[Colin2B]

It appears from your remark that (T' = T) means .........

No, you yourself said T=T', see below

My calculations, where γ = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2;

When the race occurs within the stationary laboratory frame (v = 0), no calculation is needed (inverse Lorentz transformation reduces to Galilean format) and the ratio of the photon time span to the electron time span WRT the stationary laboratory frame is simply;

Photon:    τ = τ'

Electron:   t = t'

You keep posting things like this without defining them. What you said tells us nothing about what those quantities are/mean.

You then make an incorrect assumption about what I wrote which makes me think you didn't read thoroughly what I did write:

It appears from your remark that (T' = T) means that you are assuming I am discussing what K measures in their own frame vs what K' measures in their own frame.

No I didn't make that assumption I saw you were comparing K and K' as above when you said:
Photon:    τ = τ'
Electron:   t = t'
I merely expanded on what you said in order to make clearer the relationship between K and K'
My assumption is that you are trying to relate what happens in K' back to K using LT. In fact I wrote:

When you apply transforms to K' I have to assume you are working from the viewpoint of an observer in K, with a clock in K, observing events in K'.

However, these mis-assumptions you are making are not the only problem

It is obvious that my original presentations suffer many flaws due to the wording and the related mathematical results as a result of this wording.

No, not just the wording, you are making mistakes of logic which I pointed out in my last post - did you really read it properly?

...... What if I strip out all the extraneous referencing to observers, rest frames, etc.?

Why?
 This is relativity. The clue is in the name, relativity = observers, frames, clocks all moving relative to one another. If you take out those references you will be even more confused,

PART 1 (One-Way Events)

WRT Einstein’s book (Relativity: The Special and General Theory), Part 1, Chapter 11 gives the Lorentz transformation (LT) as;

NO, NO, NO.
Don't start on another scenario until you understand the errors you are making on the first.

PmbPhy would explain this is terms of worldlines and spacetime geometry, which is by far the best way as you would understand more easily where you are going wrong. However, your dismissive response to his post:

First off I've asked you several times what "There are two parallel linear events (A and B) with uniform velocity along the positive x-axis." means and I've yet to get a response. You didn't even state what the worldlines are which are supposed to be parallel. I'm going to assume that you're referring to the following worldlines;
Worldline A: Worldline connecting origin with event A
Worldline B: Worldline connecting origin with event B

Worldline A is the worldline of a photon which is emitted from the origin and moves in the +x-direction and ends up at event A. That means that it's a line which is 45 degrees with respect to the +x-axis (and of course its also a line which is 45 degrees with the ct-axis).

Worldline B is the worldline of a particle which moves at a speed less than the speed of light and ends up at event B. That means that it's a line which is greater than 45 degrees with respect to the +x-axis.

This means that it is a line which is 45 degrees with respect to the +x-axis (and of course it’s also a line which is 45 degrees with the ct-axis).

Therefore it follows that these two worldlines are not parallel. So what in the world do you mean by “parallel events”?

Your response indicates that you do not understand spacetime geometry, if you did it would be easier to explain where you are going wrong. So I will try one last time using the terms you are familiar with K, K', t, t', etc.
Fortunately LT gives us a way of interpreting the geometry in the same way that Pythagoras allows us to interpret rt angled triangles. However, as with Pythagoras we must be careful not to assume that because a value is given a symbol in a formula the value is the same for another symbol of the same name. That is equivalent to saying that in Pythagoras a, b and c have the same value for all triangles, also we must be careful not to apply Pythagoras to non-rt angled triangles. Yet this is what you have been doing with LT!

Your formula τ=(τ'+vx'/c^2)γ transforms a value of T from T'. That is transforming from K' to K.
But earlier you derived a value for T in K, when you considered the rest frame v=0. It is important to realise that although they have the same symbol T, these two quantities are NOT THE SAME. That is why when I went through the logic of this in my last post, I assigned T_K'B to the LT derived T.

Do you understand. If not then your understanding of STR is very flawed.

