location. And so Obs2 will also be at some particular location at that instant. Einstein freezes motion like this in all his thought experiments, and so does classical Physics use this method to make comparisons.

Now all we have to do is compare what Obs1 says the distance to K is from his location and what Obs2 measures as the distance from where he is, to the object K.

Galileo says that Obs1 (the stationary observer) will measure that distance as X which is the predetermined distance = 500,

and Obs2 will get a result we will call “B”.  The distance from where Obs2 is to the location of K.

Obs2 reports his measured result back to Obs1.

So according to Galileo  Obs1 can simply take the reported measurement of Obs2 which is distance B, and figure out the missing distance, that no one measured yet.  That is the distance from Obs1 to Obs2 .

Which we shall call distance M.

The math is simply M = X– B

Lets use real numbers rather than variables.

We pre set  X = 500,

Let B = 300.   So  M = 500 -300 = 200

M = 200, the distance from Obs1 to Obs2 according to classical physics.

Now Einstein claims that because Obs2 moved, his units of Distance shrunk by some as yet unknown value.

So although Obs2 has measured the distance from himself to Object K, and obtained the number 300 we cant equate Obs2’s units directly to Obs1’s units any more.

300 of Obs2’s units are not supposed to be the same as 300 of Obs1’s units, according to Special Relativity.

So we use an as yet unknown compensation factor we will call Gamma. (g)

Therefore Obs2’s measure of 300 units Can NOT be used directly by Obs1 as the units must be multiplied by the compensation factor first, Gamma g.

So Einstein’s equation has to be:

M = X – ( B*g)

M = 500 – (300 * g)

Now as Obs1 is doing all the calculation here, using measurement he has directly obtained, along with measurements he was supplied from Obs2 (which need conversion) then we need to do something else before we can calculate out what the value of g is.

Just as easily as directly measuring the distance from Obs1 origin to the location of Object K, which was 500,  we can simply also directly measure the distance from Obs1 to where Obs2 is, also using Obs1’s units.  And that measure can only be 200.

200 = 500 – (B * g)

Or

300 = 300 – (B*g)

So we know for a fact, that M = 200 in Obs1’s units, and K = 500 in Obs1’s units.

And using Galilean Physics we calculate that according to Obs1’s units, the distance X can only be 300 units.

Now as Obs2 matched his meter rule to Obs1’s identical rule, and the laws of Physics are the same in all inertial frames, then he would be shocked and baffled if he measured the distance from himself to the object K, and get any other result than 300. But we are assured that his ruler has shrunk, But so too has the distance he is measuring, despite the fact that the distance between himself and object K was DIFFERENT and slower than his speed relative to Obs1, which is the speed used to calculate Gamma.

So the shrinkage of the DISTANCE between Obs2 and object K CANT be the same gamma factor as the shrinkage rate for his ruler. We have TWO Velocities here, one is velocity of Obs2, and the other relative velocity is between Obs2 and Object K, a slower velocity. Einstein makes no mention of it.

But lets pretend that this did not happen. So according to Einstein,

M = 500 – (300 * g)

But we do know from Obs1 who is trying to do all these calculations that his direct measure of M is 200, so we can correctly deduce that

200 = 500 – (300 * g)

Or

300 Meter units = 300 (something else units) * gamma

Therefore, gamma can only equal 1. And the “300 something else units” can only be equal  to Meters after all.

And as the math all works correctly for Newton and we get no contradictions as was claimed we would, then we don’t need to go any further, but we will.

So unless we know the shrinkage factor, OR we measure M directly, Obs1 cant actually calculate the distance M from the measurements that Obs 2 supplied, as it’s a bit like one is using Metric and the other is using Imperial, but no one has the conversion factor feet to meters.

We wanted to know the distance, and we had distance results, and those distances should have been all we needed to find out the amount of Length contraction of the Units of Distance according to Obs2,

We also never need to consider the velocity of light or the velocity of the moving observer, as any Distance shrinkage will apply once an observer is moving relative to any other observer, and we can simply directly measure that shrinkage as explained. All ct and Vt expressions are directly also simple Distances because distance = Velocity * Time.

So why convert these simply Distances to Velocities and Time and then back again to Distances?

The answer is that using that approach, Einstein can complicate things unnecessarily, and then perform a trick of incorrect algebra and logic, and generate a wrong result.

