(I'll jump ahead to reply to this post because I caught a glimpse of it and want to respond now, but I'll continue to go through all the previous ones systematically afterwards.)
Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 11th, 2018, 7:04 pmI have no way to know what question was intended; only what question was actually asked. I have answered precisely the question that was actually asked and, in that and the previous post, gone into quite a lot of detail to explain how that question can be answered by explaining what it means to measure speed.
That is unfortunate - other people interpreted it the way it was intended (which misled me into thinking the wording was adequate), but I apologise for it not being clear enough for you.
David Cooper wrote:We are talking about the red light (the clockwise-moving light) moving through/past the material of the ring as a whole relative to that material piece by piece at closest approach.
Yes, and I explained how you measure the instantaneous speed of light. When you do that, by placing two detectors infinitesimally close together, you measure the speed of the light to be c in both directions. I have also explained why the two detectors have to be infinitesimally close together.
And that isn't the measurement being asked for.
No. Frames of reference do not talk, assert or misrepresent. They are used by observers to make measurements. As I've said, those measurements of the instantaneous speed of light, measured in the way that I have described, measure a value of c in both directions.
I have already made if fully clear what I mean when I talk about frames making claims, so stop playing this stupid game of pretending you don't know that it's short for a lengthy description which would double the length of every post if I had to keep using that instead. The claims are generated from frames by applying frame rules, and in each case they are the only valid claim that can be generated from that frame about a specific point. It is absolutely unacceptable for you to keep objecting to my usage of that wording when it has been fully explained and is fully correct. If a frame shows the speed of light in a particular direction being >c, it is thus an assertion of that frame that the speed of light in that direction relative to that object is >c. It is ridiculous that you keep objecting to this.
...and yet we know that some of the material in the ring cannot have light moving past it in all directions at c, so some frames are necessarily misrepresenting reality.
Frames of reference do not talk, assert or misrepresent. They are used by observers to make measurements.
And when observers make their measurements, they are forced to produce claims for the frame.
My argument has no reliance upon Maxwell's Equations at all. They simply have no relevance to it as the only thing they're going to do is conform to all the theories being discussed.
Please read at least the introduction to a text on Special Relativity.
Show me a point where my argument is broken by using by Maxwell's Equations. They are irrelevant to it.
"Equally valid" is the relevant wording, and it includes the idea of being equally true - otherwise they are not equally valid.
I see. Thank you. What measurement or set of measurements tells you when something is true?
Any that tell you when something is true, but that's irrelevant to the issue here - what counts is two contradictory things (contradictory in that they cannot map to the same underlying reality) cannot both be true.
No. I am not playing a game. You stated that something is part of some mathematics. I asked you which part of mathematics you are referring to in that statement. Do you know what mathematics you are referring to?
It's in the dogma that's glued to the theory.
Please consult the Principle of Relativity and consider what it says. I've already showed you where you can find it.
The Principle of Relativity doesn't negate the dogma that's glued to the theory. What you're trying to do is disown the dogma and pretend it has nothing to do with SR, but the rest of the world doesn't know that.
If you are standing at any location at all and one frame is telling you that clock A is ticking faster than clock B while another frame is telling you that clock B is ticking faster than clock A, how is that not at the same time? These contradictory claims are being generated at the same time at the same place.
Frames of reference do not talk.
That's a dud argument. You lose every time you make it.
Time is the thing that is measured by clocks. Given that obvious fact, consider an observer at position C (carrying a clock, of course). He receives pulses of light from his clock. He decides to call the time between each of those pulses "a second". For every 1 pulse of light he receives from his own clock he receives 2 from the clock at A and 3 from the clock at B. In this context what do you mean, in terms of something that can be measured, by the expression "at the same time"?
If you use one frame of reference and it tells you that a clock is ticking slower than another clock, and then you use a different frame of reference and it tells you the opposite, they are telling you contradictory things at the same time.
This is an example of you telling me I'm wrong when I'm the one who's right (and it keeps happening that way)
Unfortunately simply asserting that will not make it true.
It doesn't have to make it true because it already is true.
I have referred you to sources of information about Special Relativity, in book and internet form, that demonstrate that you have mis-represented it. Your chance to make your assertion true comes if you refer me to a reputable source (not just something that someone down the pub, or in a chatroom, told you) which confirms what you have said about what Special Relativity proposes.
I'm going by things that a lot of professional physicists have asserted. But again, I remind you that regardless of how much you try to disown the dogma that's attached to SR, what I'm saying is valid - the contradictions disprove the models that generate them and force you to move to other models if you don't want to be irrational, and those other models demand either that you accept an absolute frame or the addition of another type of time.
You have effectively just told me the a single time is not the same time as itself!
