Recent content by DmitryS

Let’s look more closely at what you call garbage. The front of a light wave leaves point O at t=t’=0 and going at arccos(v/c) ends at point A at a certain time t (standard light clock scenario). Consider the rectangular triangle OAB with the right angle at A, B somewhere in the x axis. OB...

I say, let's not do this. Let's try a vertically positioned flat screen at any end of the flash along x or x'. You are tailoring my problem to get all the rays caught - certainly they will get caught if you cover them with a lid like this!

I'm afraid, that's exactly the problem. That's why I posted this - I need to understand why I am wrong.

For my argument, it really doesn't matter whether we speak about a flat front of the wave or a series of pulse sources of light located on a flat surface inclined at arccos(pi/2 - v/c) and fired simultaneously for the O observer. The imaginary straight line enveloping the fronts of all pulses...

Thanks Dale, at the moment I have no conclusion. I need to understand whether my logic is correct or incorrect, and if it is incorrect, I need to know where and how.

Thanks. Perhaps I don't get it, but I don't see how they are invariant. If we have a flat fan of N rays between 0 and arccos(v/c) in O, the angular density is N/arccos(v/c), while in O' it's 2N/pi. No matter how the energy is transformed, the number of events - lighting a sensor, or a piece of...

A good one to everyone. My previous post on this subject here on the forum was a fiasco. I’d like to apologize to everyone who did their best to comment and got ignored by me. In defence, I could tell you I had really little time to spend on discussion, and just overlooked the explanations...

Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you all. I still think you do not understand my difficulty. I hope you will see this is not filibuster for just wasting your time. Most of you are explaining to me the basics of SR, and that's very much preaching to the choir. What I'm trying to speak of is the...

That's what I call a discussion. Right, I want to summarize now what I see, because I can't really reply to all the minor things that matter in all your comments, but I thank you all anyway. 1. Let's return to the very beginning. What matters here, as I think, is the relativity principle...

Friends, thank you for all the inputs, because they allow me to make my position clearer. I don't think the aberration will apply here. As Ibix said, "Any point is stationary relative to the observer - this is effectively the definition of a point in this context". Right, so, wherever the flash...

Hello, everyone, hope someone will resolve my doubts. I have posted here some two years ago asking for an explanation of the Lorentz transforms derivation found in the Einstein 1905 paper. The answer I got seemed quite satisfactory. Two years after I revisit this derivation and this is what I...

I never thought of that algebra from this perspective, that you could actually set it as an experiment with light.

You really don't see the difference between "deriving the LT from the invariance of the speed of light" and "deriving the LT from Einstein's setup"? And please, don't bring up that wasting somebody's time thing again. I hope participation in this forum is not mandatory. I wouldn't take offence...

That's something, thanks.

Thank you very much for talking to the point, but there's a problem. I cannot see where ##\phi(v)## denotes ##\frac{a}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}## Maybe you refer to a different edition, or a later issue of the article? As far as I can see, in the article at my link it is universally ##\phi(v) = a##...