Consider the two Observers equations as explained by Lorentz:

X = (X’ + vt’)--- this is what the moving observer uses to find X

And

X’ = (X – vt) this is what the stationary observer uses to find X’

And Lorentz and Einstein claim that because the t and t’ will NOT be the same because of claimed Time Dilation, then a conversion factor, Gamma is required.

But the genius Einstein and Lorentz both forgot one little thing.

That is, the V, velocity is a measure of Distance over Time.

And they just claimed that t’ is NOT equal to t, AND any distance, d is also not equal to d’

So therefore in the two equations we MUST have different variables for t (t and t’) BUT also this applies for the Velocity v. We must have to distinct variables as they are not the same!  We must have v and v’.

But doing that, now its not possible to develop the Lorentz equation.

Because now we must begin with:

X = (X’ + v’t’) [V prime}

And

X’ = (X – vt) [ just V]    and v can never be equal to v'.

So x=ct is correct but we need a new correct equation for the moving observer which can only be

X’ = c’t’

But now you can’t derive Lorentz gamma, it become 1 under all conditions and velocities.

And finally consider this. Before the experiment commenced, Obs1 and Obs2 began with a matching set of distance rulers. So what result Obs 1 and Obs2 obtained for any distance was correct, and if “the laws of Physics apply in all inertial reference frames” ( a essential postulate of SR), then those identical rulers MUST remain identical in all frames. So its correct that Obs2 measures 200 units and if Obs1 directly measured that distance, (rather than derive it) he too would measure 200 on his ruler.

But all this is a bit too rational and logical with sensible Math.

Einstein fans prefer fantasy and irrationality and crap math. (counter intuitive Is what they call it)

(Please post a movie clip featuring Will Smith as you considered science based reply)

Edited by marcospolo
fix error in math
##### Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, marcospolo said:

I'm totally wasting my time with you guys, as you are mostly just movie fans. Unable to think about Physics past what you have been told by your daddy.

But here goes:

OK we look at Special Relativity Lorentz derivation.

Special Relativity relies totally on one critical principal which is always expressed in the equation x = ct.

Without this equation, there can be no Lorentz transform or Special Relativity, (or General Relativity), its fundamental.

Of course, this equation is just the Classical Physics principal of the relationship between Velocity and Duration (time) “t”  ---- expressed as Distance----    d = vt.

So the upshot is that in any equation where we have a distance, we could just as easily substitute that distance for the velocity and a time according to the ratio d = vt.

Why would we want to do that? Well the reason might be that we have measurements of Velocity and Time, but don’t have direct measurements of distance.

However, IF we did have direct measures of Velocity and Time, then immediately we can just apply the d = vt equation and convert to Distances without any bother.

Likewise if we already had the distance direct measures, we don't need to convert them to velocities and times when we want a distance result.  Just work in directly measured distances.

Ok, so now on to the scenario that leads to Lorentz Gamma derivation.

We are considering a stationary person, and a moving person’s calculations of where a particular “event” –(a faster moving object’s location) takes place, relative to each observer, this is the experiment.

But lets now just focus on the key information.  As the result we want is to determine the Lorentz Gamma factor, we can do that by the use if d= vt. (convert any Velocities and Time directly into Distances.

We will just consider the origin of the experiment, 0 and the final positions of the moving observer and the faster moving object  (Object “K”) under consideration.

So there is no need to bring time or velocity into it at all. We can simply directly measure the distances at the conclusion of the experiment.

If Length Contraction (or Time dilation) is real, then the actual measurements of both observers will show this difference.  Obs2's result will need to be scaled by a correction factor to equal the result of Obs1.

So we start with both observers at the location of Zero where the stationary observer is located.

Then, both the moving guy (Obs 2) AND the faster object (object K) move in the positive x direction UNTIL the Object K has gone a pre set distance. The preset distance from starting point ot K is 500 units. At this point we take distance measurements. The slower moving guy won’t have gone very far, but we mark his position.

Please note that both Obs2 and the Object K are still moving at the original constant velocity, but we are now ONLY looking at a frozen instant when Object K was located at the predetermined location. And so Obs2 will also be at some particular location at that instant. Einstein freezes motion like this in all his thought experiments, and so does classical Physics use this method to make comparisons.

Now all we have to do is compare what Obs1 says the distance to K is from his location and what Obs2 measures as the distance from where he is, to the object K.

Galileo says that Obs1 (the stationary observer) will measure that distance as X which is the predetermined distance = 500,

and Obs2 will get a result we will call “B”.  The distance from where Obs2 is to the location of K.

Obs2 reports his measured result back to Obs1.

So according to Galileo  Obs1 can simply take the reported measurement of Obs2 which is distance B, and figure out the missing distance, that no one measured yet.  That is the distance from Obs1 to Obs2 .

Which we shall call distance M.

The math is simply M = X– B

Lets use real numbers rather than variables.

We pre set  X = 500,

Let B = 300.   So  M = 500 -300 = 200

M = 200, the distance from Obs1 to Obs2 according to classical physics.

Now Einstein claims that because Obs2 moved, his units of Distance shrunk by some as yet unknown value.

So although Obs2 has measured the distance from himself to Object K, and obtained the number 300 we cant equate Obs2’s units directly to Obs1’s units any more.

300 of Obs2’s units are not supposed to be the same as 300 of Obs1’s units, according to Special Relativity.

So we use an as yet unknown compensation factor we will call Gamma. (g)

Therefore Obs2’s measure of 300 units Can NOT be used directly by Obs1 as the units must be multiplied by the compensation factor first, Gamma g.

So Einstein’s equation has to be:

M = X – B*g

M = 500 – 300 * g

M = 200 * g

Now as Obs1 is doing all the calculation here, using measurement he has directly obtained, along with measurements he was supplied from Obs2 (which need conversion) then we need to do something else before we can calculate out what the value of g is.

Just as easily as directly measuring the distance from Obs1 origin to the location of Object K, which was 500,  we can simply also directly measure the distance from Obs1 to where Obs2 is, also using Obs1’s units.  And that measure can only be 200.

So we know for a fact, that M = 200 in Obs1’s units, and K = 500 in Obs1’s units.

And using Galilean Physics we calculate that according to Obs1’s units, the distance X can only be 300 units.

But back to the equation of Einstein,

M = 200 * g

Which is exclusively using Obs1’s units, and a conversion factor as yet unknown, we can now correctly substitute the direct measure of 200 in place of the variable M.

So now:

200 = 200 *g

Therefore “g” Gamma can only have the value of 1. It can only ever be 1. In other words Gamma is a conversion factor that does nothing.

We don’t need to go through the unnecessary stages of converting Distances into Velocities * Time.

We wanted to know the distance, and we had distance results, and those distances should have been all we needed to find out the amount of Length contraction of the Units of Distance according to Obs2,

We also never need to consider the velocity of light or the velocity of the moving observer, as any Distance shrinkage will apply once an observer is moving relative to any other observer, and we can simply directly measure that shrinkage as explained. All ct and Vt expressions are directly also simple Distances because distance = Velocity * Time.

So why convert these simply Distances to Velocities and Time and then back again to Distances?

The answer is that using that approach, Einstein can complicate things unnecessarily, and then perform a trick of incorrect algebra and logic, and generate a wrong result.

Consider the two Observers equations as explained by Lorentz:

X = (X’ + vt’)--- this is what the moving observer uses to find X

And

X’ = (X – vt) this is what the stationary observer uses to find X’

And Lorentz and Einstein claim that because the t and t’ will NOT be the same because of claimed Time Dilation, then a conversion factor, Gamma is required.

But the genius Einstein and Lorentz bith forgot one little thing.

That is, the V, velocity is a measure of Distance over Time.

And they just claimed that t’ is NOT equal to t, AND any distance, d is also not equal to d’

So therefore in the two equations we MUST have different variables for t (t and t’) BUT also this applies for the Velocity v. We must have to distinct variables as they are not the same!  We must have v and v’.

But doing that, now its not possible to develop the Lorentz equation.

Because now we must begin with:

X = (X’ + v’t’) [V prime}

And

X’ = (X – vt) [ just V]    and v can never be equal to v'.

And logically as the units for time and distance are different for both observers, then the same conversion factory MUST be applicable to the constant for Light speed, “c”

We need a c’ and  c as they are both velocities based on Distance and Time.

So x=ct is correct but we need a new correct equation for the moving observer which can only be

X’ = c’t’

But now you can’t derive Lorentz gamma, it become 1 under all conditions and velocities.

