Re: Oh my God!

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 7:57:10 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

>
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 3:04:17 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

>
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 22:26:50 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

>
Why do you have such difficulty with a ***SIMPLE*** mental switch?
The x' and t' axes are tilted because our S frame is moving.
Our x and t axes are orthogonal from OUR point of view.

>
Exactly, OUR POV.  That means WE have located ourselves at rest
WRT the S frame.  Previously, we were at rest in the S' frame.
We have switched frames.  Why do you have such difficulty with a
***SIMPLE*** factual switch?

>
You are stuck with some sort of language difficulty.

It is more than a "language" difficulty.  The frame in which time
and space axes are orthogonal IS the frame in which "WE" are at
rest.  In the center panel of the top trio, "WE" are at rest in
the S frame.  In the left panel, "WE" are at rest in the S' frame.
In the right panel "WE" are at rest in the S'' frame.  In order
to do that, "WE" had to undergo significant acceleration:  "WE"
switched frames.

The three panels show S and S' in different states of motion with
respect to each other. There is no such thing as an absolute state
of motion, but I just happen to arbitrarily designate one frame or
other as the "stationary" frame.

See the attached figure 1.
>
1) In the left panel, I can arbitrarily designate the S frame as
   "stationary" and the S' frame as moving at 0.1c to the left
   relative to the S frame.

That's fine.  But please realize that when We view a scene from
S and then from S' We have moved to a different frame, and that
means We have switched frames.  It is of utmost importance to
understand this.

2) Alternatively, I can arbitrarily designate the S' frame as
   "stationary" and the S frame (which includes us) as moving at
   0.1c to the right relative to the S' frame.
3) Absolute speeds are meaningless. The designation of one frame or
   the other as "stationary" is arbitrary. The important measure is
   their relative states of motion.
>
4) In the middle panel, I can arbitrarily designate the S frame as
   "stationary" and the S' frame as moving at 0c relative to the S
   frame.
5) Alternatively, I can designate the S' frame as "stationary" and
   the S frame (which includes us) as moving at 0c relative to the S'
   frame.
6) Absolute speeds are meaningless. The designation of one frame or
   the other as "stationary" is arbitrary. The important measure is
   their relative states of motion.
>
7) In the right panel, I can arbitrarily designate the S frame as
   "stationary" and the S' frame as moving at 0.1c to the right
   relative to the S frame.
8) Alternatively, I can arbitrarily designate the S' frame as
   "stationary" and the S frame (which includes us) as moving at
   0.1c to the left relative to the S' frame.
9) Absolute speeds are meaningless. The designation of one frame or
   the other as "stationary" is arbitrary. The important measure is
   their relative states of motion.

Certainly, but you must understand that you are switching frames
when you view the problem from S and then S', or vice versa.

See attached figure 3.
>
The dots represent spacetime events in S', mapped onto S using
the inverse Lorentz transformation.

And viewing from S' means you have switched from being at rest
in S to being at rest in S'.  You felt no acceleration only
because this is a thought experiment, but switch frames you did.

In the left panel, the immediate context of the receiving event
includes events 1, 2 and 6.

There are no events indicated, so your meaning is very unclear.
In any case, they do not represent my thesis.

If, to prevent the formation of causality loops, you apply your
speed limit to superluminal velocities, the immediate context
of the receiving event is shifted to include events 4, 5 and 8.

The speed of a communication signal is irrelevant.  As you say,
the position of the events change only because they're viewed
by observers in different frames, but you continue to ignore
the paramount importance of RoS.

The context of the receiving event shifts for EVERY observer
moving at a different speed relative to S'. This is absurd.

What is absurd is that you continue to misrepresent my whole thesis.
Your panels are caricatures of it, straw men.  You ignore the
explanation I have presented and continue asserting your own
flawed interpretation.
Perhaps it would be best to start a new thread and deal with
the figures in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.  What do you say?