[Jaaanosik (OP)]

This is from Susskind's book

The Principle of Relativity was first formulated about 250 years before Einstein was born. So why is Einstein so famous? It's because he revealed the apparent conflict between the Principle of Relativity and another principle of physics - a principle that we might call Maxwell's Principle. As discussed in chapters 2 and 4, James Clerk Maxwell discovered the modern theory of electromagnetism - the theory of all electric and magnetic forces in nature. Maxwell's greatest discovery was unraveling the great mystery of light. Light, he argued, consists of waves of electrical and magnetic disturbances moving through space like waves through the sea. But for us the most important thing that Maxwell proved is that light moving through empty space always moves at exactly the same speed: approximately 300,000 kilometers per second. That's what I call Maxwell's Principle:

Light moving through empty space, no matter how it was created, always moves at the same velocity.

But now we have a problem: a serious clash between two principles. Einstein was not the first to worry about the clash between the Principle of Relativity and Maxwell's Principle, but he saw the problem most clearly. And whereas others were troubled by experimental data, Einstein - master of thought experiments - was troubled by an experiment that took place entirely within his head. According to his own recollection, in 1895, at the age of sixteen, Einstein produced the following paradox. Picturing himself riding in a railroad carriage moving with the speed of light, he observes a light wave moving alongside him in the same direction. Would he not see the light ray standing still? There were no helicopters in Einstein's day, but we might imagine him hovering above the sea, moving with exactly the speed of ocean waves. The waves would appear to be standing still. In the same way, the sixteen-year-old reasoned that the passenger in the railway carriage (remember, he is moving with the speed of light) would detect a completely motionless light wave. Somehow, at that early age, Einstein knew enough about Maxwell's theory to realize that what he was imagining was impossible: Maxwell's Principle asserted that all light moves with the same velocity. If the laws of nature are the same in all reference frames, then Maxwell's Principle had better apply in the moving train. Maxwell's Principle and the Principle of Relativity of Galileo and Newton were on a collision course.

Susskind, Leonard. The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics (pp. 205-206). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.

Apparently Einstein was troubled with similar thoughts.
If we believe the book then Einstein screwed up his conclusion compared to what is proposed here, right?

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

...
OK, you wanted an example of same magnitude of acceleration, but different dilation. I'm sure I've posted something of that nature, but it's easier to do it again. Remember that time dilation (due to speed at least) is a coordinate effect, not a physical one. Differential aging is a physical effect, meaning the difference isn't frame dependent.
...

If the coordinate effect does not represent physical one then the mathematical coordinate physics model does not represent reality therefore this model has no value. It is being relegated into fantasy land.

[Kryptid]

Apparently Einstein was troubled with similar thoughts.
If we believe the book then Einstein screwed up his conclusion compared to what is proposed here, right?

That's not what's being implied by your excerpt at all.

Special relativity has been supported with large amounts of experimental evidence.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Apparently Einstein was troubled with similar thoughts.
If we believe the book then Einstein screwed up his conclusion compared to what is proposed here, right?

That's not what's being implied by your excerpt at all.

Special relativity has been supported with large amounts of experimental evidence.

Expect an experiment of a mass moving at v=c.
That's what Einstein was thinking according to Susskind.
Susskind specifically talks about railroad carriage moving with the speed of light in Einstein's thought experiment.

The conclusion in your thread is that frame is undefined under the Lorentz transformation.
Do I miss anything?

[Kryptid]

Expect an experiment of a mass moving at v=c.
That's what Einstein was thinking according to Susskind.
Susskind specifically talks about railroad carriage moving with the speed of light in Einstein's thought experiment.

Einstein's thought experiment was intentionally absurd. It shows that the scenario isn't possible. There are no reference frames where light is sitting still.

The conclusion in your thread is that frame is undefined under the Lorentz transformation.

My thread? What thread are you talking about?

By the way, this is still true:

Special relativity has been supported with large amounts of experimental evidence.

If your conclusions disagree with the evidence, then you need to reconsider your conclusions.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

...
My thread? What thread are you talking about?
...

This is your thread: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86862.0

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Expect an experiment of a mass moving at v=c.
That's what Einstein was thinking according to Susskind.
Susskind specifically talks about railroad carriage moving with the speed of light in Einstein's thought experiment.

