Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
Tensor, you keep taking just the quotes you want to use, out of context of how I was showing different correlations.
From the 'reference frame' thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
|
From that quote:
And, I am saying that Einsteins defining of light as simultaneous at all points along its path to infinity, and photons experiencing NO TIME in its own frame, and THEN determining that light in its own frame is NOT a valid inertial frame, is the mathematical culprit of all of this... |
No where does Einstein say (and that goes for me also) that light is simultaneous at all points. As you have constantly been told, The no time in lights own frame is nothing more than a simplified explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
|
This whole post is nothing more and an excellent example of the way you try to do physics by quotes, and not the math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
|
Yep, where I specifically say that it is nothing more than a simplified explanation and can't be used to show a inconsistency in relativity. If you want to do that, you will have to show where it's inconsistent, IN THE MATH. Something you have yet to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
YOU seem to think that this Math IS the theory and 'proves' something.
YOU, keep accusing me of NOT understanding the theory, and that any explanation MUST be lacking if I say the theory is wrong, because you automatically think the Maths must be right...That's NOT it!!!
|
Yes it is, I'm not the only one, get over it. Until you can show me something wrong with the math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
IT is that the Maths are NOT being applied correctly to lights own frame...light along its own path.
When you get to the 'division by 0'...Infinity, that's when you know that something MUST be different to correctly correlate 'what is happening there', Just like at r=0 in Black Holes.
|
Why? Why can't it just be the division between timelike and spacelike paths? Which would mean is neither spacelike or timelike. It's even simpler in the four-vector formalization of SR in Minkowski space. The lightpath is known as a null vector. This is because the four-vector for light is a zero length vector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
Really?
|
Yes really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
Again, Really?
|
Again, Yes really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
THEN, why does the definition of...'light is simultaneous at all points along its Path to Infinity, or source to sink' appear in the definition of light in its own frame?
|
You keep saying this, where is that definition exactly? If it's not in Einstein's paper or in Minkowski's four-vectors, then it's nothing more than you taking a simplified explanation (that doesn't actually agree with the theory) and trying to use it. It's basically you doing your "physics by quote" again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
AND, why is Time frozen at the event horizons of Black Holes, so that from our frame of reference, it appears that they can never even form?
|
You obviously still haven't found the answer, even after I gave you a hint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
Those are both rhetorical questions, because the answer is that they are both....Impossible.
|
Well, since you obviously haven't found and don't know about the second and no one has claimed the first (except for your attributing it to the mainstream, even though the mainstream doesn't claim that) you obviously don't understand even SR, your claims of understanding not withstanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
Sure there is. It just hasn't been done yet because everyone/mainstream has been SOOOOO convinced that time dilation and Lorentz Contraction MUST be true.
|
Well, with
these tests showing how much experimental evidence supports both time dilation and Lorentz contraction (I really don't like the contraction name as for a real three dimensional object it is a rotation rather than a contraction) you obviously haven't done much researched as to exactly why SR is so accepted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
You just have to set the 'wave' part at 0 velocity and the 'particle' part at "c" in a dimensionless background space.
|
LOL, wave part, particle part? You obviously don't even have a full grip on wave particle duality. This statement doesn't even make sense, from a QED and SR perspective. What exactly do you consider a dimensionless backround space?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
But, the simple fact is, that when Lorentz and Einstein put in the variables of time dilation and Lorentz contraction,
|
More math misunderstanding. Einstein did not put them in, they were derived using the rules of math. That's what made Einstein's SR better than Lorentz's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
and THEN got to your above Maths, where they had to define light in its own frame as...simultaneous at all points along its own path to Infinity, to make the variables work,
|
Buzz, wrong, thank you for playing. Show me one place in Einstein's paper where it defines light as simultaneous in it's own path.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
Which means that the .99/.8/.6 dilation/contractions are also WRONG
|
Instead of ranting about what you think is wrong, how about showing some of the math that is wrong. I gave you a large example of the tests that SR has been put through. Feel free to show where those tests and the math are wrong. I would point out two places where SR is working every day. One, in all the particle accelerators and two, anytime someone uses a GPS. If the math was so wrong, neither or those (or any of the other tests,) would work. What you are doing is nothing more than I could do by claiming a pink fairy's wand is respnsible for all the dilation and rotation in SR.