And finally consider this. Before the experiment commenced, Obs1 and Obs2 began with a matching set of distance rulers. So what result Obs 1 and Obs2 obtained for any distance was correct, and if “the laws of Physics apply in all inertial reference frames” ( a essential postulate of SR), then those identical rulers MUST remain identical in all frames. So its correct that Obs2 measures 200 units and if Obs1 directly measured that distance, (rather than derive it) he too would measure 200 on his ruler.

But all this is a bit too rational and logical with sensible Math.

Einstein fans prefer fantasy and irrationality and crap math. (counter intuitive Is what they call it)

(Please post a movie clip featuring Will Smith as you considered science based reply)

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, marcospolo said:

You are as stupid with Physics as you are about the goals of the Zionists.

Whatever, Macropolo I am just messing with you, why are you always beating a dead horse relativity is not wrong you have been explained to why countless times by countless people, just give it up.

I don't pretend to think that anything I say will change your mind.

Edited by VictorMedvil
##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VictorMedvil said:

Whatever, Macropolo I am just messing with you, why are you always beating a dead horse relativity is not wrong you have been explained to why countless times by countless people, just give it up.

I don't pretend to think that anything I say will change your mind.

Just show me where my recent explanation is wrong then. I took the trouble to explain my reasoning to you, the least you can do in return is to point out any mistakes. That's what this forum is supposed to be about.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, marcospolo said:

Just show me where my recent explanation is wrong then. I took the trouble to explain my reasoning to you, the least you can do in return is to point out any mistakes. That's what this forum is supposed to be about.

I call upon someone else to take my place, I just don't want to, you know I am a busy man, you will get your wish someone will eventually argue about it with you. Honestly, I just don't care enough to get in a disagreement with you about it, I could care less if you think Einstein is wrong but I will still use this theories in my work.

Edited by VictorMedvil
##### Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, VictorMedvil said:

I call upon someone else to take my place, I just don't want to, you know I am a busy man, you will get your wish someone will eventually argue about it with you. Honestly, I just don't care enough to get in a disagreement with you about it, I could care less if you think Einstein is wrong but I will still use this theories in my work.

Wow, you would be one of the only people on the planet that actually finds a practical use of these theories. Unless you are only a mere theoretical physicist that is. Or are you only playing with Math? which is not Physics?

Which is it?

##### Share on other sites

Marcos;

After reading 'Did H and K prove Einstein wrong':
The actual result was that the westward travelled clock increased in its time rate (more time had elapsed) and the eastward travelled clock decreased in its time rate.

[All clocks lost time. The west clock lost less than the ground clock which lost less than the east clock.

1)     Inertial motion can only be referenced to the physically privileged frame of the “universe” which is an absolute inertial system.

[There is no absolute rest frame in Special Relativity.]

Surprisingly, only when the train travels due North or South does Einstein’s prediction come close to being true. However, in all other directions it is off by up to 20x the predicted value.

[Moving north and south, the motion is not uniform. At greater latitudes, the tangential velocity decreases.]

Also, time dilation according to Einstein’s restricted theory was supposed to increase with velocity – when the train travels west it actually decreases.

[The west clock rate is relatively faster since it is moving through space slower than the ground clock.]

As a consequence, the travelled clock experiences either a gain or a loss of time depending on whether it travels west or east, and this amount is more than the 1/2 t v2/c2 value predicted by Einstein.

[The ref. frame is the center of the earth, NOT the ground clock!]

[The author seems to be confused about definitions. You can't believe everything from the internet. Enough time spent on this.]

[Checked 'Builder paper'. He and Dingle are also confused! The relativity police are shooting rubber bullets!
Included a graphic to show the clock motions in space relative to the earth CENTER.] ##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sluggo said:

Marcos;

After reading 'Did H and K prove Einstein wrong':
The actual result was that the westward travelled clock increased in its time rate (more time had elapsed) and the eastward travelled clock decreased in its time rate.

[All clocks lost time. The west clock lost less than the ground clock which lost less than the east clock.

1)     Inertial motion can only be referenced to the physically privileged frame of the “universe” which is an absolute inertial system.

[There is no absolute rest frame in Special Relativity.]

Surprisingly, only when the train travels due North or South does Einstein’s prediction come close to being true. However, in all other directions it is off by up to 20x the predicted value.

[Moving north and south, the motion is not uniform. At greater latitudes, the tangential velocity decreases.]

