Lorentz Relativity Is Error

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mickeyl

Guest
The Lorentz transformation is a fantasy, as proven by two men named "A" and "B".

(moving at .5C)
<B> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(Lightbeam)
<A> ========================================[]

distance of 300M-meters)
300M<--------------------------------------------------------------------->[]

In a typical thought experiment: If "B", is moving at speed of .5C, and at the exact same time as he passes "A",...."A" turns on a lightbeam that travels 300,000,000 meters, in one second (speed-of-light) to a large white painted building far away....contrary to the Lorentz transformation theorem, person "B" does not see the light behave differently than "A" does.
Because light photons are not visible until they strike any massive object, they must travel 300,000,000 meters to the building, and as "B" is traveling forward at .5C,....in the one-second that light photons traveled to the building "B" has traveled 150,000,000 meters.
NOW the light photons must move from the building back to B's eyes (at the speed-of-light), a distance of ...150,000,000 meters.
AFTER the light-photons arrive at the wall, their return to "B"'s eyes (150,000,000 meters away) would take one-half second....if "B" were stationary. But because "B" continues to move at .5C, he travels another approximate 75,000,000 meters, (or one-quarter second at .5C) before the light photons strike his eye (after they have traveling another 75,000,000 meters).
SO, "A" sees the lightbeam travel 300,000,000 meters to the building and 300,000,000 meters back to his eyes...the round trip taking a total of two-seconds...And; 300M plus 300M = 600M divided by 2-seconds, equals 300,000,000 meters per second (speed-of-light).
BUT, "B" sees the lightbeam travel 300,000,000 meters to the building and 75,000,000 back to his eyes....a total distance of 375,000,000 meters in one-and-1/4 seconds. AND, distance divided by time equals speed. So; 375,000,000 meters of distance, divided by 1.25 seconds time equals 300,000,000 meters per second (the speed-of-light). This is not relativity..it's actuality. Both men see the speed-of-light at a constant 300,000,000 meters per second.
Because light moves at a constant speed of 300,000,000 meters per second,...."A" sees light moving at a constant speed of 300,000,000 meters per second; ...and "B" sees light moving at a constant speed of 300,000,000 meters per second. If "A" had super-vision, and were able to instantaneously see "B" eyes, he would see the light photons strike "B"'s eyes .75 seconds before photons strike his own.
 
S

Saiph

Guest
...

But relativity says everybody sees light move at C...which is what you just said. Where's the error?
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
Saiph":2ll78v1g said:
...

But relativity says everybody sees light move at C...which is what you just said. Where's the error?
The error ? Well one error is in mickeyl's math as stated. Let me redo his formulation correctly. At emission + 1 sec the photon hits the wall and starts it's return trip according to A. B has then travelled 150M meters and is 150M meters to the wall. The photon travelling at C heads towards B travelling a 0.5C. After 0.333333 secs B has travelled 50M meters further and the photon has come back 100M meters. The 2 are now co-located, having erased the 150M meters between them.

So after 1.333333 secs (not 1.25) .....

Now mickeyl can restate his problem.
 
M

mickeyl

Guest
Mee_n_Mac: Thanks, your math is correct, but not the situation.
You said....
"At emission +1 sec. the photon travelled 150M meters and is 150M meters to the wall"
------------------------------------------------
However: in +1 sec. the photon travelled 300M meters to the wall......and "B" in a rocketship traveled 150M meters toward the wall. ......So "B" is 150M meters from the wall, and as the photon returns from the wall toward "B's" eyes,
(at 300M meters per sec.) .........If "B" were starionary, it would take .5 sec. for the photons to reach his eyes.....but "B" is traveling at .5 speed-of-light (150M meters per sec.) .....so if "B" travels for 1/3 sec. he goes 50M meters. This leaves 100M meters for light-photons to travel in 1/3 sec......and 300M meters times 1/3 sec. = 100M meters.
----------------------------
Trying to dispute: Einstein said time slows down (and also a clock or light-pulse ticks slower) for a spaceship traveling close to the speed-of-light.....but the electrical charge (structure) of an atom is consistent, even in varying gravitational fields, throughout the universe. I'll post a new argument....
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
mickeyl":1xlxn0sa said:
Mee_n_Mac: Thanks, your math is correct, but not the situation.
You said....
"At emission +1 sec. the photon travelled 150M meters and is 150M meters to the wall"
------------------------------------------------
However: in +1 sec. the photon travelled 300M meters to the wall......and "B" in a rocketship traveled 150M meters toward the wall. ......So "B" is 150M meters from the wall, and as the photon returns from the wall toward "B's" eyes,
(at 300M meters per sec.) .........If "B" were starionary, it would take .5 sec. for the photons to reach his eyes.....but "B" is traveling at .5 speed-of-light (150M meters per sec.) .....so if "B" travels for 1/3 sec. he goes 50M meters. This leaves 100M meters for light-photons to travel in 1/3 sec......and 300M meters times 1/3 sec. = 100M meters.
----------------------------
Trying to dispute: Einstein said time slows down (and also a clock or light-pulse ticks slower) for a spaceship traveling close to the speed-of-light.....but the electrical charge (structure) of an atom is consistent, even in varying gravitational fields, throughout the universe. I'll post a new argument....
What ? Look up at my uneditted post. I did not say "At emission +1 sec. the photon travelled 150M meters and is 150M meters to the wall". I did say "At emission + 1 sec the photon hits the wall and starts it's return trip according to A. B has then travelled 150M meters and is 150M meters to the wall." Which seems to be what you re-stated. I'll look at your new post again but I think SF has already disected it properly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY