The Special Theory of Relativity: Circles vs Ellipses!

[@kimberleebrackley2793]

Always a pleasure, Dr.Robitaille. Many thanks, SJ Crothers, and your efficient explanation :)

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@eeveelution8035]

@@NuclearCraftMod Hi Tom, big fan of your mod. As I understand it Crothers uses different values for tau because tau refers to what a clock measures, which he disagrees on being equivalent to time. Ray Fleming has videos about this - if time truly did contract as a particle approached c, all photons would have zero wavelength, infinite frequency and thus infinite energy. Instead he uses the de Broglie model for photons in which nothing physical moves, but rather energy moves at the speed of light through induction which is regulated by a quantum Van der Waal's torque. Clocks are made of matter, and as matter moves through the quantum medium it encounters a sort of drag which increases the VdW torque causing the clock to tick slower. So moving systems take more time to complete a cycle due to a physical viscosity if you will, but the passage of time itself remains untouched.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@eeveelution8035 Tau is the time as measured in the reference frame of the clock. This is different to the coordinate time as measured in another reference frame in which the clock is not stationary. These two *are* different in relativity, and the relationship is given by the Lorentz transformations. Second, it is simply not true that photons would have zero wavelength if time dilation were true. Time dilation is a *consequence* of relativity, and electromagnetism is a relativistic theory (EM is not invariant under the non-relativistic Galilean transformations). When we solve Maxwell’s equations, we find solutions of electromagnetic waves that can propagate in any direction, with any wavelength, at the speed of light. Third, relativity is independent of quantum mechanics: I can almost guarantee you that Ray Fleming, despite his hand-waving, qualitative explanation, has not successfully demonstrated that the precise expression for the time dilation Lorentz factor can be acquired through the “quantum drag” increasing the “quantum VdW torque”, whatever that means, and that this explanation, if it specifically relies on the properties of clocks, probably doesn’t account for other relativistic phenomena such as the increasing of the lifetimes of muons created in the upper atmosphere. Time dilation simply follows from the principles of relativity: the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and electromagnetism is a law of physics. Whatever grifting Crothers and co. want to do in trying to convince people that there are “mistakes” or “inconsistencies”, that relativity follows from its principles will not be any less true.

[@renedekker9806]

@@eeveelution8035 _"tau because tau refers to what a clock measures, which he disagrees on being equivalent to time."_ - that is not what Crothers claims. He fully acknowledges that tau refers to time in the moving frame. He is just bad at interpreting the meaning of his math. Sky Scholar is clearly also bad at interpreting math, as he has posted this video. Special Relativity clearly shows that an expanding light pulse is a spherical wavefront in all reference frames.

[@donnafoster5215]

Thank you for your clear explanation.

[@renedekker9806]

Was the error in the explanation also clear to you?

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@Critter145]

Awesome. I actually was able to follow your explanation.

[@user-lb8qx8yl8k]

Were you able to see the error in his argument?

[@Critter145]

@@user-lb8qx8yl8k I’ll have to rewatch the video before I can answer. It’s been a minute🤣

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.@@Critter145

[@herbyguitar]

Outstanding detail in the presentation.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@tsenotanev]

@@NuclearCraftMod this is a great elucidation .. thanks alot... curiously, nobody thinks to apply crothers' silly line of argument to galilean transformation .. and "disprove" it too.. because it doesn't work there either ... ahahah

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@tsenotanev That's a great point!

[@herbyguitar]

@@NuclearCraftMod Does it matter that there are paradoxes connected to the theory?

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@herbyguitar I don’t agree that there are paradoxes in the theory. There are certainly ideas which challenge our non-relativistic intuitions, but they aren’t paradoxes or self-inconsistencies.

[@LarryKoler]

The essential proof of Petr Beckmann's statement that Einstein confused clocks with time.

[@marywright4934]

Maybe mind and brain too

[@botplays6893]

I'm sorry, how do you define time?

[@LarryKoler]

The point is you don't confuse an instrument with the thing it's measuring.

[@botplays6893]

@@LarryKoler Well, in physics we define a quantity with a measurement, Einstein knew this and he didn't just "confuse" the two, he has a whole bloody segment in his 1905 paper on the topic about the definition of time! All real physicists agree with his definition because it's the definition that affects outcomes, and if you define time as something else you just need to create a new name for what Einstein called time, since, that's the thing that matters.

[@LarryKoler]

@user-ph2ql2vg1d it's just a way to explain how he was misled. And remember he assumed but never tried to prove that the speed of light was constant. He made these leaps of faith.

[@kentjensen4504]

With Greek names and words, the emphasis is almost always on the third to last syllable. pyth-A-goras. de-MO-cracy. arche-O-logy. episte-MO-logy. A-trophy. EM-pathy. bi-O-logy.

[@indio007]

Crothers is straight up hilarious without even knowing it. "Effigy of time" had me cracking up.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@MrSkypelessons]

Thou hast disagreed with Sir Einstein, the Patron Saint of Astrophysics, and for that, you will be spammed with KZbin Bots, calling you nasty names.

[@evelynkorjack2126]

yes, already he has been given a nasty name as gardener.

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

internet is overrun by bots despite this, nobody cares about comment section on YT it dies after a day under every video

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

​@Paul Wolf why not?

[@pjgraham2211S0]

@@szymonbaranowski8184 idk I take screenshots of great knowledgeable comments that help me understand more or put in different context.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@se7964]

What you’ve done here is a classic relativity beginner’s mistake - you’ve constructed the ellipsoid by piecing together events that occur at different times in the moving frame. Given that you list that these tau times are different for the different endpoints, I think you’ve simply failed to understand that what the moving observer “sees” is only what occurs simultaneously (at the same time tau) in his frame. In which case the moving observer always “sees” a sphere. The Lorentz transformations are exactly meant to produce this mapping effect. We must remember in relativity observers share neither similar notions of space nor time.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Exactly. Crothers has copied and pasted posts of a variant of this erroneous argument at least twelve times in the comment section of a few videos over the last few days. He will continue to pretend that no one has addressed the issues with his argument.

[@UlteriorUltra]

@@NuclearCraftMod Crothers is only following the Einstenian rules of the moving system , Of course light behaves the same in all systems. However under the Einsteinian moving system there is a contradiction. The Lorentz transformation cannot be valid for 2 different systems if 1 is moving and the other one isn't. Einstein is trying to fit a square plug into a round hole. The whole idea of a moving system of coordinates is nonsense. Admittedly Crother's proof here is the weakest one of the many disproofs of SR.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@UlteriorUltra There is no such contradiction. The Lorentz transformations describe the relationship between the coordinates of two **relatively** moving reference frames. There is no absolute motion in relativity. The idea of one coordinate system being in relative motion to another is perfectly fine.

[@renedekker9806]

@@UlteriorUltra _"The Lorentz transformation cannot be valid for 2 different systems"_ - why not? Where is the contradiction? _"The whole idea of a moving system of coordinates is nonsense"_ - Why would it be nonsense to make measurements in a moving train? _"the many disproofs of SR"_ - which other ones do you believe there are?

[@tsenotanev]

also... einstein is not talking about invariance of theorem of pythagoras under lorentz transformation ... he is talking about the invariance of the equation of a right circular cone under lorentz transformations... for, indeed x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = (c*t)^2 is the equation of a right circular cone with vertex in the origin, that is in four dimensional space ... just like x^2 + y^2 = z^2 is the equation satisfied only by the points on a right circular cone with vertex in the origin in 3D space... so, what einstein is saying, is that a light cone in one reference frame is mapped onto a light cone in the other reference frame by lorentz transformations .. it is transformed to itself be reminded, that a propagating spherical wave front is indeed a 4D cone ... just like a propagating flat circular wave front goes through the surface of a 3D cone... from it's vertex expandig all along it's periphery with time i believe here, in this misunderstanding, lies the root of the fallacy that mister crothers is trying to defend in this video...

[@stevecrothers6585]

“also... einstein is not talking about invariance of theorem of pythagoras under lorentz transformation ... he is talking about the invariance of the equation of a right circular cone under lorentz transformations... for, indeed x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = (c*t)^2 is the equation of a right circular cone with vertex in the origin, that is in four dimensional space ... just like x^2 + y^2 = z^2 is the equation satisfied only by the points on a right circular cone with vertex in the origin in 3D space... so, what einstein is saying, is that a light cone in one reference frame is mapped onto a light cone in the other reference frame by lorentz transformations .. it is transformed to itself be reminded, that a propagating spherical wave front is indeed a 4D cone ... just like a propagating flat circular wave front goes through the surface of a 3D cone... from it's vertex expandig all along it's periphery with time i believe here, in this misunderstanding, lies the root of the fallacy that mister crothers is trying to defend in this video...” t t Einstein is not talking about a right circular cone at all, he is talking about an expanding spherical wave of light. I have quoted Einstein in my presentation and referred all viewers to his 1905 paper (section 3) to see for themselves; so there is no contest as to Einstein's agument. Einstein writes there: “At the time t = tau = 0, when the origin of co-ordinates common to the two systems, let a spherical wave be emitted thereform, and be propagated with the velocity c in system K. If (x,y,z) be a point just attained by this wave, then x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2t^2 Transforming this equation with the aid of our equations of transformation we obtain after a simple calculation ξ^2 + η^2 + ζ^2 = c^2τ^2 The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity pof propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible.” You have introduced extraneous arguments that diverge from Einstein's 1905 paper. As to the Theorem of Pythagoras, you are also mistaken. I clearly pointed out that Einstein assumed that form-invariance of the Theorem of Pythagoras (for the equation for his spherical wave) is also form-invariance of his spherical wave. His claim is false; form-invariance of that equation is not form-invariance of geometric shape. All Einstein proved is that the equation for distance from the origin of coordinates to the wave front is form-invariant under Lorentz transformation. The equation for distance from the origin of coordinates to a wave front, irrespective of the shape of the wave front is always given by the Theorem of Pythagoras. He assumed that the said equation always describes a sphere so that when he obtained form-invariance of the Theorem of Pythagoras he pronounced that he had proved a sphere after Lorentz transformation. No, he did not. He assumed as a premise that which is to be demonstrated. This form of argument is a logical fallacy called petitio principii. The fallacy is with Einstein, not me. Point to a specific error you allege in my mathematics and provide your proof of it being erroneous. Unless you do that you have no argument.

[@tsenotanev]

@@stevecrothers6585 greetings mister crothers in short, your mistake is that you assume, that simultaneous events in one frame should be simultaneous in the other frame, and since an expanding spherical wave is a whole set of events, some of which are simultaneous but some not, this leads to confusion your mistake is in transforming the expanding spherical wave AT A GIVEN MOMENT in the "stationary" frame, in your case t=1 . this is already not an EXPANDING wave front but just a 3D sphere - a momentary BLINK of light in the whole sky. this blink consists of events satisfying the equations x²+ y²+z² = 1×c² = c² and t=1 , this set of events, being simultaneous in the "stationary" frame of reference, are not simultaneous in the moving frame, even if we consider that they are linked to it with galilean transformations, so indeed, as you have noted, a momentary blink in the whole sky in one frame is not a momentary blink in the whole sky in the other frame .. this momentary blink would be observed, in the moving frame, as a circle of light passing through the whole sky and vanishing to a point if you wish to find what events, in the moving frame, form an expanding spherical wave and how they look in terms of the "stationary" frame you may instead fixate the time coordinate in the moving frame and find what set of events they are part of in the stationary frame, by using the inverse transformation : τ = 1 t = β ( τ + v × ξ / c² ) = β + β × v × ξ / c² since ξ here is the space coordinate of a point on a sphere with radius τ×c it can vary between τ×c and -τ×c , that is: -c < ξ < c, since τ = 1, meaning β ( 1 - v / c ) < t < β ( 1 + v / c ) meaning that the events that formed a sphere of light in the moving frame in moment τ = 1 , were not simultaneous in the "stationary" frame, but occured between moments β ( 1 - v / c ) and β ( 1 + v / c ), *nevertheless these events are part of an expanding sphere of light in the "stationary" frame, just at different moments of the expansion* if, instead, we were using the more intuitive galilean transformation, the time interval of the corresponding events would have been (-c×τ + v×τ, c×τ + v×τ) that is (v-c, v+c) since τ = 1 also, as i have noted in the other comment, an expanding spherical wave of light is indeed a right circular light cone in space time, in exactly the same way as an expanding 2D wave forms a normal right circular 3D cone in space time so when einstein is talking about an expanding spherical wave he is talking about a right circular light cone in space time, such a cone is mapped onto itself by the lorentz transformation, but not identically, meaning that any event on this cone is mapped by lorentz transformation to an event on the same cone, but not the same event. so the invariance he is talking about is this : *_event ∈ (expandig spherical wave) ⇒ lorentz(event) ∈ (expandig spherical wave)_* (although _event ≠ lorentz(event)_ ) the lorentz transformation is a pretty simple linear mapping in 4D space, it is a compositon of two shear mappings, one shear is in the spacial direction, and the other - in the direction of time. galilean transformation is just the shear mapping in the spacial direction. the problem with special relativity is not in the math, the math is sound... be well

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@tsenotanev : “by the way, in your example where v=1/10, have you tried to evaluate the lorentz transformation at moment t=0.9 and x=0 and y=0.9 ... i get tau=0.9045, ξ=-0.09045, η=0.9, not only this is not a circle neither a sphere but it's a single point and it's not even on your ellipse .. it's somewhere outside the ellipse, but it does of course satisfy the pythagoras theorem ... what was einstein thinking dropping random points that don't fit anything not even an ellipse, just because they satisfy the pythagoras theorem... what a disaster” t t “Nowhere do I use t = 0.9, x = 0, y = 0.9. Point to those numbers in my table.” Crothers You did not and cannot point to these numbers in my table for v = 0.1 because I did not use them. You use time t = 0.9 in the stationary system whereas I plotted for time t = 1 in the stationary system. In the stationary system the time 't' is the same for all positions 'x' within the expanding spherical wave of light. After Lorentz transformation using t =0.9 you plot a point of an ellipse relative to a different time plot to what I used. So your point lies on a different ellipse and as such it cannot lie on the ellipse I plotted for time t = 1. Go to my table for v = 0.1 and recalculate all points relative to your time t = 0.9. The resulting ellipse from Lorentz transformation is not the same ellipse I have presented. Yours is at an earlier time 't' so the related ellipse is smaller than that which I plotted at t = 1. This is elementary graphics. Your ridicule in using t = 0.9 reveals your real motivation; that you are prepared to be dishonest to try to gain an upper hand. Your dishonesty will not win the argument and reveals your true character to all and sundry.

[@tsenotanev]

@@DrWhom i don't know .. calling names only serves to antagonize people and when they're antagonized they become even less reasonable .. i don't feel like i want to antagonize anyone i still don't understand if he really has no understanding of linear algebra or he's just doubling down because his "reputation" hangs on his "proof" .. ahah i always say that it's useless for kids to dive into relativity theory before they have acquired a firm grasp on the abstraction aparatus of linear algebra.. just would make them confused

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "true, about the algebra. I have been following crothers for a long long time... Believe me, you are not the first to think you may get him to see reason by being gentle polite and patient. He will not respond in kind. He does not want to and as you indicate he is too entrenched to admit what he knows in his heart of hearts." You do not understand anything. You are clueless. Go away. You add nothing to the discussion. Steve has responded sufficiently to tsenotav and has him cornered but you are too stupid to see it.

[@keithnorris6348]

It`s a lot of work but I will chew my way through as much as I can before you next enlightening and interesting video presentation. I am greatful for your providing key material to help understand the history of misunderstandings. Thank you Mr Corthers have a great day.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@aghilesk]

@@NuclearCraftMod, @SkyScolar would need to reply to this. They leave rebuttals unanswered which is a pity. But judging from the his explanation, it doesn't matter of the time, there is simply no way that a sphere remains a sphere using a Lorentz transformation.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@aghilesk I would imagine it is not in their interest to do so.

[@menlikegods363]

Einstein was, if anything, a fabulously successful self-promoter. His Theory of Special Relativity is more a mathematical meditation on the Kabbalah than it is a practical tool for physicists. Einstein's one good idea, the variable speed of light, he discarded in favor of Merkavah Mysticism.

[@menlikegods363]

@@ZygonesBzygones I am not in any way connected to anyone associated with this channel and nothing in my post expresses any "hatred" of any race or religion.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@menlikegods363 Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@louisvictor3473]

I am not saying this in opposition to what you're saying but in addition. One of my most fundamental issues with relativity is eve more fundamental, the philosophy (soto speak) is logically off. Even if assume for the sake of the argument the math checks out, it doesn't folow that the accepted interpretation is true. Geometric formulas are fundamentally independent of physicality and even our spacial perception, they're still just internally consistent systems of equations that follow certain rules in the end. Did time slow down and space compressed for a particle and that is why it takes longer to decay from my relatively stationary observer perspective than it should, or is it just that making it go very fast affects decay mechanics directly and proportionally, so you can calculate as if this were the case anyway? Or, to dumb it down. If there is money under my pillow in the morning proportional to how many of my baby teeth I out there, does it follow that teeth's atoms reaarange themselves into money and that the process could be reversed, or that a mythical tooth fairy exists just because X baby teeth overnight = X money in the morning? No, all it means is that the quantities follow a certain rule, not why or how, the formulas holding are not sufficient proof of or imply how and why. And it also doesn't mean there is such a thing as negative baby teeth or that I could put money and get new teeth just because pure math accepts negative values in the formula. When the people pushing relativity gets wrong something this simple and fundamental, to the point they refuse to even consider investigating other hypothesis and become hostile at the mere suggestion, I can't take what they say too seriously and am inclined to assume they got other things wrong too.

[@louisvictor3473]

@@DrWhom You're almost adorable. If you could at least be original, I could bother.

[@louisvictor3473]

@@ZygonesBzygones The first question I literally answered right before that quote. Whatever is your own frame of reference from which you're measuring how fast a particle takes to decay. As is often the case when talking about relativity. And affecting _decay_ mechanics directly is what it says, and it was indeed a question. Take muons for example. Muons introduced to the atmosphere by cosmic rays moving at 98% of the speed of light lasts 5x as long as slower muons made at labs. That is the observation. But does it happen because it experiences time slower in relation to you (time-dilation), or because it experience time just as you do but the process that makes it move that fast directly affects how long it takes to decay into another particle?

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@louisvictor3473 Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@louisvictor3473]

@@NuclearCraftMod Interesting that you chose to respond to Crother's argument, who isn't here, and was not even mentioned by me or even in the missing comments by other people. This says everything about what sort of """"discussion"""" you'd like to have.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@louisvictor3473 The first sentence of your first comment is _"I am not saying this in opposition to what you're saying but in addition.",_ which implies to me that you agree with what Crothers claimed. Nevertheless, I am happy to address the main content of your comment, too: You are suggesting that it is possible that the mechanics of decay is being altered by the motion of the muon, or other decaying particle. If this is true, you need to provide the physics for why this is the case, because it is in direct conflict with the first postulate of relativity that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. In special relativity, which follows directly from the first postulate of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light (which is either a second postulate, or derived from the fact that electromagnetism is a law of physics), there is no additional physics required to explain the time dilation: the Lorentz transformations desribe why it happens. In order for your hypothesis to be correct and measurably distinct from special relativity alone, the Lorentz transformations would have to be false, as otherwise any modification of the physics would necessarily deviate the prediction from that given directly by special relativity.

[@destroya3303]

Another issue with this thought equation is thinking the light pulse in the moving frame is moving with that frame. I see no reason that an instantaneous flash of light would need to follow the velocity of the frame that created it. Light is a different state than matter, and isn't like a ball thrown from a moving train.

[@davestorm6718]

Since light has momentum, it would move with the same frame as the source of it's emission. If it didn't have momentum, it would "unlock" from that frame at the instance of emission from it's source. Interestingly, momentum is defined explicitly as a property of matter. Theorists have argued that light is massless, however, thus "acts" like matter when it imparts a force (radiation pressure) upon striking a plate - as demonstrated in Crooke's radiometer (which demonstrates this momentum). No matter how tiny the momentum (or how big), it follows Newton's laws of motion. Therein lies a conundrum and begs another question: does light actually have momentum or does it create/manifest momentum at an energetic interface with matter (when a beam of light strikes a plate)? If the latter, then light would not follow the frame of it's source. A thought experiment is nice, but you can't draw a definitive conclusion and must make a lot of assumptions.

[@destroya3303]

@@davestorm6718 Just because something causes pressure does not give it momentum, since as you stated it is a property of matter and photons are otherwise thought to be mass-less. It doesn't follow in my mind to say "it can create pressure, therefore it must conserve momentum like something which has normal mass". It light travels as a wave, which it does, I'm inclined to think the latter case you gave is correct.

[@davestorm6718]

@@destroya3303 So the big question is: does light impart it's momentum (has inherent momentum - current theory) when it contacts a mass, or does it create momentum (has no inherent momentum, but, creates it when it contacts matter at that instant)? I wonder if there's a way to craft a physical experiment that could demonstrate what is really going on. Hmmm. I'm going to think about this one and see if someone else has an alternative experiment (other that a Crooke's radiometer). Momentum transfer or momentum creation.

[@renedekker9806]

@@davestorm6718 _"Since light has momentum, it would move with the same frame as the source of it's emission"_ - the momentum of light is apparent in its frequency, not in its speed. That is, light that is emitted forward from a moving light source has higher frequency, not higher speed. _"momentum is defined explicitly as a property of matter"_ - energy also has momentum _"...as demonstrated in Crooke's radiometer (which demonstrates this momentum)"_ - Crook's radiometer does not demonstrate momentum of light. _"does light impart it's momentum (has inherent momentum - current theory) when it contacts a mass"_ - yes. _" see if someone else has an alternative experiment "_ - photon momentum is demonstrated in Compton scattering.

[@davestorm6718]

@@renedekker9806 While I agree the frequency of light = greater momentum if m is converted to pure energy (the only way to make m*v definition work), the Crooke's radiometer has several things going on with it. The incident light is absorbed by the vane (momentum contribution #1) and the vane emits IR in the opposite direction (momentum contribution #2), both contribute to the motion of the vane (thrust). So, indeed, the device is demonstrating momentum. Another thing to consider is photonic density in a cross-sectional area. For example: the total energy of 500 1Thz photons in 1nm^2 is equivalent to 1,000 500Ghz photons through the same area.

[@renedekker9806]

DEBUNKED: 14:20 _"Here is a graphic for the result"_ - you are combining events at DIFFERENT times τ in one graph. It is extremely unclear why you do that, and what you hope to achieve with that. They certainly do NOT form the shape in moving system. If you want to know the shape in the moving system at some time τ, you need to combine the events in the moving system that happen at that specific time τ. If you do that, you'll notice they form a sphere with the centre at the origin. Therefore, none of your conclusions that follow are correct. 16:33 _"Note that in all cases this equation holds: ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ² "_ - consequently, at ANY TIME τ, every photon of the whole light pulse is ALWAYS cτ distance from the origin of the moving system. Hence, all photons move away at speed c from the origin. Hence all the photons together form an expanding sphere with centre at the origin. You want to claim that the shape is not an expanding sphere in the moving frame? Then give a time τ at which the shape is not a sphere. If you cannot find such a time τ, then the shape must always be a sphere in the moving system. I really do not understand how you can acknowledge that the transformed equation is identical to the equation of an expanding sphere, yet deny that it is an expanding sphere.

[@stevecrothers6585]

Incorrect Rene. The Lorentz transformation for time is: τ = t/β - vξ/c² For any given time t give the time τ common to all points ξ in the moving system that you want. You only have the Lorentz transformation at your disposal. Show the audience what you think you know.

[@renedekker9806]

@@stevecrothers6585 I am sorry, but you are not addressing any of the points that I made. If you want to claim that the light wave is not an expanding sphere in the moving system, you need to find a time tau on which the light wave is not a sphere. Which value of tau is that, according to you?

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@renedekker9806 : " I am sorry, but you are not addressing any of the points that I made. If you want to claim that the light wave is not an expanding sphere in the moving system, you need to find a time tau on which the light wave is not a sphere. Which value of tau is that, according to you?" ReneDekker Au contraire! It is you who is avoiding the point. You, like Einstein, claim a time τ the same for all positions ξ to assert a spherical wave of light in the 'moving' system resulting fro Lorentz transformation. I proved that there is no such time possible by Lorentz transformation. You failed to provide a time τ the same for all positions ξ on Lorentz transformation. So try again. The Lorentz transformation for time is: τ = t/β - vξ/c² For any given time t that is common to all positions x in Einstein's 'stationary system' give the time τ common to all points ξ in the moving system that you want. You only have the Lorentz transformation at your disposal. Show the audience what you think you know. "I really do not understand how you can acknowledge that the transformed equation is identical to the equation of an expanding sphere, yet deny that it is an expanding sphere." ReneDekker Yes, you really do not understand. You obviously did not pay attention to my lecture and don't want to, and you, like Einstein do not understand geometry. I reiterate: Einstein's claim that the form-invariance of the Theorem of Pythagoras under Lorentz transformation preserves the shape of his spherical wave of light in his 'stationary' system is false. All he did was show that the distance from the origin of coordinates to the wave front in his 'moving system' is given by the Theorem of Pythagoras. This by itself says nothing whatsoever about the shape of the wavefront in the 'moving' system. The equation ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ² does not imply a spherical wave. How do you know that it is not the equation for a cone, or just a right triangle, after Lorentz transformation? So what makes you just pick a spherical wave? Is it because Einstein says so and you believe him? Like Einstein you incorrectly assume that since the equation x² + y² + z² = c²t² for a spherical wave by construction in the 'stationary system' transforms to ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ² in the 'moving system' it must be a spherical wave in the 'moving system' as well. The equation for the ellipsoid I derived is consistent with the Lorentz transformation along with the distance from the origin of coordinates to the wavefront, ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ². Consider any curve or surface in 3-D space. The distance to any point on that curve or surface is given by the Theorem of Pythagoras. To prove, like Einstein and you claim, that ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ² is a spherical wave, requires more than just the equation ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ² that results from Lorentz transformation. Since you follow Einstein, provide your proof that the equation for the ellipsoid I have presented is not consistent with Lorentz transformation. Just do that and you will vindicate Einstein and prove me wrong. But unless you do that you are talking hot air, just like Einstein.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@HarryHab-w9k : "there is no common time in the ellipsoid (which is the image under LT of the spherical wavefront). You are correct about that part of the argument. However, that means that the ellipsoid is not the wavefront in the primed frame." Hogwash. You, like Einstein, claim a time τ the same for all positions ξ to assert a spherical wave of light in the 'moving' system resulting from Lorentz transformation. I proved that there is no such time possible by Lorentz transformation. You failed to provide a time τ the same for all positions ξ on Lorentz transformation. So try again. The Lorentz transformation for time is: τ = t/β - vξ/c² For any given time t that is common to all positions x in Einstein's 'stationary system' give the time τ common to all points ξ in the moving system that you want. You only have the Lorentz transformation at your disposal. Einstein's claim that the form-invariance of the Theorem of Pythagoras under Lorentz transformation also preserves the shape of his spherical wave of light in his 'stationary' system is false. All he did was show that the distance from the origin of coordinates to the wave front in his 'moving system' is given by the Theorem of Pythagoras. This by itself says nothing whatsoever about the shape of the wavefront in the 'moving' system. The equation ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ² does not imply a spherical wave. The equation for the ellipsoid I derived is consistent with the Lorentz transformation along with the distance from the origin of coordinates to the wavefront, ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ². I give mathematical proofs, you counter with drivel.

[@renedekker9806]

@@stevecrothers6585 _"You failed to provide a time τ the same for all positions ξ on Lorentz transformation"_ - vary unclear what you mean by that. _"The Lorentz transformation for time is: τ = t/β - vξ/c² "_ - the Lorentz transformation transforms x,y,z, and t of one frame to ξ, η, ζ and τ of another frame. There is no separate "Lorentz transformation for time". _"For any given time t that is common to all positions x in Einstein's 'stationary system' give the time τ common to all points ξ in the moving system that you want"_ - that is the Lorentz transformation. _"The equation ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ² does not imply a spherical wave"_ - the equation implies two things: 1) at any time τ, the distance of all photons is the same distance R from the origin, that is, at any time τ, the light pulse forms a sphere (your Pythagoras statement). 2) that distance R = cτ, and is therefor increasing with speed c Which of these two statements do you dispute? _"The equation for the ellipsoid I derived"_ - at what time τ does that ellipsoid appear in the moving frame?

[@vortextube]

He just made all that up.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

"He just made all that up." Gives us just one debunk example.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@bushmangrizz4367 Crothers’ claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@markbarber7839]

Pythagoras. Love the way you pronounce it

[@atheistaetherist2747]

Heaviside's friend Searle was the first fellow in history to derive the ellipsoid of action of em forces - however i seem to recall that his ellipsoid was shortened, not (Steve's) elongated. …………When Heaviside tried to extend his analysis from a point charge to Thomson’s spherical surface charge, he stumbled when he assumed the electric field lines would be normal to the sphere’s surface. This was a fortuitous error, in one sense, however, as it prompted a letter (dated 19 August 1892) from the young Demonstrator of Experimental Physics at Thomson’s Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, G. F. C. Searle (1864-1954), who had been working with Thomson since October 1888. That letter was the beginning of a positive relationship, on both the technical and human levels, that would last the rest of Heaviside’s life. In his letter, Searle wrote ‘I quite agree with your solution for the motion of an electrified point, but I do not understand how it will apply when we deal with a sphere’. Searle went on to show Heaviside that as long as ‘u2/v2 is utterly negligible’ then Heaviside’s field line assumption is permissible, but if ‘u2/v2 is not neglected’ then the assumption is not valid. Heaviside received this criticism with good spirits, and from that point on, he certainly had a high opinion of his new acquaintance. The fact that Searle, as a youngster, had been given a tour of the Cavendish laboratory by the great Maxwell himself, surely added to Searle’s bona fides in Heaviside’s eyes as well. In 1896, Searle published corrections to Heaviside’s point charge analysis, arriving at expressions including the same famous factor of 1 − (u2/v2) that appeared in the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction hypothesis, indicating that they were probing at the very edges of relativistic electrodynamics [23]……………

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@drsjamesserra]

Interesting

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

It may be helpful to note that the cross-sections of a three-dimensional cone are two-dimensional circles. The cross-sections of a four-dimensional hypercone are three-dimensional spheres. This, the spherical wavefronts seen emanating from a central point together constitute a four-dimensional hypercone. Instead of hypercone we often just say cone of the dimensionality of the space we are working in is understood. This may have confused Mr C.

[@stevecrothers6585]

Your post does not contain a mathematical proof of anything. Start with the first equation I have presented here: if you claim it wrong give your mathematical proof, otherwise acknowledge it is correct. Do this for each successive equation I have presented in this lecture. You only have the Lorentz transformation at your disposal to move from Einstein's spherical wave of light in his stationary system into his moving system. Unless you provide your mathematical proofs of what you claim is wrong in my lecture in the fashion I have requested, you have not demonstrated that you are not confused.

[@destroya3303]

Nick of Time's arguments against relativity are the most convincing for me, since it is simple physics based contradictions, and no complicated math needed.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@Kenzofeis]

For emanation of a spherical field (symmetry) the source would need to be stationary in relation to surroundings, the problem is - what would that be, various moving particles and whatnot, their ever interacting and changing fields, or one "base field" - a question arises, what exactly exchanges all this information to all the things involved, a "particle cloud" that must necessarily be more or less ridiculously dense? How is what information exchanged in such a way? A "particle" comes over and says "Hello, I am from [Address, already no longer valid] and you are now affected in such or such manner, because I say so. Where am I now, by the way?"

