Recent content by Whatifitaint

Here is your statement above, There is nothing correct about your reasoning above. There is no sequence of transforms that goes from (20,0) to (30,50). Here is your post #31. t = γ (t' + vx/c^2) = (1.25) (-15 + .6 *25) = 0 x = γ (x' + vt') = (1.25) (25 + .6 * (-15)) = 20 B' frame...

Okay, I like your change to sync the clocks. I did not think of it and that is very good. So, what we have for the laws of physics at the clock sync is both C and B' are co-located and the lightning is located at (20,0,0) in the coordinates of the C frame with t=0 because of the clock sync...

Okay, is it the physical reality of your proposed experiment above when the clocks sync, C says the lightning strike is at (20,0,0) with t=0? Is this the undisputed physical reality of C?

These are your calculations based on the B' interpretation, not the other way around. Please read your post. I agree C will calculate this as the B' now in the future. But, this is in the future for C since t=0 and for this x=50 and t=30. t=30 is not the now for C at the clock sync. This...

I am sorry, I am not following you. You wrote Two observers in relative motion disagree on "now" I completely agree with this, but this has nothing to do with what I said. I totally agree with you that each frame will have a different interpretation of now for any given event. But, if C claims...

I agree with everything above. Even though this is a little different, it has the same issue in it. C observer view of now and lightning at A when the clocks are synched, t = γ (t' + vx/c^2) = (1.25) (-15 + .6 *25) = 0 x = γ (x' + vt') = (1.25) (25 + .6 * (-15)) = 20 B' frame...

Thanks, please let me turn this into logical statements. Please explain why this logic that I learned is false. Let statement P = B' and C are colocated. Let statement Q = the lightning flash is located at A in the space-time of C. Then, we have C claiming, Special relativity...

I do not know what the t coordinate for A' is. I know the t' coordinate is A'/c for A'. And, you are not understanding. I want to see a 4D vector in the transformation for B' view. Can you say it is different from the A view vector of (A, 0, 0, A/c)? This is yes or no.

That's odd, we do not know how far apart B' and C are. How can this be decided? Either way, say A is the view of the C frame. Here is the question, does B' claim A' translates to A when B' and C are colocated as does C? This is a yes or no.

Thanks, what does C say?

His diagram does not include the translation of A' to C coordinates. I want this simply written down for its value. Can you do this?

I am not getting it. We all agree C says A when B' and C are colocated. Now, you have not given the view of B' for where the lightning is located in C coordinates when B' and C are colocated. That is a logical known for B' using lorentz transformations. Let's put it down in writing. I...

You are still not answering the question. Try to translate A' to C coordinates. Use the lorentz transformations. Where does B' think the lightning strike is in the coordinates of C when C and B' are colocated. We already know that C thinks it is A. What does B' think it is in C space-time...

Can you please instead of asserting I refuse to accept different now's, which I have not done, instead answer the question? C claims A is the lightning location when B' and C are colocated. What does B' claim, when B' and C are colocated, the location of the lightning is in the...

Wow, misspelling I meant cos'(\apple pie), joke. Yes, cos(\pi). And, the direction of v is based on the motion of the frames not the light beams. We are not communicating. So, let's ignore -A for now which is a shorthand of writing (-A,0,0). We know frame C says when B' and C are...