Can we see light if we move our eyes at speed of light?

[ghwellsjr]

You do see that the only difference wikipedia has is naming l, L0, and l' L. I want to believe that standards do not go that far as in telling you what kind of letters to use for the size of lengths as long as you remain within "some" boundaries.
Gamma is not really different from what i arrived at. It's not "inverse" as you say. You thought it is because i use different letters for the length in system A than what wiki did.

Let's see if that's the only difference.

Your equation is:

l*gamma = l'

Now we change l to L0 and l' to L:

L0*gamma = L

Wiki says:

L = L0/gamma

Can't you see that your gamma is the inverse of the wiki gamma?

Then you also defined your gamma as:

gamma = sqrt(1 - (v^2/c^2))

But wiki says the inverse of that.

Furthermore, we are talking about just two postulates here. TWO. About SR. I sincerely doubt that there is a "standard" for which to name first and which to name second. I would even place a high bet that somewhere out there, there is SOME book by some known scientist who dared to switch the numbering on those two postulates. God forbid.

I wouldn't say it's a standard, it's just conventional. I'll take that bet. But you have to do the search. If you can find a book within 24 hours that switches the numbering of Einstein's postulates, I'll give you a dollar. No help from anybody else, please.

 

[nitsuj]

...that switches the numbering of Einstein's postulates...

They're numbered

 

[Jeronimus]

My derivation is based solely on thought processes trying to extract the right formulas out of the two postulates. I am sorry that it did not turn out an EXACT carbon copy of wikipedia. Maybe wikipedia should change theirs because i explain every thought process. Not like i care, but it seems that SOME people care about every little detail.

Wikipedia also has Lo*sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))= L which is exactly what my formulas describe. My gamma is better than theirs because it's fully explained and derived. It's THEM which have it inverse. But again i do not care, because it takes just a few steps and we both end up with the same formulas.

This is not an attempt to have the last word. But we are only derailing the thread with this nonsense. I will not reply anymore unless you can point out an error in my derivation. Not being a carbon copy of wikipedia is NOT an error.

 

[ghwellsjr]

This thread, according to the OP, was answered to his satisfaction before your first post. In your post, you quoted from post #13 where I offered him exactly the same issue you raised in your post and I asked him if that was the issue he was concerned with and he said "no". So why did you bring it up again? Wouldn't that be considered derailing the thread? There was no need to add anything more to this thread. The OP was quite happy when his question finally got answered.

Look, Jeronimus, I'm trying to help you. When I saw that you had inverted gamma, I didn't trust anything else you had to offer with respect to Special Relativity. That's what other people are going to conclude too. Do you want people to discount and reject what you have to offer, just because you derived the formula on your own and couldn't remember the well-established form? That's quite impressive that you did that, and even if your version of gamma is better (which I agree with), we're not going to change the rest of the world. It is, of course, quite arbitrary but trying to change it or hang-on to your definition is, as I said before, not wise.

 

[joemmonster]

 

[Drakkith]

Don't be fooled by this video. The video is NOT *true* trillion FPS. Each frame was taken with a different light pulse and imaged slightly after the last frame was. It's like rolling rocks down a hill and taking a single picture for each rock at a different point in its path and then making it into a video.

 

[joemmonster]

the video came from the MIT, so i think, its true, can you explain to me further why is this impossible, i don't get it??..

here's the other one..

 

[joemmonster]

oh i see,,,