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@Critter145]

Black Holes are super powerful Plasmoids. Time isn’t a material that can be “bent”. Gravity isn’t the driver of cosmology, electric fields and electric currents are.

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

what is plasmoid? what is role of gravity?

[@gregkiser8880]

Shew, amen. Being a fan of astronomy all my life and finally realizing you can't get magnetism without electrical current brings plasma to the forefront. And then also knowing electromagnetism is 1000 trillion trillion trillion (10^39) more powerful than gravity how could one avoid the conclusion that plasma is shaping the universe more than gravity?

[@Critter145]

@@gregkiser8880 It seems to me that the error in modern astrophysics has as much to do with a flawed philosophical approach as it does the unwillingness of people whose jobs depend on it to admit the errors and huge gas in the theories. Thank you for your comment.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@Critter145 Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@uptoapoint7157]

I found it interesting that Minkowski was Einstein''s mathematics professor and he seemed to take over from (the unknown) AE in the interpretation of his theory. Minkowski was partly responsible for the assumption that c is constant, an assertion that made AE the physicist uncomfortable in his early days. A variable c has significant implications for the later interpretation of the red shift and other phenomenon.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@critical-thought]

Brilliant! I have always held (to some ridicule) that relativity assigns magical properties to light. It is delicious that simple geometry makes it obvious. Thank you!

[@critical-thought]

@@DrWhom Disprove this video, then we’ll talk.

[@critical-thought]

@@DrWhom That is what I thought. Your assumptions and attitude call you out. Like I said … disprove the video.

[@XenMaximalist]

​@@critical-thought😊😮

[@critical-thought]

@@ZygonesBzygones A priori argument is irrelevant. Observe, measure, analyze, re-hypothesize. So many people would rather die in ignorance than re-hypothesize. They refuse to continue the journey. Due to this behavior, relativity is now a bonafide religion of fashionable scientism, utterly devoid of its scientific beginnings.

[@critical-thought]

@@ZygonesBzygones And Newton’s gravity isn’t about rocket propulsion. And Darwin’s evolution isn’t about DNA. Every theory is “about” a great deal more than it pretends to be, and is proven and falsified by a great many more tests. GR and SR are about very nearly everything.

[@BuddhiYoga7]

Thank you. So does this mean that the world's foremost physicists could not understand the logical flaws in this paper? And what about the technical/typo flaws propagated in the paper? John Walker, who footnoted this paper for his fourmilab website lists at least 5 major errors transmitted from the German to the English translation of the paper in 1923, which further confused physicists. Also, keep in mind the 'Pythagorean' Theorem was known way before the Greeks: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulba_Sutras . I would assume that any child playing with 9 blocks and 16 blocks to create a right angle would then line up 25 blocks to create a triangle and realize the equality.

[@TheHerries]

@@DrWhom Point out the nonsense, that we can learn from you.

[@louisvictor3473]

@@TheHerries It is not a matter of could not understand, but would not. Different issue.

[@user-lb8qx8yl8k]

​@user-ph2ql2vg1d -- The tragedy is not that the targeted audience of this video will not comprehend your point, but it's that they do not want to comprehend it. I also think that Crothers knows why his argument is bunk. An observer at rest at the origin of the 'moving' frame will, (of course), measure different distances to the wavefront at different values of τ. Likewise, an observer at rest at the origin of the 'stationary' frame will, (of course), measure different distances to the wavefront at different values of t. Crothers even writes that ξ² + η² +ζ² = c² τ² which makes it clear that (ξ² + η² +ζ²)^(1/2), (which is the distance from the wavefront to the origin of the 'moving' frame), varies as τ varies!! Conversely, the above equation verifies that one value of τ will result in one value of (ξ² + η² +ζ²)^(1/2). Lastly, the real nail in the coffin for this outlandish argument is simple. As in the video, assume that ξ, η, ζ, τ are related to x, y, z, t according to the Lorentz transformation. Then, it's a VERY simple task to verify that x²+y²+z²=c²t² IMPLIES that ξ² + η² +ζ² = c² τ² AND vice-versa!!

[@renedekker9806]

_"So does this mean that the world's foremost physicists could not understand the logical flaws in this paper?"_ - no, it shows that Sky Scholar does not know what he is talking about.

[@user-lb8qx8yl8k]

@@renedekker9806 -- You got that right!!

[@CausalDiscoveries]

@skyscholar you open to reviewing an absolute time/space approach to electrodynamics?

[@rentlastname2824]

Very well presented argument. Although you should really give credit to Petr Beckmann for the quote about 'sympathetic magic' in assigning time to what clocks show.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@a_star8834]

at 13:13, is the talk about the anisotropic behavior of light in all frame which einstein assumed? If so, performing a Lorentz transform on it is merely another interpretation where light is not isotropic. In a sense einstein's assumption would not be deemed wrong despite the Lorentz transformation showing otherwise.

[@tsenotanev]

mister crothers is claiming that einsten is stating that a sphere centered in the origin of the coordinates at a given moment t is transformed by lorentz transformation into a sphere again centered in the origin of the coordinate system... in fact einstein is stating no such thing, thus mister crothers is commiting a straw man fallacy ... what einstein is stating is that a spherical wave front propagating with speed c from the origin ( aka a _light cone_ ) is transformed by lorentz transformation again into a spherical wave front propagating with speed c from the origin ( aka a _light cone_ ), which is a correct statement ok i found the exact fallacious statements at 12:42 .. quote « .. but note that both of these equations x² + y² + z² = c²t² ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ² are statements of the right triangle rule, that is - the theorem of pythagoras, these equations merely state that distance from the origin of the coordinates to the wave front is given by the theorem of pithagoras. they don't say or imply that the spherical electromagnetic wave front constructed in the stationary system K, remains a spherical wave front in the moving system k under lorentz transformation. neither do they say that the center of the transformed wave front in the moving system is located at the origin of that coordinate system » the correct statement is that these equations state that the distance from the origin of the coordinates to the wave front *_at any given moment of time t or τ_* is constant ( i.e. those are equations of sphere), _and the coordinates of any given point is on a sphere centered at the origin of the coordinate system, and the radius of that sphere satisfy the theorem of pythagoras_ the fact that these two equations are both the equations of a *spherical wave propagating with speed c* *_DOES imply_* that: *1)* under lorentz transformation, the spherical electromagnetic wave front ( _propagating with speed c_ ) constructed in the stationary system *_K_* , remains a spherical wave front ( _propagating with speed c_ ) in the moving system *_k_* , *2)* the resulting wave front in the moving system is centered at the origin of that system. this is exactly the contrary of what mister crothers is stating. let me remind again, that these _propagating-wave-front equations_ are in fact equations of a right circular cone in space time, aka a *_light cone_*, they don't just merely restate the theorem of pythagoras, which is a fact, that mister crothers chooses to ignore, which later leads him to the surprise that a cone can be formed by a set of parallel _circular_ sections as well as, alternatively, by a set of parallel _elliptical_ sections.... thus mister crothers is committing a fallacy of omission, at the very least the lorentz transformation is a pretty simple linear mapping in 4D space, it is a composition of two shear mappings, one shear is in the spacial direction, and the other - in the direction of time. galilean transformation is just the shear mapping in the spacial direction. the problem with special relativity is not in the math, the math is sound... it is kinda disappointing that mister robitaille would allow such disinformation to be spread here

[@stevecrothers6585]

“mister crothers is claiming that einsten is stating that a sphere centered in the origin of the coordinates at a given moment t is transformed by lorentz transformation into a sphere again centered in the origin of the coordinate system... in fact einstein is stating no such thing, thus mister crothers is commiting a straw man fallacy ... what einstein is stating is that a spherical wave front propagating with speed c from the origin ( aka a light cone ) is transformed by lorentz transformation again into a spherical wave front propagating with speed c from the origin ( aka a light cone ), which is a correct statement.” t t One is not forbidden to plot the graph of an expanding spherical wave of light at any particular time 't' to investigate the graph of that spherical wave after Lorentz transformation. One can easily time-plot successively for 0 < t_1 < t_2 < t_3 … and thereby examine the expanding character of those graphs. Einstein's paper appeared in 1905 [1]. The 'light cone' idea you invoke was constructed by H. Minkowski in 1909, along with the 4-D spacetime idea [2]. In 1905 Einstein did not know about the ideas to be advanced by Minkowski four years later in 1909. Therefore, when Einstein asserted in s 3 of his 1905 paper that an expanding spherical wave of light is also an expanding spherical wave of light after Lorentz transformation he meant precisely that. He plainly concluded that the form-invariance of the equation x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2t^2 in the equation ξ^2 + η^2 + ζ^2 = c^2τ^2 means that the latter describes an expanding spherical wave of light, centred at the origin of coordinates, propagating at the speed of light 'c' because that is exactly what he constructed in the former equation. I quote again Einstein's argument from s 3 of his 1905 paper [1]: “At the time t = τ = 0, when the origin of co-ordinates is common to the two systems, let a spherical wave be emitted thereform, and be propagated with the velocity c in system K. If (x,y,z) be a point just attained by this wave, then x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2t^2. Transforming this equation with the aid of our equations of transformation we obtain after a simple calculation ξ^2 + η^2 + ζ^2 = c^2τ^2. The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible.” [1] A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 17, 891, (1905) [2] H. Minkowski, Jahresher der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung (Verlag B.G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1909); e-print wikisource.org/wiki/Raum_und_Zeit_(Minkowski)

[@tsenotanev]

@@stevecrothers6585 well thank you for admitting to pushing a fallacy of omission mister crothers .. that's nice by the way, in your example where v=1/10, have you tried to evaluate the lorentz transformation at moment t=0.9 and x=0 and y=0.9 ... i get tau=0.9045, ξ=-0.09045, η=0.9, not only this is not a circle neither a sphere but it's a single point and it's not even on your ellipse .. it's somewhere outside the ellipse, but it does of course satisfy the pythagoras theorem ... what was einstein thinking dropping random points that don't fit anything not even an ellipse, just because they satisfy the pythagoras theorem... what a disaster also the fact that einstein didn't call the expanding wave front a light cone does not mean that it doesn't have a conical shape, there by having planar sections that are ellipses

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@tsenotanev : You falsely asserted that when Einstein [1] Lorentz transformed his expanding spherical wave of light he was not talking about a spherical wave of light but a light-cone. But the 'light cone' idea you invoke was constructed by H. Minkowski in 1909, along with the 4-D spacetime idea [2]. In 1905 Einstein did not know about the ideas to be advanced by Minkowski four years later in 1909. Therefore, when Einstein asserted in s 3 of his 1905 paper that an expanding spherical wave of light is also an expanding spherical wave of light after Lorentz transformation he meant precisely that [1]. The equation x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2t^2 is the right triangle rule in 3-D space. So too is the equation x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2t^2 = 0. The length of the hypotenuse is ct. The hypotenuse is not perpendicular to the x-y-z- axes. The term 't' is a scalar parameter for the hypotenuse. The hypotenuse ct is never perpendicular to the x-y-z axes and is not an independent coordinate for 3-D space. The equation of a right circular cone is [2] x^2 + y^2 = z^2. The x-y-z axes are all perpendicular to one another. The equation x^2 + y^2 - z^2 = 0 is still that for the right circular cone in 3-D space. The x-y-z coordinates define a point in 3-D space. In 1909 Minkowski wrote the equation for the right triangle as [3] c^2t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2 = 0 and claimed that it is the equation of a cone [3]. Merely substracting the length of the hypotenuse from both sides of the equation for a right triangle does not turn the right triangle into a cone or 3-D space into a 4-D space. The equation still describes the right triangle in 3-D space and does not magically turn into a 4-D hypercone when Minkowski subtracted x^2 + y^2 + z^2 from both sides of the equation x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2t^2 for the right triangle describing Einstein's expanding spherical wave of light. When Einstein Lorentz transformed x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2t^2 into ξ^2 + η^2 + ζ^2 = c^2τ^2 and called both equations those for an expanding spherical wave of light he did not invoke cones [1], contrary to your claims. The hypotenuse of a right triangle is not an independent coordinate. One needs four independent coordinates to write an equation for a hypercone. “Any n independent variables x^i, where i takes values 1 to n, may be thought of as the coordinates of an n-dimensional space V_n in the sense that each set of values of the variables defines a point of V_n.” [4] The hypotenuse of a right triangle (here ct) is not an independent quantity in x-y-z space defining a point in 3-D space: the x-y-z axes do that. So, using nothing but Einstein's expanding spherical wave of light and the Lorentz transformation provide your proof that Einstein's resulting ξ^2 + η^2 + ζ^2 = c^2τ^2 is an expanding spherical wave of light. [1] A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 17, 891, (1905) [2] G. B. Thomas Jr., Calculus and Analytic Geometry (Addison-Wesley Publihing Company Inc., Boston, MA, 1983) [3] H. Minkowski, Jahresher der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung (Verlag B.G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1909); e-print wikisource.org/wiki/Raum_und_Zeit_(Minkowski) [4] L. P. Eisenhart, Riemannian Geometry, Princeton Landscapes in Mathematics and Physics series (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1997)

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@tsenotanev : “by the way, in your example where v=1/10, have you tried to evaluate the lorentz transformation at moment t=0.9 and x=0 and y=0.9... i get tau=0.9045, ξ=-0.09045, η=0.9, not only this is not a circle neither a sphere but it's a single point and it's not even on your ellipse ..” t t Nowhere do I use t = 0.9, x = 0, y = 0.9. Point to those numbers in my table.

[@tsenotanev]

@@stevecrothers6585 the equation x² + y² + z² = c²t² is not a right triangle rule in 3D because of the fourth variable t which already makes it an equation of something in 4D and it is the equation of a right circular cone in 4D regardless of your willingness to admit that and regardless of einstein's awareness of the fact further more your "proof" is irrelevant to the equation x² + y² + z² = c²t² or the equation ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ² because you are supposed to be plotting a sphere in the system (ξ, η, ζ, τ) but instead you are plotting just the projection of a circle in the plane ξ, η .. how is that relevant to anything .. and what are these arrows just pointing to a point and giving the value for τ.. .this is not a real graph ... everybody knows that a circle can be projected to an ellipse, for a 4D object you need a 4D graph i.e. an animation, make one if you really want to prove anything i don't know if you've come up with this puerile "proof", got too excited, published it, and now you're forced to defend it's fallacy in order to avoid admitting your callowness, or if you're just totally unwilling to imagine things in 3D or 4D space, either way you're just doing a disservice to mister robitaille, because from now on everybody can dismiss the entirety of his work presented here on account of your fallacy. and you are also doing a disservice to everybody who really wants to understand what's wrong with the theories of relativity .. which is obviously not the lorentz transformation, which is a simple linear mapping be well

[@gianlucamolinari6133]

I agree that SR is wrong, but unfortunately also this alleged proof of the mathematical inconsistency of SR is wrong. The points of the ellipse describe the spherical wavefront at different times because in these equations tau depends on xi, and have therefore no physical meaning.If the same argument is used for a spherical sound wave, or a soccer ball, Crothers can demonstrate that the Lorentz contraction is actually a dilation, because the sphere becomes an ellipse elongated along xi. To do this transformation properly he should transform the component of the speed of light in each point of the sphere, and then multiply those components by tau = t/gamma. The results will be a sphere with a smaller radius because tau < t and c' = c.

[@chrimony]

Right. The crucial phrase in Einstein's paper: "when viewed in the moving system". Which means you must see where the expanding pulses of light are at equal times for tau. A simple test is to just look at two pulses of light going in opposite directions along the horizontal axis in the stationary system and the transformed moving system. They both show the light pulses traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light, within the respective coordinates of their system. Not only that, Crothers says the origins aren't the same, but he's using a time t=1, instead of t=0.