I hate to labour this, but as this will be my last post I will go through it with a simpler version.

We will use K and K'
Also you have previously agreed that T/t=u/c. So if we consider u and c we will also be calculating what happens to T and t.
Because you seem to be having problems with LT we will consider a case where v is small. That mean we can ignore any relativistic effects that are due to v being a significant proportion of c, and our scenario looks closer to Newtonian rules:

Again we start in K (your original rest frame) and calculate u and c. Because K' is also an inertial frame then u=u' and c=c'.

So if we are in K looking at what is happening in K' we will see that c being constant for all observers is still c.
But u clearly = v+u'
But wait a minute, we already decided that u'=u so substituting we get
u=v+u 
Clearly a logical impossibility. The reason being that the u in u=v+u' is not the same as the u for K in the rest frame, it needs a different symbol u_K'Bsay.

I hope it is easier to see in this example where the circular augment was in your calculations. Go back to my previous post and work it through.

If you cannot see it then we cannot help you. You will need some face to face sessions with your teacher who should be able to explain it. I would also suggest you stop reading papers such as the one you posted, very misleading.

As I say, my last post. Other things to do.

[Waste of Time (OP)]

Calm down...it's just a math problem. No need to huff and puff in front of the world. Did your teacher act this way when you made mistakes learning in class? I agreed that there were mistakes within my original scenarios, so stop pretending I didn't.

It is obvious that my original presentations suffer many flaws due to the wording and the related mathematical results as a result of this wording. What if I strip out all the extraneous referencing to observers, rest frames, etc.?

Just because you disagree with how someone answers your question does not mean they didn't answer your question. I tried changing the wording of my scenario based upon the wonderful feedback I received from posts like yours. Continually going backwards in the posts (after I make changes based upon replies) is like going to jail over and over for the same crime. Get over it! Do me a favor, don't ever become a teacher...I don't think you have the patience for it.

And what law states I have to answer your questions anyways?

[Waste of Time (OP)]

My latest edit based upon great feedback. Not interested in arguing older scenarios as I already admitted they were flawed. That was the point of posting in the first place.

PART 1 (One-Way Events)

WRT Einstein’s book (Relativity: The Special and General Theory), Part 1, Chapter 11 gives the Lorentz transformation (LT) as;

t’ = (t-vx/c^2)γ, where γ = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2

Referencing Einstein’s book (Part 1, Chapter 11), we merely apply the transformation to two events (i.e. moving electrons) in K from (x = 0) to (x) in unequal times (τ) and (t).

WRT K’:
     τ’ = (τ-vx/c^2)γ

     t’ = (t-vx/c^2)γ

Evaluating the ratio of these times at (v) gives the results WRT K’ as;
*    τ’/t’ = (τ-vx/c^2)/(t-vx/c^2)

Evaluating this ratio at (v = 0) gives the results WRT K as;
     τ’/t’ = (τ-0*x/c^2)/(t-0*x/c^2)
*    τ’/t’ = τ/t

PART 2 (Round-Trip Events)

Referencing Einstein’s book (Part 1, Chapter 11), we merely apply the transformation to two events (i.e. moving electrons) in K from (x = 0) to (x) in unequal times (ϖ) and (T), then from (x) to (x = 0) in these same times (ϖ) and (T).

WRT K’:
     2ϖ’ = (ϖ-vx/c^2)γ + (ϖ+vx/c^2)γ
     2ϖ’ = ϖγ-(vx/c^2)γ+ϖγ+(vx/c^2)γ
*    2ϖ’ = 2ϖγ

     2T’ = (T-vx/c^2)γ + (T+vx/c^2)γ
     2T’ = Tγ-(vx/c^2)γ+Tγ+(vx/c^2)γ
*    2T’ = 2Tγ

Evaluating the ratio of these times at either (v or v = 0) gives the results WRT to K’ or K as;
*    ϖ’/T' = ϖ/T

[Colin2B]

And what law states I have to answer your questions anyways?

Nothing

But if you don't want my answers, that's also ok.

