A thought experiment of the relativity of light

[CClyde]

If you wanted to go and prove something mathematically inconsistent, the way you are going about it is not the way to do tt. You would provide two calculations of the same thing and show they get different results: i.e. you would use 10x as many numbers as you are using and one-tenth as many words.

You want "if I calculate x thsi way [numbers numbers numbers[ I get 7 and when i calculate x thsi oter way [numbers numbers numbers[ I get 11," You don't want increasingly complex scenarios with lots of words,

But as mentioned, this will be futile. as it is known that SR is internally consistent.

I am not claiming a mathematical inconsistency in SR. That would be a futile ambition for the most competent mathematician. And in case it is not yet obvious, mathematics is not my day job.

Once you accept the principle of equivalence of rest and uniform motion extends beyond inertial bodies to electrodynamics, the rest is just a matter of making the math as pretty as possible.

This is why I stated earlier that the principles need to be understood before the math can make it a concise, axiomatic story.

 

[CClyde]

Relativity is self-consistent. If any chain of reasoning leads you to believe otherwise then that chain of reasoning is incorrect.

You may be right, relativity may be self-consistent.
But the jury is still out, not on the math, on the principles.
Time is dilated in frames in motion and all motion is a relative measure.
As far as I know, as of today there is no solution to this internal inconsistency.

There are solutions to the anthropomorphic analogy, but they do not address the conflict. They require the a priori knowledge of frame change described in the analogy. They do not resolve which of two frames in uniform motion experience time dilation.

 

[vanhees71]

But math is the language needed to formulate the principles to begin with.

 

[vanhees71]

You may be right, relativity may be self-consistent.
But the jury is still out, not on the math, on the principles.
Time is dilated in frames in motion and all motion is a relative measure.
As far as I know, as of today there is no solution to this internal inconsistency.

There is no internal inconsistency whatsoever. What do you think is inconsistent? Of course, you cannot explain this without math.

There are solutions to the anthropomorphic analogy, but they do not address the conflict. They require the a priori knowledge of frame change described in the analogy. They do not resolve which of two frames in uniform motion experience time dilation.

???

 

[CClyde]

But math is the language needed to formulate the principles to begin with.

No, math is a very concise and sometimes beautiful language, but it is a language.You can, as did Dirac, find previously unknown, even unbelievable, physically real entities drop out of mathematical statements, but that does not mean all mathematics describe something physically real. Nor does it mean only mathematics can.

 

[Sagittarius A-Star]

My goal is to find out if I have misconceptions, or if I have discovered an internal inconsistency in the principle of relativity.

You have the following misconception.
You wrongly think, that the center of the expanding light-sphere must move together with the object "light-source":

All coordinates move relative to an appropriately chosen frame of reference.

The correct conception would be the following.

If an object's spatial coordinate is translated i.e. according to
$x' = 0 \Rightarrow x = vt$
then $x$ is a function of time. The object is moving in the unprimed frame.

If an event's spatial coordinate is translated i.e. according to
${x'}_0 = 0 \Rightarrow x = vt_0$
then $x = {x}_0$ is constant.

 

[Dale]

I am not claiming a mathematical inconsistency in SR.

Good, then we can close this thread.

If you wish to open up a separate thread on any inconsistency with experimental results you may do so. Since SR is internally self consistent the only possible inconsistency remaining is with experimental results. If you wish to disprove SR, it can only be done experimentally.

But the jury is still out, not on the math, on the principles.

You have a misunderstanding. The principles are the math. Since there are no inconsistencies in the mathematics of SR and since the principles are the mathematics there is therefore no inconsistency in the principles either.

The jury is in, the verdict is rendered.