Please state this maths. How is it different from what I laid out in #46, and which Janus presented diagramatically in #49? Remember to carry out the maths in two different frames and relate the locations in the two frames. If you do this correctly you will realise that "the same point in space" means different things to different frames. It is not an absolute.if a light strobe at a point X1 Y1 simple maths tells us that 3 photons in the wave front will always triangulate back to the same point in space
They "triangulate back" to different points according to different frames; the point one frame calls "stationary at the centre of the spherical pulse" other frames call "moving and not at the centre". I have stated this multiple times, both verbally and mathematically, and correct diagrams have been presented to you supporting this. That "a fixed point in space" is a frame-dependent notion, not an absolute one, dates back to Galileo and all of physics assumes the notion.the speed of light not invariant or do the photons triangulate to a set point in space ?
Let's define your experiment better: one person is at rest with respect to the strobe. The other 99 are all in motion with respect to the first and to each other, and all pass the first person simultaneously. At the instant they pass him, he triggers the strobe. All one hundred people agree that the light flash happened at their location. Therefore when they subsequently back-trace the light rays they will always lead back to themselves because they each define themselves to be stationary. But they all agree that they are no longer in the same place. So they all disagree about what "where the flash happened" means.so what should they conclude from the results of that experiment ?
so are you saying if there is a single strobe light in my lounge room that strobes once, and photons radiate out from the strobe in straight lines at a set speedI repeat: please state the "simple maths" that supports your assertion that there is an absolute frame-invariant point from which the light radiates.
The speed of light is invariant and the light does not triangulate back to a set point in space.so which is it is the speed of light not invariant or do the photons triangulate to a set point in space ?
This picture shows the light propagating at speed ##c## using the frame in which the railcar is at rest, but not using the frame in which the strobe light and other stuff is at rest. Take another careful look at post #29 of this thread by @Janus and also try drawing a Minkowski diagram instead of trying to represent the passage of time as a series of still pictures.can you tell me what is wrong with my logic
I think a large problem is that you seem to think that "the building and everything in it is whizzing thru space at some velocity V in some direction V", has meaning in a absolute sense; that there is an absolute state of rest that the building can be said moving with respect to. This is not the case. There is no absolute space against which we can measure motion. We can only measure velocity differences between frames of reference.as explained before there is a train in a large building, 2 light clocks in the large building (LB) to, 1 in the train the other at rest wrt the building
the building and everything in it is whizzing thru space at some velocity V in some direction V
there is a strobe light in the roof
the train heads off along the tracks. Purely by chance the tracks are parallel to the direction of travel of the LB
The train heads off and attains a steady velocity. Purely by chance the velocity of the train is exactly the same as that of the LB , but in the opposite direction
we end up with the situation as depicted.
Purely by chance the strobe light in the roof strobes at the instant the train is directly below the light
once a photon enters a light tube it is reflected up and down
an observer in the frame will see the train whizzing away from them and the light clock in the train will be perceived by the observer to be ticking slower than the clock at rest wrt the observer
as before pulses are sent back along the train lines
will the train line pulses tick faster than the clock at rest wrt the observer
I have drawn the successive events one under another
can you say it is not moving ? and if you were to say it is not moving, would that not mean it is stationary in an absolute sense ?I think a large problem is that you seem to think that "the building and everything in it is whizzing thru space at some velocity V in some direction V", has meaning in a absolute sense; that there is an absolute state of rest that the building can be said moving with respect to. This is not the case. There is no absolute space against which we can measure motion. We can only measure velocity differences between frames of reference.
The point is that an insistence either way is unnecessary. Only relative motion has meaning. There is no meaningful sense of either absolute rest or of absolute motion.can you say it is not moving ? and if you were to say it is not moving, would that not mean it is stationary in an absolute sense ?
It appears I am at liberty to assume it may be moving ?