Recent content by Magatron

Oh, is this a school? I mistook it for a physics forum. Do threads get closed if nobody can refute the author's conclusion using logic and reason rather than somebody's "postulates"?

Okay, a frame in which a light beam can be seen to exist when all frames in relative motion to it are removed. Anything else?

And why would that be? Did I violate a forum rule not to write anything that disagrees with Einstein's postulates?

Whichever frame the light beam can be seen exist in if you remove all other frames is the only one that the speed of light is SEEN to be constant in, Einstein was simply wrong. For all intents, the light beam does not even exist in any other frame, it's like having a video of a light beam taken...

Light was not generated in all frames, the laser was only in the rocket's frame. You could isolate the rocket frame and the beam would still be seen to exist. If you instead isolated the track frame, the beam would not be seen to exist, that's the difference. From the track frame, it appears...

So explain how it's in error. All I saw was you saying it's an error, I could say that about anything.

Or IS it? That was just Einstein's postulate, he merely postulated it. Definition of "postulate": suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

In the track frame when the rocket was parked there before the experiment and its clocks were synchronized with the track clock, the track was agreed by all to be 1.5 light seconds long and the rocket 1 light second long.

They were synchronized with the track clock while the rocket was parked near the track before the experiment.

Let there be a track 450,000 km long and a rocket 300,000 km long with a laser attached to the bottom of it's back end with a clock beside it, and a second synchronized clock attached to bottom of its front end. Both clocks were also synchronized with a track clock while the rocket was parked...

I guess you really are right, even though it seems weird, because if the thrower moved out of the way so the ball bounced off the rear wall after bouncing off the front wall, the wall would hit the stationary ball at 100 mph and make it move at 200 mph toward the front wall in relation to the...

I guess you're right, it just seems odd. It really is something where you would have to see it to believe it. What about this though? If the wall was stationary and the ball hit it at 200 mph it would bounce from that point in space at 200 mph. So if the wall is moving at 100 mph then the ball...

It doesn't make sense that something moving at 200 mph could be stopped cold by hitting something moving half that speed. Common sense says that it will bounce back at 100 mph.

So it will go from 200 mph to zero just because it hit a 100 mph wall? Wouldn't a 200 mph ball hitting a 100 mph wall be the same as a 100 mph ball hitting a stationary wall? What would happen in that case, the ball would just stop and stay stuck to the wall?

So which is it, stop dead or bounce back at 100 mph from the a stationary observer's viewpoint?