Re: Oh my God!

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:55:04 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

>
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 13:51:55 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

....
No, Prok, you misunderstand.  I'm saying that the signal should
arrive at t' = vL/c^2. not t' = 0 to save RoS.  There is no "ripping
spacetime to shreds" :-).  To help you understand:

>
Claiming that t' = vL/c^2 DESTROYS RoS, does not rescue it.

How is that any different from saying it arrives at t' = L/c?

There can be any number of observers of the same events. Suppose you
are in the lab frame moving to the left at 0.1 c. You claim that to
save RoS, the S' observer must receive the signal at t' = 0.1*L/c^2
>
I am concurrently observing the same events from a frame moving at v=0.
To save RoS, the S' observer must receive the signal at t'=0.

???
D sends the signal at speed c^2/0.1c, so that is the speed that your
"concurrent observer" sees (DUH!)  The lab observer will measure the
speed as infinitely fast.

My wife is concurrently observing the same events from a frame moving
at v=-0.1c. To save RoS, the S' observer must receive the signal at
t' = -0.1*L/c^2.
>
Which is it, Gary? Does the S' observer receive the signal at
t' = 0.1*L/c^2, t' = 0, or t' = -0.1*L/c^2 ?

Any observer at rest in S' measures the signal speed as 0.1c DUH!
It arrives at C at t' = 0.1L/c.  What the heck are you babbling about?

Does reality change as a result of the motion of external observers?
>
Does reality split into an infinity of worlds? Is your "theory" a
"many worlds" interpretation of special relativity?

Prok, I have shown that you completely misunderstood my thesis
whereas the reviewer of DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 did not
or he would have rejected it.  Rather than acknowledge your
error and try to understand, you launch another baseless attack
because of your confusion about what v means.  It is the speed
that D must send the signal (Event E1) so it arrives when C and
A are adjacent (E2).  Furthermore, A must send a signal to B
when B is adjacent to D.  Your figures are only half of the full
problem, and they do NOT describe my "proposal."  They are your
imaginings.  If you want to discuss my thesis, then use my
figures (4 and 5, particularly).  Yours are straw men.
And you haven't acknowledged your confusion about what frame
is the "stationary" one in the right and left figures.  Just
proclaiming a frame as stationary doesn't make it so, particularly
when you draw its time axis skewed.