Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
That is exactly what I am saying...it doesn't make a bit of sense, 0 sense, nada, zilch, none what-so-ever!
And yet, for over 100 years now, it has gone completely unnoticed, that the distance from observer A to observer B, 'has been contracted to 0', by assuming that if the light beam sinks their clocks to 0, that because both clocks say 0, that their "Nows" are together/simultaneous, even though they are completely motionless/stationary!!!That is it in a nutshell.
So Instead of this...
“Assumes” a full Lorentz Transform of A and B’s “Nows”
I probably should have said...
Illegitimately 'contracts the distance to 0' OR Illegitimately uses a Lorentz transform to contract the distance to 0!!!
|
I am sorry,
RussT, but I have not got the foggiest what you are trying to say here.
What exactly do you mean with those last sentences?
First your claim
[Einstein] "assumed" full Lorentz transform of A and B's "nows"". Why would Einstein claim that when A and B are motionless with respect to eachother, and thus both are in the same rest frame and have the same 4-vector coordinates. I think you are just making this up, I have never noticed that in SR a Lorentz transform was assumed between two observers in the same rest frame.
Then your second change of the claim:
Illegitimately 'contracts the distance to 0' OR Illegitimately uses a Lorentz transform to contract the distance to 0! What distance is contracted? There is no contraction, there is a light source that emits a signal that reaches A and B and both set their clocks to 0 when they receive the signal, big deal. In the whole process
there is no distance contracted or Lorentz transformed to 0(zero). The claim is ludicrous.
And please use the correct spelling, which would be synching (in case you don't want to write synchronizing) because sink(ing) is a whole different thing and confuses the discussion even more.