[@stevecrothers6585]

“I agree that SR is wrong, but unfortunately also this alleged proof of the mathematical inconsistency of SR is wrong. The points of the ellipse describe the spherical wavefront at different times because in these equations tau depends on xi, and have therefore no physical meaning.If the same argument is used for a spherical sound wave, or a soccer ball, Crothers can demonstrate that the Lorentz contraction is actually a dilation, because the sphere becomes an ellipse elongated along xi. To do this transformation properly he should transform the component of the speed of light in each point of the sphere, and then multiply those components by tau = t/gamma. The results will be a sphere with a smaller radius because tau < t and c' = c.” Gianluca Molinari Your argument is incorrect. Under Lorentz transformation eta = y and zeta = z. So if “The results will be a sphere with a smaller radius because tau < t and c' = c” as you claim, eta would not equal y and zeta would not equal z, in violation of the Lorentz transformation. I however do not violate Lorentz transformation.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@chrimony “Right. The crucial phrase in Einstein's paper: "when viewed in the moving system". Which means you must see where the expanding pulses of light are at equal times for tau. A simple test is to just look at two pulses of light going in opposite directions along the horizontal axis in the stationary system and the transformed moving system. They both show the light pulses traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light, within the respective coordinates of their system. Not only that, Crothers says the origins aren't the same, but he's using a time t=1, instead of t=0.”chrimony The Lorentz transformation for time is: tau = t/beta - v(xi)/c^2 For any given time 't' give the time tau common to all points xi in the moving system that you claim. You only have the Lorentz transformation at your disposal, no other means. When t = 0, tau = 0 and the origins coincide. When t = 1 the origins are separated by s = vt according to the 'stationary' system. The point of origin of light emission in the moving system is the centre of the ellipse, not the origin of coordinates because in the moving system the origin of coordinates and the centre of the ellipse are not the same. But the origin and the centre of symmetry of the sphere of light in the stationary system are the same. All this is explained in my presentation. Point to a mathematical error you allege in my presentation and provide your mathematical proof of that alleged error.

[@chrimony]

@@stevecrothers6585 You're expelling a lot of words without addressing the main issue: When viewed using equal times for tau in the moving system, the light wave is a sphere. I replied to you in another thread with several questions that makes this clear. Why don't you try answering those questions and see for yourself?

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@chrimony : “You're expelling a lot of words without addressing the main issue: When viewed using equal times for tau in the moving system, the light wave is a sphere. I replied to you in another thread with several questions that makes this clear. Why don't you try answering those questions and see for yourself?” chrimony It is not a question of how many words, it is an issue in mathematics and you have not proved any mathematical error in my presentation, you have only cried foul and advanced diversions. The Lorentz transformation for time is: tau = t/beta - v(xi)/c^2 For any given time 't' give the time tau common to all points xi in the moving system that you claim. You only have the Lorentz transformation at your disposal, no other means. So use the Lorentz transformation to prove your claim for 'equal times for tau in the moving system'. Unless you show the mathematics you have no argument. I await your proof.

[@Dan-gs3kg]

My main thought was how you could maintain distances from the origin, but not shapes or angles: Spherical trigonometry versus Flat, or Hyperbolic. But even then coherence and the generalized triangular inequality should still hold. Relativity is incoherent for all scenarios with at least two non-colocated stationary frames, and one moving frame.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@jimjimmy2179]

I would venture to point out that the Lorentz transformation shows how an observer in stationary system sees the moving system (and vice versa of course). It doesn't however show how the moving system looks like to the moving observer within that moving system. In other words: if one assumes final and invariant c (which isn't Einstein's invention but rather it's a result of Maxwell's equations) then , inevitably, all relatively moving systems will look distorted to the respective observers, hence length contraction. As for the time then again it's an illusion caused by finite invariant c due to which any observer seeing relatively moving clocks simply must see them ticking slower. However both ,shape distortion and clock slowing down of relatively moving frame are illusions caused by final and invariant c. When both relatively moving frames finally meet in the same frame one learns that in fact there's no difference. The other problem is that we cannot really measure c because to do that we need to know the c first so all we can measure is round trip whereby we need to assume directional space symmetry to assert the value of c. Moreover we cannot really proof the invariance either it's just that if Maxwell's equations are to hold then it simply must be the case. And yes I agree that clock do sent equal time, however the video as presented doesn't seem to disproof SR.🙂 There's however bigger problem with GR whereby it seems that Einstein's space time tensor is rather "pseudo-tensor" and not proper mathematical construct. It would be interesting to see a video on that topic. 🙂

[@stevecrothers6585]

"I would venture to point out that the Lorentz transformation shows how an observer in stationary system sees the moving system (and vice versa of course). It doesn't however show how the moving system looks like to the moving observer within that moving system." jimjimmy Your 'venture' is incorrect. The Lorentz transformation yields what the moving observer experiences, not what the stationary observe sees in the moving system.

[@jimjimmy2179]

@@stevecrothers6585 It seems you didn't fully understand what I meant. LT of course shows how any inertial system sees any other one. However what I meant was that it doesn't show how it looks to the person within any particular system. Meaning that all supposed paradoxes (like one system ladder won't fit into fast moving garage, etc) are just illusionary there but factually not. They are there just because these two systems never meet in the actual reality, they only getting distorted info about each other which ultimately comes down to Maxwell el-m equations. Agreed probably not phrased any nicely.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@jimjimmy2179 : I didn't misunderstand you. What you wrote is clear. Here it is again: "I would venture to point out that the Lorentz transformation shows how an observer in stationary system sees the moving system (and vice versa of course). It doesn't however show how the moving system looks like to the moving observer within that moving system." jimjimmy You now reiterate the same claim in different words: "LT of course shows how any inertial system sees any other one. However what I meant was that it doesn't show how it looks to the person within any particular system." jimjimmy Now I reiterate: The Lorentz transformation yields what the moving observer experiences, not what the stationary observer sees in the moving system.

[@jimjimmy2179]

@@stevecrothers6585 ok, well then whatever you reiterated is actually wrong. Btw what is "stationary observer in moving system"? In any case LT can be applied to any 2 inertial system, including those who don't move against each other. (The latter is probably your "stationary observer in moving system" whereby you probably mean an observer moving along with the system they observe). I'm no longer sure what we discussing actually. So bye and have a good day...

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@jimjimmy2179 : You have provided no proof of any of your claims, so they have no scientific merit. "Btw what is "stationary observer in moving system"?" jimjimmy You have obvious chosen to falsify what I wrote in order to try to refute me. Here is what I wrote, as easily seen above: "The Lorentz transformation yields what the moving observer experiences, not what the stationary observer sees in the moving system." Contrary to your unsubstantiated claim, Einstein's stationary observer does not see under LT what happens in Einstein's moving system. Moreover, Einstein's expanding spherical wave of light in his stationary system is not transformed under LT into an expanding spherical wave of light in Einstein's moving system but into a translated ellipse with a moving centre. Einstein's claim that form-invariance of the Theorem of Pythagoras under LT is also form-invariance of geometric shape is demonstrably false. Consequently his SR is false. Provide your proof that Einstein's claim is right.

[@drsjamesserra]

How can we explain decay delay when particles are accelerated to relativistic speeds? How can we explain the measured muon lifetime?

[@JamesLGoldsberry]

Earth is not a stationary location - It has spin, orbital velocity, solar system motion thru the galaxy and galactic system motion in the cosmos. Tesla once thought that transverse EM waves will move differently than Hertzian waves (B and E fields at 90 degrees alternating versus parallel fields ).

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

Since watches don't detect time, I scratched my head quite hard out of disappointment, so he came up with the idea that I could do a bulk purchase of watches to pave my morning rocket tour route with watches;-)

[@michelangelou7]

EMR does not just travel with inverses square law, there is electric dendritic patterns, energy takes path of least resistance but not solely, it organizes like birkeland currents but highly depends on the medium

[@WalterSamuels]

Why are you calling Pythagoras "pith a gore us"? You realize it's "pie thag or us"?

[@stevecrothers6585]

I say myth not mieth, I say pyth not pieth.

[@WalterSamuels]

It doesn't matter what YOU say, it matters how his name was historically pronounced. It is a persons name. @@stevecrothers6585

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@WalterSamuels : Instead of whining about pronunciation of a man's name, try advancing a mathematical proof of any error you allege in my lecture.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@stevecrothers6585 It has already been done, multiple times. It is simply in your interest to continue to pretend that no one has. This is the standard behaviour of a grifter. You have posted a variety of this flawed argument at least ten times in the last few days. The game's over, Stephen.

[@George4943]

Either K or k can be considered as unmoving. In an unmoving system an emitted particle of light is a wave of probability which expands as a perfect sphere. When that sphere is viewed from a moving point it appears to be a 3D ellipsoid. The clocks that Einstein imagines measure the time of natural processes. Hourglasses and pendulum clocks measure the natural processes in systems under acceleration. Einstein clocks measure the speed at which chemistry and physics operates locally including non-accelerated clocks. Each location could be viewed as having time emerge white-hole like everywhere. And physical processes always take the same time everywhere as measured by local clocks. The universe expands in time at 1sec/sec universally expanding the sphere of events (light "cone") which could have affected the local location. An external observer may see a non-local clock running slower than the local clocks while the observed denizen still experiences time at the rate of 1sec/sec. To him as he observes the external observer's location it is their clock that runs funny. "All math is made up." -- 3blue1brown Among other assumptions is the concept of perfect vacuum. It is impossible in reality. However, if there were a perfect vacuum, photons travel at c experiencing no time. A photon goes from (x,y,z) to (x',y',z') in zero time. A photon's clock does not change -- to the photon it had no duration and functioned as the means to transfer energy as a unit from one 4D location to another.

[@itsbs]

** It seems like you described how all of this depends on where the source emitter is located (K or k). That seems very Doppler-like, being relative to the source emitter. ** In Einstein's 1905 paper, the balanced-wheel *oscillating system* drives the "position of the hands on the clock", which is Einstein's definition of time, i.e. "position of the hands on a clock."

[@nadahere]

You are stuck in Onerock's 'elliptical' argument. 😅But his ideas [they aren't even theories] have been disproved in many ways. Try this... ==== +++👽👽👽EINSTEIN WRONG! It's been there all along but ignored for the close minded dogma that pervades today's education and science. +++++++++Why The Theory of Relativity Doesn't Add Up (In Einstein's Own Words) - kzbin.info/www/bejne/fpXYfmNpj96sgas Here is another fault with the Special Relativity DAMN that will crack it open. Onerock REIFIED time at 47:40 minutes with no cause - no observational evidence - just a fictional hat trick and not even a mathematical hat trick. Time is not a real dimension. It is a sequence of events and nothing in and of itself. 'Time' is mans measurement of change, a man made construct to track dynamic events. Nature has no such need. Onerock [Einstein] reified it which, then, among other failures, falsifies his theories. He confounds distance [d=vt] with time which is allowed in mathematical manipulations but there is no basis for it in the real world [e.g. a large amount of poison administered over a short period of time in an organism is not the same as the same amount of toxin administered over a long period of time]. In regards to the meaning of the 'present', it is the NOW irrespective of any distance that separates the events at that moment in any dimension. The fundamental basis of the original SR is the time dilation equation which is based on a flawed premise. Einstein's theories are undefined, fluid and, as such, unfalsifiable and untestable, [i.e. the goal post keeps getting moved]. Therefore it is not a proper scientific theory. +++++++++The Rewriting of Einstein's Relativity - KZbin kzbin.info/www/bejne/gXSWoXt-qLNql80 === Surprise‼ Ein-stein is dead. Here is the science[mathematics] of staying in reality. Supported by Ricci's discreditation of Ein-stein's use of nonsensical pseudo-metric tensor in Special Relativity, Crothes rips Onerock a new black hole] +++++++++The General Theory of Relativity: Its Faulty Mathematical Foundations - kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZnS2fWpmZ6-Gmrs Don't try this at home... 😜 [It's tensor calculus which simply deals with higher dimensions. No big deal]. Suffice it to say, Crothers[via Ricci] appears to be right. By extension 'c' is not the maximal speed in the Universe and time is not a 'real' dimension but only a man-made construct to track dynamic systems, as I've maintained. Black holes existed only tween Hawkins' ears. Time dilation is about as real as Onerock's brain dilation. Grabbity does not bend light so there is no curved space and Earth will not be swallowed up by an expanding Sun[you"ll have to find this gem yourselves]. GREAT PROOF HERE: +++++++++The Special Theory of Relativity: Circles vs Ellipses! - kzbin.info/www/bejne/iXPbYpKMbdNgesk Well that certainly squishes Einstein's sphere of influence! === It has also been shown by various experts that the uni is static and 'flat'. It is NOT expanding. The galaxies are moving [exhibiting red shifts] but space is not. Mainstream ignores this. The BigDung can never be proven so it is a fiction. Sure it can't be disproved [falsified] but, then, in logic, one can't disprove a negative. +++Neil Turok: Physicists Are WRONG! -- Universe is flat, non-expansive, Higgs field -- kzbin.info/www/bejne/eqWYlHmCg5tonKs === 'Real Reason for Einstein's Popularity' - kzbin.info/www/bejne/bpaYg4t6aaaChc0 atheistaetherist

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

"Speed" (and also acceleration) = "time"/"length" = tact/spacing = frequency. I would use tact/spacing: 1 tact/1 spacing to stay within the conceptual framework, because "relativistic" = conceptual only ("Relativity" theories) I would like to point out that in "physics" we do not want to rely on the everyday concepts of time and length.

[@Winkkin]

Your discussion seems to identify a displacement in the origin in the moving system, but isnt the propagation of the wavefront represented by the instantaneous release of the wavefront from the origin. The ellipse representation is only valid if the release of the wavefront occurs over a period of time and not as an instantaneous event. I dont see how the motion of the emitter has any impact on the wavefront. I guess I'm not totally onboard, as I believe the two of you are discussing different systems, even though I understand your explanation for the wavefront in a moving system if the light is released over a period of time.

[@JoeDeglman]

You should find the works of Steven B. Bryant, and his book. Einstein actually makes substitutions in his SRT, as does Lorentz in his length transformations, making his SRT derivation and the Lorentz equations invalid when two reference frames move with respect to each other. TWIST: Episode 2 - Proving Einstein's Theory of Relativity Wrong Einstein wrongly claims that light is by particle, plagiarized from Hertz, but uses the spherical wave front, derived from fluid mechanics instead, claiming that he proves the particle nature of light, a logical fallacy of Einstein's transition from the photoelectric effect to his spherical wave proof.

[@stevecrothers6585]

"Your discussion seems to identify a displacement in the origin in the moving system, but isnt the propagation of the wavefront represented by the instantaneous release of the wavefront from the origin." Winkkin King The origin of coordinates of the moving system is not displaced. The centre of symmetry of the ellipsoid is not located at the origin of coordinates of the moving system. As time progresses this centre of symmetry moves further away from the origin of coordinates of the moving system. The graphs I have presented in the video are for a time t=1. If I was to allow time t to progress I would have had to present a dynamic illustration that that is cumbersome and unnecessary. The situation at any particular time 't' is sufficient to prove the argument. I used t=1 as the simplest. The emitter is not moving with the moving system. It is not the emitter that is relevant, only the electromagnetic wavefront.

[@JoeDeglman]

Effectively Einstein copied verbatim the Lorentz length contraction, including the math errors, and uses it for his SRT/time dilation derivation. Einstein and Lorentz make substitutions at x=0 and t=0 that make the equations invalid when motion or acceleration occurs between the two reference frames, making length contraction, light invariance, and time dilation, derived from their equations, questionable to invalid. Geometrically speaking, they make substitutions when the long leg of the right triangle is equal to the hypotenuse, making their equations valid only when the two reference frames are stationary with respect to each other. It seems that Lorentz was trying to solve the "failure" of the Michelson-Morley experiment with length contraction and Einstein using time dilation. According to Steven B. Bryant, had Michelson-Morley and Miller used the Superposition of Waves Principle to calculate the velocity of the moving fringes, they would have both got a velocity of about 30 km/sec instead of the reported 5 to 8 km/sec, using a ballistic type of equation. TWIST: Episode 4 - Relativity Fails To Explain A Key Experiment

[@atheistaetherist2747]

@@JoeDeglman Joe Joe Joe Joe Joe -- If i have told u once i have told u a hundred times -- Prof Reg Cahill has derived the correct calibration for MMXs -- & everything u said is total krapp.