Also, time dilation according to Einstein’s restricted theory was supposed to increase with velocity – when the train travels west it actually decreases.

[The west clock rate is relatively faster since it is moving through space slower than the ground clock.]

As a consequence, the travelled clock experiences either a gain or a loss of time depending on whether it travels west or east, and this amount is more than the 1/2 t v2/c2 value predicted by Einstein.

[The ref. frame is the center of the earth, NOT the ground clock!]

[The author seems to be confused about definitions. You can't believe everything from the internet. Enough time spent on this.]

[Checked 'Builder paper'. He and Dingle are also confused! The relativity police are shooting rubber bullets!
Included a graphic to show the clock motions in space relative to the earth CENTER.]

Why pick ANY point for the "master" Time? (the Earth's center) This is supposed to be a place that shows the relative motions is space (not spacetime) that the two clocks were moving relative to.

But relative to the Earth center, the Planes individually DID NOT MOVE anywhere!   They each were ALWAYS exactly the same distance from the Earth center, so the center of the Earth is not relevant to the experiment at all.

Discard all references to the Earth center or the Earth clock.

We have only the relative distances between two Planes.

BUT there were never two planes flying in opposite directions EVER!.

There was never a plane flying relative to the other, as the flights occurred at different weeks.

So all you have is one plane, and you are trying to compare its motion to what?

A clock on the Earth?

That's all we have, an Earth clock and one on a plane.

So in any test for Special Relativity, the actual DIRECTION of the planes flight is NOT SPECIFIED and its not a factor to consider.

The claim that there is some difference between East and West individual flights is nonsense.

All you have is one clock called the "stationary clock, and one plane flying at a speed for a duration.

The direction is not part of Special Relativity, only the Distance over Time is considered in Einsteins Theory.

So, that makes another problem.

The theory says that either observer can claim that the other is moving, so whatever time a clock realizes, MUST also be realized by the other.  Both clocks must be slower than each other. Which is not possible, and cant be demonstrated in this experiment.

##### Share on other sites

Marcos;

[Each plane flew a circle slightly larger than that of the ground clock for approx.48 hrs. That is a distance.!]

BUT also this applies for the Velocity v. We must have to distinct variables as they are not the same!  We must have v and v’.

[How can there simultaneously be two different rates of separation for two observers moving past each other???]

You're not there yet.

U the ref. frame, A with v=.2, and K with v=.5.

The event is (K at 500).

Coordinates for K, U(500, 1000)

Coordinates for A, U(200, 1000)

A clock reads 980 from td, red line.

Distances are measured using light (blue).

A sends signal to K, which sends return signal to A.

A assigns the reflection event before 980.

The send and receive times are transferred to the common time scale,

On the right, the A times are transferred to the A time scale, showing A coordinates for K as A(306, 920).

Using the LT

x'=g(x-vt)=1.02(500-.2*1000)=1.02(300)=306,

t'=g(t-vx)=1.02(1000-.2*500)=1.02(900)=918,

in agreement with the drawing.

Measurement is the validation tool of science.
Math is a language of science.
The spacetime graphic as defined by Minkowski is the geometric equivalent for the coordinate transformations. ##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/23/2021 at 2:26 AM, marcospolo said:

In fact, he SPECIFICALLY states that his theory ONLY IS APPLICABLE in the vacuum of space, away from any gravity, and only concerns straight line motion with no changes in velocity. So his exact math demands these conditions.

There seems to be an exception.

a) Man in a stationary box (with a hole in one wall). Outside the box a light is placed directly before the opening and a light is flashed. The beam passes through the hole in the wall and travels in a straight line to the opposite wall in a specific interval of time. The man inside the box observes the straight line and records the time it takes for the light to travel to the opposite wall.

b) Man in an upward  moving box (with a hole in one wall). Outside the box is a light placed at a point which moving box will pass as it travels upward.

As the box passes the light source, it flashes the light which passes trough the hole and hits the opposite wall at exactly the same time as when the box was stationary.

However the man in the upward moving box observes the light traveling diagonally downward, reaching the opposite wall at exactly the same time , even as the diagonal light appears to have traveled a longer distance to the opposite wall.

Relativity demonstrated?