No I have not. Please quote the specific place where I said this.
I said: "The contradiction only appears if you assert that clock A is ticking more rapidly than clock B and that clock B is ticking more rapidly than clock A at the same time."
You replied: "That assertion is not made
and the expression "at the same time", in the context of that sentence, is a misuse of language. This is an example of you mis-translating the Theory of Relativity, as I mentioned previously. You have therefore not collected all the knowledge necessary for the argument."
Do you imagine that the clocks exist successively and never overlap temporally? They both exist at the same time, and both of them are ticking. One of them may be ticking faster than the other, but if so, the latter is not ticking faster than the former too. At any moment in time during the overlap of existence between these two clocks, statements can be made about the rate of their ticking relative to each other at the same time. One frame of reference is continually claiming that clock A is ticking faster than clock B, and another frame of reference is continually claiming that clock B is ticking faster than clock A, and these frames can go on making those claims for years. At any moment in time during those years, those claims are being made by those frames (at the same time).
David Cooper wrote:An infinite number of frames make contradictory claims (claims can be generated from them) at the same point in space at the same time - absolutely simultaneous according to the rules of any theory of relativity...
No they do not. Read an introduction to any form of Relativity.
Wrong yet again. What I said is correct. An infinite number of frames exist at any point at every moment, and none of them agree on the speed of light relative to an object in all directions. None.
...but you say "at the same time" is a misuse of language in this context!
Yes it was, in the sentence in which you used it.
You're just repeating the error. See above.
David Cooper wrote:You keep trying to make out that I lack competence on the basis of irrelevant gaps in my knowledge, but just stop for a moment and ask yourself why you keep making such huge errors.
You have demonstrated no errors on my part.
You're making errors over and over again!
I have shown you, in black and white, as plainly as it is possible to do, how you have mis-represented the Special Theory of Relativity. I have pointed you to a textbook. I can lead a horse to water but it is beyond my powers to make it drink.
You are completely ignoring the dogma that's tied to the theory. As I keep saying though, that's fine - I'm happy if you want to get rid of it. There's a world out there that needs cleaning up, because the dogma dominates it.
You are just sticking your head in the sand now. We have different frames making rival assertions...
No we do not.
We ruddy well do. Every time you go into denial over it, you drag the dogma straight back into play because you reveal that
you haven't really disowned it at all. You actively cling to the ridiculous toleration of contradictions.
I remind you that the above followed on from this exchange:-
Either way though, these observations produce contradictions and both accounts cannot be correct (that ST's clock is now ticking faster than TT's clock and that TT's clock is now ticking faster than ST's clock at the same time). It's really straightforward stuff and I can't see why you have so much difficulty with it.
The above is a mis-representation of the accounts of ST and TT, similar in form to your earlier mis-representation
And there's absolutely no misrepresentation of it on my part - these contradictions exist whether SR acknowledges them or not (and whether the dogma is accepted or denied), and they invalidate some of the models. If you want to settle this point to the satisfaction of both of us, it's simple. Just tell me whether you think mode 2 models (3D and 4D versions including block and non-block versions) are valid or invalid and then it'll be crystal clear whether the dogma is in or out. If you reckon they're still valid, then you're clearly tied to all the dogma that you claim isn't SR. If you reckon they're invalid, then we've made some real progress in eliminating some key SR models, and that's precisely what my argument is designed to do - it forces people to abandon the witchcraft and whittle things down to the viable.
David Cooper wrote:Practically each person I've discussed SR with has a radically different idea of what SR is, so I go by the most common factors rather than taking any of the extreme views as gospel.
Is that how you find out what all physics theories are proposing? By asking a random selection of people? Here's a thought: Before chatting about it with people why not read an introductory textbook about it? Just the introduction. Just the basic ideas. Did I mention this before?
I judge by all the sources, including the textbooks.
I'm attacking SR as SR is presented practically everywhere.
Pleasse, please, please prove me wrong when I told you in this post...
You simply don't describe reality. The dogma is so all-pervasive that it's ridiculous to pretend that it isn't there. It's influence on you is clear too from the way you refuse to see manifest contradictions.
viewtopic.php?p=319412#p319412
...what the basic postulate of Special Relativity is. Show me one part of this "practically everywhere" place that shows me to be wrong in my assessment of the basic, basic first things that the Theory of Special Relativity says.
There's no point in trying to claim that that's all there is to SR - the dogma is superglued to it, and if you, someone who claims the dogma isn't anything to do with SR, are determined to ignore contradictions and want to pretend that mode 2 models are viable, then you demonstrate that you've either secretly bought into all the dogma and you're not being honest about it or you're blissfully unaware of how much it has influenced you.