[@JoeDeglman]

@@atheistaetherist2747 Actually when you follow the experimental evidence into other equipment, such as radio telescopes, it indicates that we are just talking about an energy wave from the solar wind impinged through the Earth, its magnetosphere and ionosphere. We are not detecting an ether wind with the experiment, as the solar wind is blocked from the experiment by the Earth magnetosphere, so we are left with an energy wave, like a sound wave, moving through the Earth and impinging onto the interferometer experiment. You should actually read Bryant's material and his video 'TWIST: Episode 4 - Relativity Fails To Explain A Key Experiment' The newer radio telescopes CAN detect the motion of the Earth in the galaxy, solar system, and Universe, and can detect the energy of the Earth's magnetic field. The radio telescopes, and the MMX, are merely detecting an anisotropy of energy, not an anisotropy of the speed of light nor an Aether wind, as Reg claims. As I have already told you, the air density is irrelevant to the speed of the moving fringes.

[@XenMaximalist]

There have been many physical examples that have apparently proved STR and GTR(GPS satellites for one). The only way they can be refuted is if Einsteinian postulates are wrong. In the GPS example, the actual physical atomic clocks must tick at different rates due to a different geometry in different reference frames, therefore disproving the equivalence principle. But if the equivalence principle is wrong, a whole ocean of physics ideas are wrong. I agree the theories of Relativity have always smelled bad mathematically, and philosophically, but they can only be overturned by overturning almost all astrophysics and even quantum mechanics. That's why your arguments will be ignored.

[@nadahere]

Not accurate but for the "...apparently proven..." portion with emphasis on 'APPARENTLY'. Translation ---> fake/bad 'poofs'. Take the GPS topic, for example. Apparently the solution works out when the velocity of the satellite is compounded with [+ or -] 'c' using Euclidean/Newtonian mathematics/concepts. BUT since Onerock's theories are based on the [baseless/unsupported] presumption that 'c' is the maximal velocity permitted in the Uni, no one in the mainstream gives it credence and dismisses those that propound this truth. The rest of the ideas/conclusions in asstrophysics/cosmology/QM fall the same way. BUT no one in those communities will say anything to upset the apple cart because their jobs, businesses, careers, reputations and egos will be destroyed...for ever as bunch of gross incompetents. Here is a collection of my commentaries on various asstro/cosmo phenomena vids--- +++😆😅🤣LOL. Oh come on, Anton. Don't say there are no theoretical explanations for this...and sooo many other "Space Oddities". Yes, MSS keeps being stumped. As I've commented numerous times before, it's because their theories are all wrong. This is all easily explained in plasma cosmology [i.e. Electric Universe]. Try to figure it out and let me know. Here is a primer. +++Gareth Samuel: Halton Arp Quasar Model Verified | Thunderbolts kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKLLlZKKnsd3f9U +++Michael Clarage: Body of the Galaxy; Cosmology of the EU, Part 2 | Thunderbolts - kzbin.info/www/bejne/gYvSn313jtynn6M As far as I know no one in the EU theory group has not postulated the following so I may be the first - the Birkeland currents that interconnect everything in the universe may act as homopolar [Faraday] motors that are responsible for spins/orbits of celestial objects, AND....now it seems they are implicated in evolution. In other words, during periods of low power impinging on Earth the spin had not been increasing [day length remained constant] and evolution took a hiatus. "Day On Earth Was 19 Hours Long For a Billion Years and The Reason is Very Surprising" - kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYHYpZqGn8mVbsk -- [me - Birkeland current causing homopolar/Faraday motor effect and also driving evolution] === [in reg. to previous video] Just because MSS can't explain the assumed difference in age of the objects in this stellar system they can't default to an unproven solution. HAHA. That's just a guessing game, NOT science. EU theory offers that all these objects are the same age, with only a difference in the amount of Birkeland current impacting them that produces the observed differences. === +++Nobody Expected These Mysterious Radio Structures Stretching Toward Sgr A* - kzbin.info/www/bejne/kGTVZ32gp8yZmrs Mysterious Radio Structures Stretching Toward Sgr A* - Birkeland currents All these linear structures are related -- the the 'magnetic reconnections' [probes passing through small filaments in our solar system], the enormous magnetic 'bubble/structure our solar system is part of or enveloped by and similar ones being detected in 'our' vicinity, the galactic jets and the Cosmic Web. The are all part of an an interconnected cosmic Birkeland electric circuit. Various electrical activity along the circuit produce various emissions and phenomena. Simple. ======== ++++Interestingly, I just read the true explanation for contact binaries[CB] in the book "THE INTERCONNECTED COSMOS" which is based on plasma cosmology [Electric Universe theory], not the BigPop theory )). CBs are a a result of electrically stressed stars [high current density, i.e. very bright/hot] that reduce this stress by shedding part of their surface or fission/split into two smaller stars/objects. This increases the surface area which lowers the current density. This also reduces the parent star's brightness[heat output]. Another way a star reduces the current load is to swell [increase its volume [think red giants, Betelgeuse] The dimming/cooling is easily explained in Plasma Cosmology [Electric Universe where stars are postulated to be plasma-electric units] as a resonant LC tank circuit or a parallel resistance circuit. Most star systems are formed as binaries that are electrically connected to each other, including planets, and to the local/galactic circuit which is part of the universe circuit [Cosmic Web you discussed in the past]. When the local/galactic supply current is insufficient to keep the circuit active, one of the stars grows dim or shuts down. Similar concept applies to quasars, pulsars and other variable output objects. The fluctuating output will be seen other large or vert bright/intense stars. Keep your eyes/telescopes peeled. 😉 This also answers the question posed by your vid "Over 700 Stars Mysteriously Vanished In The Last 70 Years, But Why?" kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmTblZehiJl7bpI . Here the current density dropped so low that the luminosity was greatly reduced or even stopped [think neon/plasma light] A combination of these events produces variable output stars and stars with giant sunspots like on HD 12545 - www.researchgate.net/figure/Doppler-imaging-results-of-HD-12545-by-Strassmeier-1999_fig2_51960032 This is also the cause for coronal mass ejections and solar fares, and other solar/planetary phenomena including auroras. One cause to rule them all. All this, and more, is eloquently predicted and explained by plasma cosmology. Glad I could help. ================= OTHER DISS-PROOFS OF ONEROCK's IDEAS ---> I love the simple way Steve C. tears Onerock a new Black Hole. Ambiguous lexical labels such as space/time, singularities, infinite density, and other non-quantifiable ideas, make what should be realistic investigations into a kind of irony. +++++++++Stephen Crothers: The Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity | EU2017 kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKu6qmmVgtSabZI Steve Crothers: General Relativity -- A Case in Numerology | EU2015 - kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3PSo3WBedN4abc +++Stephen Crothers: The Parallax Effect on Short Hair | EU2014 - kzbin.info/www/bejne/pImpYWxurJlrnNE STEPHEN CROTHERS' invalidation of Einstein's SR & GR & black holes | Thunderbolts Podcast kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKS6fJ-Em7aqgLc Can Stars BEND LIGHT? General Relativity and Gravity with Dr. Edward Dowdye! [Hell NO! Not even it's powerful magnetic field can bend light...as some ppl erroneously believe magnetism can do] - kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJDMqZ6FfpmebsU General relativity put in question by Dr. Ed Dowdye: Solar Gravitation and Solar Plasma Wave Propagation Interaction, Einstein rings and gravitational effect on atomic clocks kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZ_ZgKyYiZeKrbc +++++++++++++++Edward Dowdye Jr The Failed Attempts to Detect Macro Lensing E U Conference 2012 --- atoms modeled as electric charges+++++++++++ kzbin.info/www/bejne/hKSViomod6-qn8k Eddington's light deflection observation was only due to diffraction through the solar limb outside of which no bending occurred! Tremors of the Big Bang? | Space News kzbin.info/www/bejne/anrHfq1uhdB6kK8

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@nadahere Crothers’ claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@TheTrumanZoo]

every circle observed in free space, must be drawn as an ellipse.... hold a circle above you head and you must draw it as an ellipse.

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

What if there are 3 lights in the form of a triangle? A, B, and C are lights and are stationary with respect to each other. S1, S2, S3 are spaceships. S1 is moving from B towards A. S2 is moving from C towards B. S3 is moving from A towards C. A, B, and C flash simultaneously in the frame of reference that is at rest relative to these lights. So in the frame of reference of S1, A flashes first followed by B flashing. In the frame of reference of S2, B flashes first followed by C flashing. In the frame of reference of S3, C flashes first followed by A flashing. So the sequence of flashing is A, B, C, A. But wait! A flashed first. How can it flash last? How can A flash both first and last? It only flashed once in the frame of reference that is at rest relative to these lights. Therefore there is a paradox.

[@eltonrobb6208]

This is a good video. You explained how Special Relativity doesn't work mathematically. Well researched and presented.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@ZygonesBzygones : "He demonstrated that SR is mathematically incompatible with a statement that is explicitly not a tenet of SR. That is quite a different thing, as you should be able to see." ZygonesBzygones False. I make no such statement. Provide the statement you allege.

[@renedekker9806]

_"You explained how Special Relativity doesn't work mathematically"_ - the only thing he demonstrates is his ignorance.

[@eltonrobb6208]

@@renedekker9806 And I suppose your not? How is he ignorant and your not?

[@renedekker9806]

@@eltonrobb6208 _"How is he ignorant and your not?"_ - what am I ignorant about, according to you?

[@eltonrobb6208]

@@renedekker9806 Einstein's equations. You haven't solved them.

[@oDonglero]

This is completely contradictory. So you're saying that somehow the Pythagorean theorem holds for all points on the ellipse? The Pythagorean theorem defines the equation of a circle. "But note that both of these equations are statements of the right triangle rule, that is the theorem of Pythagoras. These equations merely state that the distance from the origin of coordinates to the wavefront is given by the theorem of Pythagoras. They don't say or imply that the spherical electromagnetic wavefront constructed in the stationary system K remains a spherical wavefront in the moving system k under lorentz transformation." This is completely false. Again, the Pythagorean theorem defines a circle. Type x^2+y^2=1 into a graphing calculator. Edit: First of should've clarified that I meant when the Pythagorean theorem equals a constant it defines a circle. Second, I realize now after re-watching that it appears that he is measuring the distances at different times, therefore time (tau) is not constant. This means that the shape is indeed an ellipse and not a circle. This should be obvious though as it is the prediction of relativity, not a contradiction. The wave will only be a circle if measured at a single point in time (tau), just as you measured the wavefront at a single point in time (t) in the initial reference frame. Inertial reference frames will see light wave-fronts as circles in any reference frame (at a specific instant in that frame, usually that goes without saying) as they are invariant under Lorentz transform. This ellipse is a transform of the initial wavefront in both space AND time meaning that since different parts of that ellipse are at different times, not a single moment, so a non-constant distance will be measured. This is because different times allow for light to travel different distances as light travels at the same speed independent of reference frame.

[@smc1897]

Perhaps. You have a point with this critique, but it may be a matter of how he's phrasing it. You aren't addressing the transform he uses at 18:00, for example. Cheers

[@oDonglero]

@@smc1897 A couple seconds after that timestamp he says "At all points this equation holds" (referring to the Pythagorean theorem). I am open to it being a misunderstanding due to what would have to be severe misphrasing though, but given the obviously confusing nature of these statements I will need someone to clear up these mistakes before giving this the benefit of the doubt.

[@smc1897]

@@oDonglero If I understand it, he's showing that the source circle is 1:1 onto the resulting ellipse when you run the transform, e.g. py's theorem holds. The ellipse is still an ellipse, however, which goes toward his earlier statement of py's theorem NOT dictating the shape. If his use of the transform is correct, his claim might well be correct. The justification for that transform technique is, for me, a few too many years outside of memory. But that's my shortcoming, not his. Cheers!

[@stevecrothers6585]

"This is completely contradictory. So you're saying that somehow the Pythagorean theorem holds for all points on the ellipse? The Pythagorean theorem defines the equation of a circle." Dongler There is no contradiction. The Theorem of Pythagoras descibes a circle only if the distance from the origin of coordinates is the same in all directions, as in Einstein's 'stationary system' K, by construction. In general the distance from the origin of coordinates to any curve or surface is given by the Theorem of Pythagoras irrespective of the shape of that curve or surface. You are committing the same error as Einstein in assuming that the spherical wave of light in the 'stationary system' K remains a spherical wave of light under Lorentz transformation simply because the Theorem of Pythagoras remains form invariant under Lorentz transformation. Plot some points as I have done in my presentation to satisfy yourself that Einstein's assumption is false. To assume that the Theorem of Pythagoras is always a circle or sphere and them to obtain the Theorem of Pythagoras after Lorentz transformation to conclude a circle or sphere after transformation is to assume as a premise that which is to be demonstrated - a logical fallacy called petitio principii. The Theorem of Pythagoras is the right triangle rule and a right triangle is not a circle or sphere.

[@smc1897]

@@stevecrothers6585 "only if the distance from the origin of coordinates is the same in all directions" Thank you for that clarification!

[@master_rajeev]

Awesome video, good work.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@paulmaydaynight9925]

it would be Good if fractal woman would convert these in to her modified unit analysis to give us a visual animation of these sequences.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@2Hesiod]

Crothers is correct but the small difference he shows was considered negligible in the MME.

[@Floxflow]

What was the middle thing?

[@JamesLGoldsberry]

There is a micro-gravity on the ISS as it slowly spins end for end once per orbit - the hourglass and pendulum clock would still function (very poorly) as clocks. A better choice would be an atomic clock on Earth and a duplicate shot into space away from Sun and planets...

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

It may be the pre-supposition of the coordinate system, space and time, that leads to a reification of these concepts, space and time: The methodological mistake is: first to scribble the coordinate system on the blackboard and then to enter the physical event;-)

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

@@HarryHab-w9k You can not distinguish concepts and objects;-)

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

​@@HarryHab-w9k You can not also distinguish observation and interpretation;-) Is this the reason for your trollery;-?

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

@@HarryHab-w9k How would you tell a "perfectly serious" "commenting" "third-rate" rubber blanket presser and roisin cake picker a "lesson" in, for example, methodology;-? I, at least, do not know;-)

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@hollaadieewaldfeee Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

;-) Aside: I often read that "physicists" call those who do not reify concepts "philosophers";-) But it is a prerequisite for "physics" not to reify concepts;-)

[@gregsmith1719]

INCREDIBLE! -- Let's think about this.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

I remembered tonight that I have to fumble all the Higgs particles out of the remaining clocks, earth and rocket;-) Not that they stretch, compress or even bend the "spacings"-) Since a "physicist" Higgs noticed that E=mc2 is an insubstantial equation, he also felt the need, like Einstein, to reify a concept: mass;-) Our "physicists" are still in the stone age, the thing age, the physical time;-)

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@Devast8r34]

Thank yall!!!

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@lmwlmw4468]

Great video. Nice to hear Stephen Crothers.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@JoeDeglman]

Steven B. Bryant also has videos and a book on how Einstein's spherical wave proof fails mathematically. In his SRT, Einstein makes substitutions making his SRT derivation invalid when two reference frames move or accelerate with respect to each other. Ironically, Einstein claims that light is by particle instead of by wave front in an ether medium. However Einstein uses the spherical wave proof from fluid dynamics instead of his ideas derived from the photoelectric effect that he plagiarized from Hertz. Einstein's transition from the photoelectric effect, with particles, to his spherical wave proof, derived from fluid mechanics, is a logical fallacy. 'TWIST: Episode 2 - Proving Einstein's Theory of Relativity Wrong'

[@joedeglman5862]

​@@ZygonesBzygonesBryant points out the misapprehension of Einstein. He has several papers dedicated to pointing out and correcting not only the mathematical failures in Einstein's work but provides an actual physical explanation as to why Special Relativity is not only a failed version of relativity but an unsalvageable version. There were other versions of relativity prior to Einstein and the evidence presented by people who know what they are talking about point to a neo-Lorentz relativity or ether gauge model as a solution. Specifically, relativity works but the Special version presented by Einstein fails by experiment and mathematically.

[@joedeglman5862]

​@@ZygonesBzygonesif you want to continue to live in the sci-fi world of Einstein and Hawking, then Bryant's work is not for you.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@joedeglman5862 Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@joedeglman5862]

@@NuclearCraftMod www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/Bryant.Relativity.08072005.pdf What Bryant shows is that Einstein and Lorentz both make substitutions that are invalid when two reference frames move or accelerate WRT each other. Special Relativity is an invalid equation when used to compare time frames between two reference frames which move or accelerate WRT each other. Ditto for Length contraction. AKA length contraction can have nothing to do with the relative motion of two reference frames. There may in fact be cases where length contraction does occur, but length contraction and time dilation are merely artifacts of invalid substitutions in both the Lorentz length contract and Einstein's time dilation derivations. * length contraction and time dilation equations which come out of such comparisons where two reference frames move or accelerate WRT each other are invalid when two reference frames move WRT each other. * there are other reasons why clocks count seconds at a different rate, and why plasmoids condense when the input energy increases, such as atmosphere density or a z-pinch; but time dilation has nothing to do with the invalid concept of Special Relativity. Einstein plagiarized his time dilation derivation verbatim from the Lorentz length contraction derivations.

[@joedeglman5862]

@@NuclearCraftMod 'Reexamining Special Relativity: Revealing and correcting SR’s mathematical inconsistency Steven B. Bryant Primitive Logic, Inc., 704 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California' Einstein copies his time dilation nonsense verbatim from the Lorentz length contraction derivation. Both make invalid substitutions which make their derivations invalid when two reference frames move or accelerate WRT each other. clocks run at different speed due to atmospheric density differences AKA the Lorentz ether gauge theory. Time dilation has nothing to do with moving reference frames. Length contraction occurs when the input energy into atoms or plasmoids increases (due to motion through other reference frames or ether energy input increasing.) AKA z-pinch causes contraction. Length contraction has nothing to do with moving reference frames. Clock speed changes have nothing to do with Special Relativity.

[@VariantAEC]

As per usual the simplest answer looks to be the most accurate. How could anyone believe time is affected by proximity to a gravitational mass? Furthermore in extreme situations where time and space compression create paradoxes. Somehow these totally unreasonable claims survived well over 100 years on the record nearly unchallenged, but never really proven. People say GPS relies on special relativity, but that too makes very little sense and is typically never explained well. The argument is that the satellites have to have their clocks governed by a specific algorithm to keep accurate time in orbit. This was always farcical to me. The barn door situation was also farcical. How can the beam of light pass through open and closed doors with two separate observers at the same time seeing different things? Non-sense. This is the type of mathematics that defy physical limitations. It's why a paper folded 103 times becomes taller than the known universe when in reality it would need to be obliterated to what I will call a Quark Gluon String Vapor, it's no longer a sheet of paper that we could hope to unfold a dozen or more times. Special relativity suggests a moving body and a stationary body interact with time differently. If someone is moving at relativistic speeds they will rocket forward in time compared to people moving at much more mundane speeds who will experience time at a slower rate. This was what happened in the movie "Interstellar" as Mathew's character orbited the black hole, but in real life this couldn't happen at all, it's simply not possible to experience two different rates of time at the same time. It was foolishly claimed by NASA that astronauts actually claimed back some time time due to their orbital velocity and time spent in orbit. That was something we heard about in school, it sounded ridiculous, but I was a kid and I believed it for a while.

[@VariantAEC]

@@ZygonesBzygones So if something is further from any mass, but moving faster... how much faster must the object further away be moving for time between the two orbiting objects to match? [Edit: Specified that the further body should experience "slower time" due to having further proximity from the mass (in this case Earth) and must move faster and that both objects are in forced orbital paths and to be more clear we will assume each forced orbit is circular. What makes them "forced orbits?" The path taken might be taken at a speed that would see the object ejected from the orbit, so in this case we will assume an acceleration force applied by infinite thrust to correct the trajectory of the orbiting body with -no mass- a massless fuel as a hypothetical means to correct for that confounding factor. Beyond even that we will also list that the first objects orbital distance is in the same region as the ISS while the second orbiting body has a distance of 4.8 million miles from Earth's surface and again we will ignore other confounding factors like the mass effects of other objects in the solar system including the Sun. Edit 2: Ensures you know that the orbital bodies have the same mass but have massless fuel, again all to correct for the confounding issues.]

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@VariantAEC Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@IAM0973D3]

Great video

[@IAM0973D3]

Lol in that case super great video

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@IAM0973D3 Crothers’ claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@justinkennedy3004]

There are so few videos on youtube that I can't follow, especially by replaying the difficult sections a time or two. Sky Scholar videos are by far the most likely to stump me, rewatches be damned! 😆 I suspect a lot of my confusion comes from being an absolute layman and not having a clue where the presented argument is leading. I don't mean to presume too much or indicate dissatisfaction with the impressive work this channel has done, but if Dr. Robitaille, his son, or Mr. Caruthers would feel comfortable doing a live stream where the viewers can ask for clarifications in the chat I would make time! Thanks so much, you guys still feel like vintage internet. 😎👍

[@justinkennedy3004]

@@DrWhom I would also be confused trying to understand the standard model by watching a channels worth of youtube vids. Since I was asking for a clarification livestream to begin with, you show all the signs of being emotionally invested. Ergo, opinion discarded.

[@robertthomsonwatson2542]

​@@DrWhom is that you Professor Dave ? Don't hid behind a silly name Bubba .

[@jsonjsoff]

​@Deipatrous "do you hear yourself talk?" Do you verbalize your youtube comments?

[@JammaLamma]

I'm with you bro

[@renedekker9806]

_"I suspect a lot of my confusion comes from being an absolute layman"_ - I suspect your confusion comes from the video drawing incorrect conclusions.

[@itsbs]

👍Great Job Stephen! 👍

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@itsbs]

@@NuclearCraftMod ** If you use the simultaneity argument to justify using the same TAUs in the moving system, then it will build a smaller circle. So, if you have a single spherical wave emitted in the stationary system, then how does that SINGLE waveform become a second smaller circle, as the moving observer travel away from the original spherical wave? How does 1 spherical wave become 2 spherical waves?

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@itsbs I am using no such argument, simply the Lorentz transformations, just like Crothers. To repeat, the shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. This is true in either the frame *K* or the frame *k.* The shape described by a collection of points on the wavefront at *different* times is not the shape of the wavefront, because the shape of something is defined as being described by the collection of points on it at the *same* time. One spherical wave in the frame *K* will also be one spherical wave in the relatively moving frame *k.* Again, this is clear from the transformations. To repeat, for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time tau in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.*

[@itsbs]

@@NuclearCraftMod ** It will be a smaller circle for the moving frame, if you are keeping all of the same TAUs in frame k. Again, in reality, how does this work? Is the moving frame going back in time to see the SINGLE circle smaller? The moving frame is MOVING away from the 0,0 emitting point of the ACTUAL spherical wave. How can the moving frame also see a circular wave, as if it were ALSO at the center of a circle? ** It is clear from YOUR point of view of what you think the transform means. I don't see how you can possibly show any real experiment that matches your mathematical viewpoint.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@itsbs You need to clarify what you mean by a "smaller circle" in the relatively moving frame. In both frames, the circular wavefront expands at the speed of light c. One spherical wavefront expanding at the speed c in all directions in the frame *K,* and one spherical wavefront expanding at the speed c in all directions in the frame *k.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations. All that is happening is that your intuition is failing you. Crothers' argument is that special relativity is self-inconsistent, thus false. This claim is nonsense, for the reasons I have already posted.

[@StuMas]

I don't know about the mathematics but for me, the simple fact that clocks do not contain or measure Time is enough to cast doubt on Special Relativity.

[@StuMas]

@@DrWhom Please enlighten me.

[@StuMas]

@@ZygonesBzygones Your reply is much appreciated!

[@renedekker9806]

_"the simple fact that clocks do not contain or measure Time"_ - which other measurement instrument measures time then?

[@StuMas]

@@renedekker9806 I believe time is a by-product of conscious perception. Therefore, time can only be experienced and measured by conscious entities. Any counter arguments?

[@renedekker9806]

@@StuMas _"time can only be experienced and measured by conscious entities"_ - fine. How do we make measurements of your concept of time that are both accurate, objective, and consistent? Even when we introduce your concept of time, we still have to deal with the physical concept which we currently call time: "that what accurate clocks measure". So, at best, your concept is additional information that might be useful for some purpose.

[@webtrekkeruk2487]

Great stuff, as usual Stephen, but what does all this mean in a practical sense?

[@stevecrothers6585]

It has no practical sense at all. It's just a curiosity in geometry that has been incorrectly used by Albert Einstein in an erroneous attempt to prove his theory.

[@webtrekkeruk2487]

@@stevecrothers6585 Thanks Stephen.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom " Stephen is wrong" Where?

[@webtrekkeruk2487]

@@DrWhom Not good enough. SHOW us where he is wrong ... or are you just blowing hot air.

[@webtrekkeruk2487]

@@midlander4 I've never said I don't have a degree. Why would you say that?

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

Tomorrow I will start laying out all the clocks. I plan, a clock every 1,000 km. Before I will start, I'll set them synchronously. It occurs to me that I also have to dispose of all the many things: stars, moons, planets... galaxies, that are pinned to "space-time". And also the "space-time". I'll throw them all into the "black holes" so that they choke on them and disappear too;-) That will take another day - we want to get a real "physical", "scientific" result;-) The strange "coordinate systems" xyzt and x'y'z't', that are often scribbled on, I'll throw them behind - we don't want to confuse space with space and time with time and space-time with space-time and so on;-)

[@2Hesiod]

Pythagoras theorem gives a broader ellipse than Einstein's LT.

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

Since "relativity" effects only occur with motion, frequency, become observable, Einstein, in addition to suppressing the observation by all systems involved, had also suppressed the complete observation here by claiming "time dilation" (tact only) and "length contraction" (distance only) instead of frequency dilation (tact/distance) and frequency contraction (tact/distance). But "time dilation" and "lenght contraction" per velocity (constancy) can never, ever be observed;-)

[@americanicehole3760]

One cannot understand the Universe by reorganizing the words.

[@Music_Creativity_Science]

1. When reasoning about clocks and time, one must use atomic clocks. Because physical time emanates from rate of change of the parts (electrons, quarks) atoms are made up of. Mechanical acceleration (not free fall with gravitational acceleration) cause time dilation, slowed rate of change in atoms. Einsteins equivalence principle is correct *, but not completely correctly interpreted physically by the mainstream science community. * The rate of change in atoms in an object held fixed in a gravitational field (it is then mechanically accelerated upwards), is the same as the rate of change in atoms in an object similarly mechanically accelerated in a non-gravitational environment (and then moving in an absolute sense). 2. It is a mathematical fact in the Lorentz factor, used in the SR time dilation equation, that the squared velocity variable there is equal to: 2 • acceleration • distance. Which is an equation originally derived by Torricelli (v squared = 2 • a • s, assuming initial velocity = 0), later incorporated among Newtons equations of motion. What that means is that the SR time dilation equation is not valid (can not be used) for calculating time dilation for time intervals where acceleration does not take place. Which means that the so called Clock hypothesis is false, which assumes that acceleration as such has no effect on time dilation. Instead, it is ONLY accelerated motion (but not gravitational acceleration with free fall) which creates physical time dilation. In summary: - Equations in SR, containing the v^2 variable can not be used for inertial motions, they are only mathematically valid for accelerated motions. - The twin "paradox" can then be fully explained/understood, intuitively, logically, mathematically and physically. Physical processes in atoms slow down when a rocket is accelerated. Only one twin is accelerated and it does not matter how far he/she travels back and forth with a non-accelerated coasting motion, the physical time dilation will be the same. The so called distance proof, that velocity as such, inertial or non-inertial, is the source of time dilation is false. It is an invalid use (interpretation) of the time dilation equation, which produces different time dilations for different travelled total distances for the travelling twin. - If muons are time dilated (live longer in average before disintegrating) when decelerated in the atmosphere moving towards the ground of the earth, they can not be fundamental particles. They must in reality be constructed with parts which can change their rate of change when accelerated (decelerated), to fit with the mathematical proof in point 2 above.

[@Deliquescentinsight]

The mathematician, engineer and philosopher Arthur M Young had some critique of Einstein's conclusions, he was among the first people to study Relativity at Princeton university in 1927, I can recommend taking a look at his ideas. Some people are saying 'if Einstein is wrong, then who is more correct'? I suggest that Arthur M Young is your man here, his ideas and theories deserve much more attention than the scientific establishment has thus far given him.

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

Velocity, speed = tact/distance = frequency. Speed of sound = max. frequency of a medium. But also carrier frequency of a medium? Speed of light = max. frequency of a medium. But also carrier frequency of a medium? Should we think: change = motion = velocity = frequency;-?

[@mikejones-vd3fg]

If you view time as simply motion, where everything is moving, it makes sense time stops at the speed of light, because the speed of light , is claimed to be the fastest, or relative to all this motion - absolute stand still, its the same thing, and in absolute stanstill where electrons arent even whizzing around, if that even hapens, it makes intutive sense nothing can age, because aging is just interaction of motion, not this thing called time that constanlty flows, why its safe to say time is an illusion, its always now, but everything changes/interacts is why we see time as flowing. But if you stoped that interaction - getting to the speed of light, reaching absolute stand still relative to all this motion, your atoms themselves wouldnt have any motion so couldnt interact or age as we know it, and you couldnt exist as we know it (interacting) in this state either, but maybe could be perserved indefinately if your atoms arent moving, why the possibility of traveling far into the future kind of exists thoeritically.