Edited by write4u
##### Share on other sites
5 hours ago, write4u said:

There seems to be an exception.

a) Man in a stationary box (with a hole in one wall). Outside the box a light is placed directly before the opening and a light is flashed. The beam passes through the hole in the wall and travels in a straight line to the opposite wall in a specific interval of time. The man inside the box observes the straight line and records the time it takes for the light to travel to the opposite wall.

b) Man in an upward  moving box (with a hole in one wall). Outside the box is a light placed at a point which moving box will pass as it travels upward.

As the box passes the light source, it flashes the light which passes trough the hole and hits the opposite wall at exactly the same time as when the box was stationary.

However the man in the upward moving box observes the light traveling diagonally downward, reaching the opposite wall at exactly the same time , even as the diagonal light appears to have traveled a longer distance to the opposite wall.

Relativity demonstrated?

The light has NOT traveled diagonally downward ever! It only ever went in the direction it was facing when it was originally produced, horizontally.  The box moved up!  It did all the moving. That's why the light struck the opposite side of the box at a lower position. The box shifted it location during the time that the light was traversing the width of the box, (very fast box) So the light STILL moved the exact same horizontal distance as when the box was not moving, as when the box is moving. That's why the time it took is still the same, the distance the light went is still the same, box moving or box stationary is not relevant to the light. Einsteins relativity is nonsense, based on nonsense.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, marcospolo said:

The light has NOT traveled diagonally downward ever! It only ever went in the direction it was facing when it was originally produced, horizontally.

I know, but the observer INSIDE the box sees the light at a diagonal trajectory. In fact if the box is accelerating upward the observer in the box sees the light curving toward the opposite wall. But in each instance the light travels @ c and appears to traverse a longer distance than the straight line in the stationary box.

It is the upward movement of the box that creates this illusion to the observer in the box. Note that in both scenarios the light source is outside the box.

It is a perfect example of relativity and apparent space

Edited by write4u
##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, write4u said:

I know, but the observer INSIDE the box sees the light at a diagonal trajectory. In fact if the box is accelerating upward the observer in the box sees the light curving toward the opposite wall.

It is the upward movement of the box that creates the illusion to the observer in the box.

therefore the guy in the box who knows that the light SHOULD have struck the opposite wall directly opposite to the hole, instead sees the light striking some distance down the wall, can only come to the conclusion that his box is moving upwards at a constant velocity.

So contrary to Einsteins claim, a man in a box CAN do an experiment to show the difference between an upward moving inertial box, or a box on the surface of a planet under gravity.  Also, he can devise another experiment to tell the different between  weightlessness in deep space, compared to free-fall in a gravity field. Einsteins is wrong twice, just on this one claim.

He is also wrong about light being measured by a moving observer, that he will still get c, regardless of his velocity or even direction! This is truly a moronic claim.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, marcospolo said:

So contrary to Einsteins claim, a man in a box CAN do an experiment to show the difference between an upward moving inertial box, or a box on the surface of a planet under gravity.

Well, I'm not sure I agree with that. To the observer in the box the effect is real and could be demonstrated by a camera.

Indeed the observer can "calculate" the apparent deviation from a straight line to a diagonal or curved line, but the phenomenon is real.

If the box were to travel downward, the effect would be reversed. Only to the man in the stationary box the light will travel in a direct straight horizontal line the shortest distance from wall to wall.

This is somewhat similar to the doppler effect of an approaching or receding sound wave. A sound meter will in fact record the changes in pitch. It is up to the human to calculate the true  pitch in between, when the sound source is stationary.

After all that's predicted by the law of Special Realtivity, no?

Edited by write4u
##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, write4u said:

Indeed the man can "calculate" the apparent deviation from a straight line to a diagonal or curved line, which can be actually recorded on a measuring device.

If the box were to travel downward, the effect would be reversed. Only to the man in the stationary box the light will travel in a direct straight horizontal line the shortest distance from wall to wall.

This is somewhat similar to the Doppler effect of an approaching or receding sound wave. A sound meter will in fact record the changes in pitch. It is up to the human to calculate the true  pitch in between, when the sound source is stationary.

Either way, Einstein is wrong.

Its interesting that with sound, the speed in air at sea level is always the same, regardless of the speed of the source. But the wave crests arrive with more frequently than they were generated if the source is moving towards an observer.  Increasing the pitch but not the speed of each wave front. But to an observer moving towards the sound, he will measure the sound wave closing velocity as the speed of sound + his own velocity, and also having an increased pitch.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.