Recent content by DmitryS

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##...

But I do understand it! I'm not after that!

To prove your own words, "Those are intermediate variables. He ends up with the LT further on in the paper". To prove that Einstein's model of 1905 leads to LT, and that there's an actual derivation of the LT in 1905. Instead, you provide a link to another source with the LT derivation - I...

I don't mind you asking anything as long as we remain within the protocol of mutual respect. I think I made my point abundantly clear from the start. I find the Lorentz mathematics very much consistent, but I don't like the idea of the physical evidence of relative simultaneity. It seems to me a...

I don't agree that he assumes what you say, or rather, that he only assumes what you say, but let that be for a moment. Basically, as I was saying, the starting point of his derivation is the same setup as that of the simultaneity test. I already posted the screenshot. And that setup leads to...

It isn't the center. I'm talking about lightnings. If the light of both lightnings meets at the same time at the place where the observer on the embankment is, then it is a single event. If it is a single event, it must be a single event in the train frame. I agree it's not the centre of the...

PeroK said that if something happens in one point of spacetime, that's an event that must exist in any frame of reference. I agree to this, because this is in line with the LT - and that means that inside the train frame of reference there must be a point where the light from both lightnings...