[@michaelpieters1844]

Maxwell-Hertz electrodynamic theory is Galilean invariant. The queen of electrodynamics is Ampére's Force Law which was deduced from experiments and can be obtained through Weber Electrodynamics which is also Galilean invariant. It is superior to Lorentz Force which was just theoretically assembled together by Lorentz using one force component from the stationary frame and another part from the moving frame. Lorentz force does not conserve linear momentum. Ampére's force conserves linear momentum. The Michelson-Morley experiment did not give a null-result but obtained a velocity of the Earth that was much less than what was assumed in a time when mainstream science claimed the sun was fixed relative to the nearby stars. There are no positive detections of special relativity in the photon sector, only null results 'confirming' the theory. There is no experimental evidence for the invariance of the speed of light with regards to the observer/detector. If there is a relative velocity present between the Earth and a nearby Star, relativity claims the light of that star has a relative velocity c with respect to both the Star, the Earth and any other moving body. There is no experimental evidence for Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction. There is no experimental evidence for relativistic stellar aberration. There is no experimental evidence for relativistic source brightening. Classical Sagnac effects contradicts Special Relativity but mainstream science claims relativity does not apply because of the rotating equipment to be a non-intertial system. A first order timing correction due to Sagnac effect is required to make GPS work. The fact that it requires such a correction is in direct conflict with Special Relativity. In their famous 1972 paper Hafele & Keating did not publish the original test data. An analysis of the original data by Kelly tells relativistic time dilation is not proven. Einstein and Arthur Eddington predict a 1,70 to 1,75 arcseconds radial displacement of light due to gravitational lightbending. The correct calculated value according to Einstein's theory is in fact 1,1 arcseconds, as calculated by Charles Lane Poor. General Relativity can not predict both the radial as the direction of gravitational lightbending, given the experimental data. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Venus. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Mars. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Mercury. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Venus. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the eccentricity of Mercury.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crothers’ claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@michaelpieters1844]

@@NuclearCraftMod Your comment got nothing to do with what I posted. But to get to your point. The lorentz transformations only keeps the distance between one or two lightpoint (symmetric wrt x-axis) wrt the origin 'covariant'. The parametric circle it does not. But people are confused because they see x**2=c**2*t**2 -> x'**2=c**2*tau**2 and think it is a circle. But that equation is not that of a circle in the case of lorentz transformation but just a mere distance.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@michaelpieters1844 That is complete nonsense - the wavefront is circular in the frame *K,* and it is circular in the frame *k.* At time *t* in the frame *K,* the wavefront has radius *ct,* and at time *tau* in the frame *k,* the wavefront has radius *c∗tau.* For some reason my other post regarding your erroneous claim of Galilean invariance is gone. I will try to post it again: light travels at the same speed c in a vacuum in all reference frames, without exception. This is clear from Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism: ∇×E = -dB/dt ∇×∇×E = -d/dt [∇×B] *∇^2 E = ue∗d^2/dt^2 E* This is a linear, homogenous, second-order wave equation and so all solutions are superpositions of waves propagating at the same speed c = 1/sqrt(ue). This is true for *all* waves propagating in vacuum, at all times and locations, without exception. Any argument that contradicts this fact is erroneous. This PDE is exactly the same in all relatively moving frames in special relativity using the Lorentz transformations. In Galilean relativity, this is not the case: T = t X = x - vt Y = y Z = z d/dT = dt/dT∗d/dt + dx/dT∗d/dx + dy/dT∗d/dy + dz/dT∗d/dz = d/dt + v∗d/dx d/dX = dt/dX∗d/dt + dx/dX∗d/dx + dy/dX∗d/dy + dz/dX∗d/dz = d/dx ∇^2 = d^2/dX^2 + d^2/dY^2 + d^2/dZ^2 d^2/dt^2 = (d/dT - v∗d/dX)(d/dT - v∗d/dX) = d^2/dT^2 - 2v∗d^2/(dXdT) + v^2∗d^2/dX^2 Thus the Galilean transformation yields a completely different equation in the other frame: *∇^2 E = ue∗[d^2/dT^2 - 2v∗d^2/(dXdT) + v^2∗d^2/dX^2] E* Therefore the Galilean transformations are inconsistent with the first postulate of relativity and the fact that electromagnetism is a law of physics. Maxwell's equations are *not* Galilean invariant.

[@michaelpieters1844]

@@NuclearCraftMod You just applied a PASSIVE Galilean boost to your system (change of coordinate system, NOT change of the physical system which is an ACTIVE galilean boost). Solution of ∇^2 E = ue∗[d^2/dT^2 - 2v∗d^2/(dXdT) + v^2∗d^2/dX^2] E IS is E = A1*exp(j*[k*x - (c+v)*t]) + A2*exp(j*[k*x + (c-v)*t]). A wave propagating with speed c-v and another with c+v with respect to a moving observer who has speed v with respect to the origin where the light source was stationary in the inertial frame which is at rest. If you want a FULL Galilean Transformation, you have to transform the entire material system which you do not do. You just do a change in coordinates. But it seems a lot of people (including Einstein) do not directly see the difference between ACTIVE and PASSIVE Galilean boosts.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@michaelpieters1844 Relativity is concerned *entirely* with passive boosts - that is, the transformations of coordinates from one reference frame to another. This is true in both Galilean relativity and special relativity. As you can see, and as I already stated, the Galilean transformations do not preserve the constancy of the speed of light between reference frames, which is in direct violation of the principle of relativity that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. The Lorentz transformations, on the other hand, preserve the form of the electromagnetic laws, and thus also preserve the constancy of the speed of light.

[@lowersaxon]

It would be better, I think, to use gamma instead of beta for 1-v^2/c^2, all the world does it that way, its gamma, not beta. Beta is v/c. I‘m not quite sure that tau depends on xi. All four variables of straight and inverse Lorentz transformation only depend on gamma and beta, as defined above. tau= gamma (t - vx/cc) = gamma (t - (v/c)(x/c)) = gamma (t - beta t) = gamma (1 - beta) t. Inverse: t = gamma (1 + beta) tau. I.e. gamma^2 (1 - beta^2) = 1. So, in order to change from X and t to X’, t’ and reverse, the Lorentz tr. actually consists of these two and only these two terms: x=1-beta, y=1+beta. Then: x* 1/((xy)^-1/2) * y *1/((xy)^-1/2) = 1 => xy/xy = 1. PS: engaged in a discussion with „relativists“ simply ask two questions. 1) What is gamma? Mathematically exactly! Why this specific math expression? 2) What is the physical meaning of gamma? Could you answer it?

[@stevecrothers6585]

"I‘m not quite sure that tau depends on xi." lowersaxon The Lorentz transformation for time is: τ = t/β - vξ/c² So τ does depend on ξ. "It would be better, I think, to use gamma instead of beta for 1-v^2/c^2, all the world does it that way, its gamma, not beta. Beta is v/c." lowersaxon In his 1905 paper on SR Einstein used: β=1/√(1-v²/c²) I have used his notation as anybody can confirm simply by reading Einstein's 1905 paper. In any event, what is your point? The fact that form-invariance of the Theorem of Pythagoras under Lorentz transformation is not form-invariance of geometric shape proves that Einstein's claim is false and hence his theory false. That x² + y² + z² = c²t² transforms into ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ² under Lorentz transformation merely proves that the distance from the origin of coordinates to the wave front is always given by the Theorem of Pythagoras - that is all. Einstein's claim that the resulting ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ² is an expanding spherical wave of light because his x² + y² + z² = c²t² is, by construction, an expanding spherical wave of light, is false. Consequently special relativity is false. The two questions you propose to ask relativists are irrelevant.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@ZygonesBzygones : "I thought you said elsewhere that there must be a common tau value for all xi, for a given value of t?" ZygonesBzygones You are wrong - I make no such claim, as is obvious if you bothered to pay attention to my presentation. The relativists make this claim. I prove that they are wrong. The Lorentz transformation for time is: τ = t/β - vξ/c² So τ does depend on ξ. Give us the time τ common to all positions ξ for any time t that is common to all positions x, that the relativists claim .

[@renedekker9806]

@@stevecrothers6585 _"The fact that form-invariance of the Theorem of Pythagoras under Lorentz transformation is not form-invariance of geometric shape"_ - the equation x² + y² + z² = c²t² is the equation of an expanding sphere in the stationary system, right? ξ, η, ζ and τ are the letters used to represent for x, y, z and t in the moving frame. Therefore ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ² is the equation of an expanding sphere in the moving frame. The light conforms to that equation in the moving frame therefore it is an expanding sphere in the moving frame. It is really not more difficult than that. Now, given that knowledge, try to find where the video goes wrong.

[@renedekker9806]

@@stevecrothers6585 _"Now, given that knowledge, try to find where the video goes wrong"_ - here is a hint: at what time tau does the shape in the moving system differ from a sphere?

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@renedekker9806 : Really! The Lorentz transformation for time is: τ = t/β - vξ/c² For any given time t give the time τ common to all points ξ in the moving system that you want. You only have the Lorentz transformation at your disposal. Show the audience what you think you know.

[@multi_misa72]

Just awesome. Thanks doc.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@renedekker9806]

@SkyScholar You might want to remove this video. Steve Crothers incorrect analysis of the light sphere proof has been fully debunked. It really drags your channel down.

[@stevecrothers6585]

"@SkyScholar You might want to remove this video. Steve Crothers incorrect analysis of the light sphere proof has been fully debunked. It really drags your channel down." renedekker Far from it. My lecture will stay because it is correct. You have proven by your many posts that you don't know geometry. Here is Einstein’s argument [1]: “A light-signal is sent along the positive x-axis, and this light-stimulus advances in accordance with the equation x = ct i.e. with the velocity of light c. According to the equations of the Lorentz transformation, this simple relation between x and t involves a relation between x’ and t’. In point of fact, if we substitute for x the value ct in the first and fourth equations of the Lorentz transformation, we obtain:” (1) x’ = β(c - v)t (2) t’ = β(1 - v/c)t “from which, by division, the expression” (3) x’ = ct’ “immediately follows. If referred to the system K’, the propagation of light takes place according to this equation. We thus see that the velocity of transmission relative to the reference-body K’ is also equal to c. The same result is obtained for rays of light advancing in any other direction whatsoever. Of course this is not surprising, since the equations of the Lorentz transformation were derived to this point of view.” Taking Einstein at his word, “rays of light advancing in any other direction whatsoever”, consider light travelling in the negative x’ direction by substituting “for x the value” -ct “in the first and fourth equations for the Lorentz transformation”. Then the quotient of the directed distances in the stationary system is (ct)/(-ct) = -1 and for the moving system, (4) x’ = -β(c + v)t (5) t’ = β(1 + v/c)t and by division, x’/t’, gives, (6) x’ = -ct’ So for time t being the same for Einstein’s set of equations (1) - (2) and for equations (4) - (5), does light travel the same distance in both the positive and negative x’ directions? According to Einstein and his devoted acolytes the answer is ‘yes’, because, (7) Eq(3)/Eq(6) → (ct’)/(-ct’) = -1 However, (8) Eq(1)/Eq(4) → -[β(c - v)t]/[β(c + v)t = -(c - v)/(c + v) =/= -1 Here -1 can only obtain for v = 0. Hence, Einstein’s theory is false. REFERENCE [1] A. Einstein, Relativity the Special and the General Theory, (Methuen and Company, London, 1954)

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@stevecrothers6585 This is the eleventh time you've regurgitated the same phoney arguments in a few days - you aren't interested in learning anything. To repeat _yet again,_ the fact that a given time *t'* in the frame *K'* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t* in the frame *K* is obvious from the Lorentz transformations, which is why the division of the two distances (1) and (4) has absolutely *no* reason to be equal to -1. If you want to compare two speeds in a frame, you divide the distances travelled in that frame by the *same* time in that frame, which the division of (1) by (4) is *not* doing, as is clear from equations (2) and (5). To repeat _yet again,_ the claim of Einstein is that for a given time *t* in the frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *t'* in the frame *K',* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *ct'.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. Once again, a given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *K'.* To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *K',* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *t'* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *K'* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *K’.* The radii at a given time *t* in the frame *K* and at a given time *t'* in the frame *K'* are equal when the value of *t* is equal to the value of *t’.* This is not in violation of the Lorentz transfomations. It is a direct consequence of them. The game's over, Stephen.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@NuclearCraftMod::::: "To make it as plain as possible, it is not the claim of relativity that for a particular time t in the frame K, the positions x of the wavefront in the frame K transform into a sphere of positions x' in the frame k, simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times tau at which the light is at these positions x' in the frame k are different!" Crafty Ironically, you actually concede that my argument is right. The only means to transform Einstein's spherical wave of light from his stationary system into his moving system is the Lorentz transformation. Since the transformation does not produce a spherical wave of light from a spherical wave of light, SR is false. So give the viewers the transformation you use to make Einstein's spherical wave of light in his stationary system transform into a spherical wave of light in his moving system. Einstein himself in his 1905 paper claimed that the Lorentz transformation transforms his spherical wave of light in his stationary system into a spherical wave of light in his moving system. His claim is false. I suggest you consult Einstein's 1905 paper.

[@dehilster]

As Dr Glen Borchardt has said: Einstein’s I Georgie’s of relativity are the most disputed theories in physics. There are dozens of great reputations to special relativity. I personally like Dr. carezani‘s reputations on SR.

[@nadahere]

+++👽👽👽EINSTEIN WRONG! It's been there all along but ignored for the close minded dogma that pervades today's education and science. +++++++++Why The Theory of Relativity Doesn't Add Up (In Einstein's Own Words) - kzbin.info/www/bejne/fpXYfmNpj96sgas Here is another fault with the Special Relativity DAMN that will crack it open. Onerock REIFIED time at 47:40 minutes with no cause - no observational evidence - just a fictional hat trick and not even a mathematical hat trick. Time is not a real dimension. It is a sequence of events and nothing in and of itself. 'Time' is mans measurement of change, a man made construct to track dynamic events. Nature has no such need. Onerock [Einstein] reified it which, then, among other failures, falsifies his theories. He confounds distance [d=vt] with time which is allowed in mathematical manipulations but there is no basis for it in the real world [e.g. a large amount of poison administered over a short period of time in an organism is not the same as the same amount of toxin administered over a long period of time]. In regards to the meaning of the 'present', it is the NOW irrespective of any distance that separates the events at that moment in any dimension. The fundamental basis of the original SR is the time dilation equation which is based on a flawed premise. Einstein's theories are undefined, fluid and, as such, unfalsifiable and untestable, [i.e. the goal post keeps getting moved]. Therefore it is not a proper scientific theory. +++++++++The Rewriting of Einstein's Relativity - KZbin kzbin.info/www/bejne/gXSWoXt-qLNql80 === Surprise‼ Ein-stein is dead. Here is the science[mathematics] of staying in reality. Supported by Ricci's discreditation of Ein-stein's use of nonsensical pseudo-metric tensor in Special Relativity, Crothes rips Onerock a new black hole] +++++++++The General Theory of Relativity: Its Faulty Mathematical Foundations - kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZnS2fWpmZ6-Gmrs Don't try this at home... 😜 [It's tensor calculus which simply deals with higher dimensions. No big deal]. Suffice it to say, Crothers[via Ricci] appears to be right. By extension 'c' is not the maximal speed in the Universe and time is not a 'real' dimension but only a man-made construct to track dynamic systems, as I've maintained. Black holes existed only tween Hawkins' ears. Time dilation is about as real as Onerock's brain dilation. Grabbity does not bend light so there is no curved space and Earth will not be swallowed up by an expanding Sun[you"ll have to find this gem yourselves]. GREAT PROOF HERE: +++++++++The Special Theory of Relativity: Circles vs Ellipses! - kzbin.info/www/bejne/iXPbYpKMbdNgesk === It has also been shown by various experts that the uni is static and 'flat'. It is NOT expanding. The galaxies are moving [exhibiting red shifts] but space is not. Mainstream ignores this. The BigDung can never be proven so it is a fiction. Sure it can't be disproved [falsified] but, then, in logic, one can't disprove a negative. +++Neil Turok: Physicists Are WRONG! -- Universe is flat, non-expansive, Higgs field -- kzbin.info/www/bejne/eqWYlHmCg5tonKs === 'Real Reason for Einstein's Popularity' - kzbin.info/www/bejne/bpaYg4t6aaaChc0

[@lowersaxon]

refutation???

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crothers’ claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

I think, the "classic relativity beginner's mistake" is, that it overlooks the fact that it is always a 'mirrored' 'phenomenon'-) 1 : 1 It is not 'physically' relevant;-)

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

Ship1 at rest at top: T--------------------N N--------------------T The moment when T1 is lined up with N2 must be the same moment in both frames of reference because there is only 1 moment when this occurs. There was some point in the past when N1 was lined up with T2 according to ship 1 but not according to ship 2. That is impossible thereby proving that special relativity is nonsense.

[@Overwriter]

Funny how you leave out the inconvinient detail that einstein defined a specific kind of clock using light in a way that would generalize it for all interaction between particles.

[@stevecrothers6585]

Not at all. Any clock is allowed by Einstein. In his papers and books he talks of the hands of a clock; even in his 1905 paper. I suggest that you actually read Einstein before making your comments.

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

So. I don't get to set my watches today. It's Christmas;-) By the way: I always forget that light = frequency;-) Merry Christmas to you all;-)

[@robhannum]

I love every bit of your analysis Crothers, you are awesome. Thanks for sharing. I look forward to your next presentation.... I would add... do you have any ideas on the way the universe works if Einstein is wrong? your own theories? More clearly, if Einstein is wrong, what is correct?

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@DrWhom : Nobody is required to propose an alternative theory simply because he has proven the prevailing dogma false. In this case the prevailing false dogma is Special Relativity; as the geometry proves.

[@itsbs]

@@stevecrothers6585 ** Agreed. Just go back to the theory that Einstein's 1905 erroneously replaced and repeat the process...see what happens. When you get back to 1887, you'll find a paper where all of this math started.

[@robhannum]

@@stevecrothers6585 I was just wondering if there was any thoughts on a different theory, that's all. A different direction that the math points to? Myself, I don't think there is such a think as gravity. Just electro-magnetic forces and inertia. I may show the formulas later.. hehehe..

[@atheistaetherist2747]

@@robhannum Google Prof Reg Cahill -- he discovered the cause of gravity. Google Conrad Ranzan -- he has good ideas re the aether.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@robhannum Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@MimsicalRenegade]

Einstein Couldn't Remove God From The Equation, That Is The Gravity Of The Situation.

[@MimsicalRenegade]

@@HarryHab-w9k God Doesn't Play Dice

[@markgiovannozzi642]

What complete rubbish! 14:20 You can't plot the xi and eta coordinates when tau is varying all over the place. You have to plot them for a constant tau.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@ Mark Giovannozzi: The Lorentz transformation for time is: τ = t/β - vξ/c² For any given time 't' give the time τ common to all points ξ in the moving system that you want. You only have the Lorentz transformation at your disposal. Show the audience what you think you know.

[@michaelc424]

@@midlander4 You are not relevant here... other than your very refined skills at insulting comments. Congrats. You win the crown, the gold medal, the highest honor of trolldom. Other than that, not a soul listens to you.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@midlander4 The Lorentz transformation for time is: τ = t/β - vξ/c² For any given time 't' give the time τ common to all points ξ in the moving system that you want. You only have the Lorentz transformation at your disposal. Show the audience what you think you know.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@midlander4 : Inn other words you don't have any argument. But it's not difficult so does not need a million mathematicians and physicists. The Lorentz transformation for time is: τ = t/β - vξ/c² For any given time 't' give the time τ common to all points ξ in the moving system that you want. You only have the Lorentz transformation at your disposal. Show the audience what you think you know.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@midlander4 : You're right - it is over for Einstein's theory. And calculus is not needed, only algebra. So give it a try. The Lorentz transformation for time is: τ = t/β - vξ/c² For any given time 't' give the time τ common to all points ξ in the moving system that you want. You only have the Lorentz transformation at your disposal.

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

Aside a special joke - head scratching work: Why were "light clocks" introduced into the SR observations;-?

[@atheistaetherist2747]

STR is krapp & GTR is mostly krapp. We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'. The aether will return -- it never left.

[@atheistaetherist2747]

@@DrWhom Yes, we are in the dark age of science. Black holes, gravity waves, the big bang, Einstein, all krapp. The aether will return. Me myself i am the world authority on some aspects of MMXs. I am the world authority re electricity on a wire. And i am the world authority in a few other areas. I am magnificent.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@atheistaetherist2747 Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@Greg-McIver]

Mathematics is supposed to be a representation of reality, not the other way around.

[@tsenotanev]

here kzbin.info/www/bejne/jovTZH93mLOZbcU is a small video showing even more circles and ellipses stacked on the time axis, for different values of time t or τ it shows the corresponding circular ( respectively elliptical ) section of the expanding spherical wave front ... it is obvious that they form a cone .. this cone is called a light cone the video here on sky scholar shows only one circle / ellipse .. thus in a way hiding the fact that as time increases the circles / ellipses form the same light cone, which is all that einstein is claiming about the expanding spherical wave front in his 1905 paper.. the paper contains many more things beyond this

[@stevecrothers6585]

@ t t: Your graphic is just another demonstration that you don't know what you are talking about. I gave you a simple proof that your claim that Einstein meant 'cone' when he actual invoked 'sphere' is false. All you have done is draw your version of Minkowski's nonsensical claim that the equation x² + y² + z² = c²t² is that of a cone in 4-D space. It is not. If x² + y² + z² = c²t² describes a cone in can only be a cone in 3-D space. This equation as used by Einstein in his 1905 paper was not conical but spherical. Your platitude that that an ellipse, a conical section, can be obtained, like all the conical sections, from sectioning the cone, is no argument. Here again is my proof: As I quoted in my presentation from section 3 of Einstein's 1905 paper he certainly invoked an expanding spherical wave of light not an expanding conical wave of light. Anybody can verify this by reading section 3 of Einstein's paper [1]. In the equation x² + y² + z² = c²t² the quantity t is a scalar parameter coupled to the speed of light c for the radius r = ct of the expanding spherical wave of light. The radius 'r' of the said spherical wave of light lies within the 3-D space. It is not perpendicular to the x-y-z axes. It is the hypotenuse of a right triangle. In 1909 Minkowski subtracted one side of the above equation to equate to zero and incorrectly called it a cone, and more, a 4-D cone (hypercone): c²t² - x² - y² - z² = 0. I quote Minkowski [2]: “The cone c²t² - x² - y² - z² = 0 with apex 0 consists of two parts, one with values t < 0, the other with values t > 0.” The mere subtraction of one side of the equation to equate to zero does not magically change Einsten's expanding spherical wave of light into a cone in 3-D space or into a hypercone in 4-D space. It does not make the scalar parameter 't' coupled to the speed c become an independent coordinate for a 4-D space. It does not make the radius r = ct move out of the 3-D space of Einstein's spherical wave of light and become a new and independent coordinate for a 4-D space. Using spherical coordinates, the vector equation for an expanding spherical wave of light can be written as the vector r = where t coupled to the speed c is a scalar parameter for the radius of the spherical wave. A vector equation for a right circular cone is r = The dot product of the first vector equation gives x² + y² + z² = c²t² and the dot product of the second vector equation gives x² + y² + z² = c²t² However, from the second vector equation, x² + y² = c²t²/2 z² = c²t²/2 giving x² + y² + z² = c²t² and x² + y² = z², the latter the right circular cone. Thus, x² + y² + z² = c²t² can only be a cone if x² + y² = c²t²/2 and z² = c²t²/2, which is not a 4-D hypercone. Einstein's expanding spherical wave of light is given by the vector equation r = so it cannot be a cone. Minkowski's 4-D hypercone and his 4-D spacetime and the associated so-called 'spacetime diagrams' are geometric legerdemain and therefore invalid. The Lorentz transformation turns Einstein's expanding spherical wave of light into an expanding translated ellipsidal wave of light with a moving centre of symmetry. Einstein's equation ξ² + η² + ζ² = c²τ² does not describe an expanding spherical wave of light or an expanding ellipsoidal wave of light in his 'moving system'; it merely gives the distance from the origin of coordinates of the moving system to the expanding ellipsoidal wavefront. The equation of the ellipsoidal must be determined by further means, as I have given in my presentation and my associated paper. The equations for the expanding ellipsoidal wave of light I have derived, in Cartesian coordinates and polar coordinates respectively, are consistent with the Lorentz transformation by their very means of derivation. So Einstein's theory is false. [1] A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 17, 891, (1905) [2] H. Minkowski, Jahresher der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung (Verlag B.G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1909); e-print wikisource.org/wiki/Raum_und_Zeit_(Minkowski)

[@tsenotanev]

​@@stevecrothers6585 ahahah🤣.. got scared seeing the obvious clearly depicted ? what are you protesting about ... even your circle transformed to an ellipse is there in the picture ... together with a few more... and why are you talking about spheres .. there's no sphere in your graphic either... get real..

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@tsenotanev : “Steve Crothers ahahah?.. got scared seeing the obvious clearly depicted ? what are you protesting about ... even your circle transformed to an ellipse is there in the picture ... together with a few more... and why are you talking about spheres .. there's no sphere in your graphic either... get real.. “ t t Your immature comment contains no scientific or mathematical argument or proof of anything. Your drawing of conic sections does not constitute an argument for anything. You can just as uselessly include the parabola and the hyperbola in your graphics, as they too are conic sections. Your claim that Einstein's equation for an expanding spherical wave of light, which he says is an expanding spherical wave of light, is actually an expanding conical wave of light is absurd. Minkowski's rearrangement of Einstein's equation for his expanding spherical wave of light is not a cone in 3-D space and not a hypercone in 4-D. Minkowski's claim that Einstein's spherical equation is a 4-D cone is also quite absurd. Your many comments have proven that you don't know geometry so that you don't know what you are talking about. Here yet again is the simple proof, for the benefit of all viewers: Using spherical coordinates, the vector equation for an expanding spherical wave of light can be written as the vector r = where t coupled to the speed c is a scalar parameter for the radius of the spherical wave. A vector equation for a right circular cone is r = The dot product of the first vector equation gives x² + y² + z² = c²t² and the dot product of the second vector equation gives x² + y² + z² = c²t² However, from the second vector equation, x² + y² = c²t²/2 z² = c²t²/2 giving x² + y² + z² = c²t² and x² + y² = z², the latter the right circular cone. Thus, x² + y² + z² = c²t² can only be a cone if x² + y² = c²t²/2 and z² = c²t²/2, which is not a 4-D hypercone. Einstein's expanding spherical wave of light is given by the vector equation r = so it cannot be a cone. Minkowski's 4-D hypercone and his 4-D spacetime and the associated so-called 'spacetime diagram', which you drew, are invalid.

[@nadahere]

@@tsenotanev As Stephen pointed out, you are simply demonstrating Minkowski space, which Steven falsified.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@ZygonesBzygones : "Steven rejects Minkowski space outright (which he is entitled to do), but he has not falsified it." ZygonesBzygones Minkowski's rearrangement of Einstein's equation for his expanding spherical wave of light is not a cone in 3-D space and not a cone in 4-D. Minkowski's claim that Einstein's spherical equation is a 4-D cone is also quite absurd.Here yet again is the simple proof, for the benefit of all viewers: Using spherical coordinates, the vector equation for an expanding spherical wave of light can be written as the vector r = where t coupled to the speed c is a scalar parameter for the radius of the spherical wave. A vector equation for a right circular cone is r = The dot product of the first vector equation gives x² + y² + z² = c²t² and the dot product of the second vector equation gives x² + y² + z² = c²t² However, from the second vector equation, x² + y² = c²t²/2 z² = c²t²/2 giving x² + y² + z² = c²t² and x² + y² = z², the latter the right circular cone. Thus, x² + y² + z² = c²t² can only be a cone if x² + y² = c²t²/2 and z² = c²t²/2, which is not a 4-D cone. Einstein's expanding spherical wave of light is given by the vector equation r = so it cannot be a cone. Minkowski's 4-D cone and his 4-D spacetime and the associated so-called 'spacetime diagram', are invalid.

[@JammaLamma]

My brain hurts

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

Wanted to buy a watch that detects time. Does not exist, said the seller;-)

[@Nobody_114]

This is what I proved to my Physics teacher in high-school (and I have the written proof from then to prove that I did)! Well... nobody listens to Aby.

[@Nobody_114]

@@midlander4 I did. You can ask my Grade 13 Physics teacher. He didn't understand my proof so he had to take me to Carleton University's Prof. John Armitage at the department of physics to grade my paper in 1996. You don't even know me, so you have no idea who you are talking to, and therefore have no proof that I'm lying (or not), so stop making false and invalid accusations.

[@Nobody_114]

@@midlander4 You are the one who is lying, as you have no proof that I am. You didn't prove it.😀

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@Nobody_114 Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@adampetrowsky1771]

👍

[@ithomashello]

Angry maths are some of my favourite maths.

[@drscott1]

👍🏼

[@dan.j.boydzkreationz]

No such thing as empty space.

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

An interlude, a climbing aid before the climax: "Die ganzen fünfzig Jahre bewußter Grübelei haben mich der Antwort der Frage >Was sind Lichtquanten< nicht nähergebracht. Heute glaubt zwar jeder Lump, er wisse es, aber er täuscht sich." ("The whole fifty years of conscious brooding have not brought me any closer to answering the question >What are light quanta

[@nealkonneker6084]

Dr.Robitaille, would you please do a video about Betelgeuse and it's brightness variations. Most of what I see is wild conjecture based on obviously flawed theories.

[@oakhillclassroom4827]

time is defined by what the solar winds choose to do .... due to the rotation speed of the earth

[@ytrebiLeurT]

Now I understand what dark matter is, so if light matter (mass) is created by speed (of light) as Albert said, then dark matter must be created by lightlessness = zero speed, i.e. whenever you turn off the light in your apartment, it is created dark matter somewhere in the universe, it's logical and easy to understand, you don't need to be a "genius" like Albert, lol

[@ytrebiLeurT]

@@DrWhom Now you've discovered it, the answer to all the questions you don't like, great...

[@ytrebiLeurT]

@@DrWhom You have quite a lack of logic but that's what you need...

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@ytrebiLeurT Crother's claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonnsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@ytrebiLeurT]

@@NuclearCraftMod I don't care about such absurdity. The fact is, Einstein said that speed creates mass, that's crazy because speed is not an object but Albert believed that and what's even crazier is that for over a hundred years no one said it was crazy...

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@ytrebiLeurT Nonsense - Einstein said no such thing. Speed does not “create mass” in relativity. You have probably read about “relativistic mass”, which is the mass multiplied by the Lorentz factor, but it is not the same as the mass.

[@kylefillingim9658]

I came to the conclusion several years ago that Einstein's theory of special relatively is an elegant mathmaticacal proof that the speed of light can not be constant. It can't be invariant. The proof is done by the theory contracting itself. I still admire the beauty of the theory, but beauty alone does not make it correct.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Crothers’ claim that the wavefront is not spherical in the other reference frame is nonsense: for a given time *t* in the first frame *K,* the wavefront is spherical and has radius equal to *ct,* and for a given time *tau* in the second frame *k,* the wavefront is also spherical and has radius equal to *c∗tau.* This is clear from the Lorentz transformations and simple equations that follow. A given time *t* in the frame *K* does *not* correspond to a particular time *t'* in the frame *k.* This is made clear by the example on the slide starting at 14:17 - notice that for the particular time *t=1* in the frame *K* at which the positions *(x,y)* on the wavefront are given, the transformed points in the frame *k* are given at different times *tau.* The shape of a wavefront is determined by the positions on the wavefront at a particular time, not different times. To make it as plain as possible, it is *not* the claim of relativity that for a particular time *t* in the frame *K,* the positions *x* of the wavefront in the frame *K* transform into a sphere of positions *x'* in the frame *k,* simply because, as the Lorentz transformations plainly show, the times *tau* at which the light is at these positions *x'* in the frame *k* are different! The simultaneity of events in the frame *K* does not imply the simultaneity of events in the frame *k.* To summarise, the argument that circles of light do not Lorentz transform into circles of light in other frames is entirely founded on using unequal times for the different parts of the wavefront in the other frame.

[@iTeerRex]

We must first understand what is going on long before we think of using mathematics, or we are just playing in a sand box with Greek alphabets.

[@louisvictor3473]

Play with Greek alphabeta soup, you mean?

[@iTeerRex]

@@louisvictor3473 that works too lol

[@destroya3303]

Well said, the physics comes first. That is why arguments like those of Herbert Dingles about relativity work so well. The physics is contradictory for special relativity. Time dilation is an asymmetric effect but relativity demands a symmetric process (clock A slower than B and clock B slower than A in their respective frames).

[@destroya3303]

@@DrWhom Any physical changes are asymmetric, demonstrated by the slowing of certain clocks in GPS. Other changes would be short lived observational changes.

[@destroya3303]

@@DrWhom Go on...