Einstein's thought experiment was intentionally absurd. It shows that the scenario isn't possible. There are no reference frames where light is sitting still.
...

This is not about motionless light waves but about Einstein's flawed assumption.
The carriage cannot move at v=c.
That frame does not exist, it is undefined according to the Lorentz transformation, right?

My conclusions are correct, there is no real physical inertial frame with mass that moves at c.
Is there any experiment with mass moving at c?
An experiment that disproves my conclusion?

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

I am going to submit my understanding of relativity with the following thought experiment.
It is time dilation calculation done through EM fields and transformation of EM fields.
This is all aligned with the current relativity math.
When this part is agreed upon then conservation of momentum will follow afterwards.

[Kryptid]

This is not about motionless light waves but about Einstein's flawed assumption.
The carriage cannot move at v=c.
That frame does not exist, it is undefined according to the Lorentz transformation, right?

My conclusions are correct, there is no real physical inertial frame with mass that moves at c.
Is there any experiment with mass moving at c?
An experiment that disproves my conclusion?

It's a thought experiment. You can imagine the carriage being massless if you really want to. Or you can replace it with another light wave. Besides, he thought this up 10 years before he published his paper on special relativity. He wouldn't have known at the time that objects with mass can't reach the speed of light.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

This is not about motionless light waves but about Einstein's flawed assumption.
The carriage cannot move at v=c.
That frame does not exist, it is undefined according to the Lorentz transformation, right?

My conclusions are correct, there is no real physical inertial frame with mass that moves at c.
Is there any experiment with mass moving at c?
An experiment that disproves my conclusion?

It's a thought experiment. You can imagine the carriage being massless if you really want to. Or you can replace it with another light wave. Besides, he thought this up 10 years before he published his paper on special relativity. He wouldn't have known at the time that objects with mass can't reach the speed of light.

Even if you choose another light wave.
How does the light inertial frame calculate time with the Lorentz transformation?
How did you answer your own question from the other thread?

[Kryptid]

Even if you choose another light wave.
How does the light inertial frame calculate time with the Lorentz transformation?
How did you answer your own question from the other thread?

From the jist of what was told to me, it appeared that no such frame existed.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Even if you choose another light wave.
How does the light inertial frame calculate time with the Lorentz transformation?
How did you answer your own question from the other thread?

From the jist of what was told to me, it appeared that no such frame existed.

Right, this is about the consistency in logic and staying with experimental results.
It appears the infinity does not exist in real physical world based on experiments.
The real world does not go beyond Planck values and beyond the speed of light.
If this is the case then the logical conclusion is the light speed inertial frame is like infinity and it just does not exist.

I hope it is not only what you were told but you see all the steps how that conclusion was made.

[Kryptid]

So what's your point?

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

So what's your point?

The most noble inclination of Human Nature is pursuit of truth.
That itch to find out how things work.
Our discussion here is a manifestation of our Human Nature.

There is a reality on one side and then there is our worldview/understanding of the reality.
How accurate is our worldview?
Personally I go with two levels: hypothesis/concept and theory.
When hypothesis matures and experiments support the hypothesis then it evolves to theory.
Many more details surround a hypothesis, for example assumptions, postulates, principles...
If a mistake was made here then a theory built on it will fall.

No questions from anybody regarding my thought experiment so I'll move to conservation of linear momentum analysis.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

[Kryptid]

If a mistake was made here then a theory built on it will fall.

There was no mistake.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Any questions regarding the linear momentum?
Before going to conservation of angular momentum there is this important attribute of electromagnetism.



The intrinsic magnetic field loop of moving charges.
The shape and size of the field is velocity dependent.

[paul cotter]

We know all that stuff, what point are you making here? re post #17

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

We know all that stuff, what point are you making here? re post #17

The conservation of linear momentum, the electron interacts through the field and moves the plates in +y direction during its acceleration so the isolated system keeps its barycenter inertial.

The question, if the intrinsic magnetic field loop of the moving charge rotates, does the electron interact through the field and causes the plates to rotate in opposite direction to conserve the angular momentum and to keep the barycenter inertial?
This is the most important question!