I'm sorry you feel you have been to jail over and over, but if you look back you will see that you have rebuffed my replies a number of times including my post where I take the trouble to write it down in some detail.

It appears from your remark that (T' = T) ...

To whom are you speaking to? I don't see Colin making any such comment.

...means that you are assuming I am discussing what K measures in their own frame vs what K' measures in their own frame. This was not at all what I was discussing.

That is exactly what it appears that you're discussing. If it isn't then your posts are extremely deceptive. When someone places a prime on a variable it means that the quantity that has the prime on it is measured in the primed frame and vice versa. I.e. A' is measured in frame K', B is measured in frame K, etc.

It is quite irritating to be rebuffed so offhand and I suspect that irritation came through in my final post, where I felt you were ignoring the points I made. Despite that rebuff I had the patience to write it out with even more examples, and then to be told you don't want to go over it again. So it looks like I wasted my time!
That's ok you don't have to read it, but it takes time to take the trouble to write out these replies.

You tell me I no longer have the patience for this, so as the Dragons say "I'm out"

PS -  470 views (including repeats) is hardly the world watching.

[Waste of Time (OP)]

Thanks for stopping by.

[PmbPhy]

HeyBert = I've grown tired of following those derivations everyday. There are only two points to be stated and they are

1) If you got anything but Δτ/Δt = Δτ’(1+ β)/Δt’(1+ β(u/c)) then you made a mistake. Since this is not what you got then you did make another mistake. It's now up to you to find it. If you can't then please let me know and I'll show you one last time.

2) The first postulate is correct and your interpretation of it that you started this thread with is wrong.

[Waste of Time (OP)]

Working things out on another forum right now. Learned to frame the problem in a "relativity friendly" format from another user and have good positive communication going. Thanks for the offer though, and I'll let you know If I come back to this or identify where my logic went astray.

[PmbPhy]

Working things out on another forum right now. Learned to frame the problem in a "relativity friendly" format from another user and have good positive communication going. Thanks for the offer though, and I'll let you know If I come back to this or identify where my logic went astray.

Yeah. I know. I saw that and I saw that you're making mistakes there too. I've already shown you how to do this right so what's your objection to it?

[Colin2B]

Yeah. I know. I saw that and I saw that you're making mistakes there too. I've already shown you how to do this right so what's your objection to it?

5:1 against him getting it on his own, he so much wants others to do his thinking for him. I would give you better odds, but as the rate of exchange is beers I would be worried about your health. Catch is I'm unlikely to come over your way so you would have to come here to collect.
Who is HeyBert, what is he?
When he 1st came on I assumed one of the self publishers you seem to get on this site checking out their pet theory. That's why I called him Robert. I was a little ratty because I don't like people trying to advertise their products on sites like this.
As the posts went on I was surprised at the low level of knowledge of basic relativity. Particularly for someone who has self published a book on the subject (shudder to think what mis guidance it gives). I was also surprised at the lack of eagerness to learn. If I didn't know about worldlines your comment on non parallel events would have me asking you to explain, so I could learn, but he wasn't interested and seemed quite ratty about it. I decided to start really goading to get a response. The one I got made me think student with a deadline on a homework task or forum and wanting to be 1st to get the answer, but the number of ownership phrases brought me back to my original guess and he is still trying to get others to do his thinking for him. Looking at his paper I see he has modified it at the same time he reposted here. I was about to start looking for the other forum, but I see you are ahead of me.

If he comes back, I'll offer him some advice
You should have seen this as soon as you saw the solution to the first problem, don't move on too quickly, spend time to consolidate and learn. When tackling problems like this it is best to try as many tools as possible, visualisation, bounding cases, worldlines, sanity checks and audit trails. Use these 'maths problems' to develop good verbal reasoning and logic. Look at it from as many angles as possible and you won't make these mistakes in the future.

Sorry if you thought my goading was sending you to jail, but I did want to check you out, and also I was irritated that you dismissed a lot of time spent answering your questions, without really wanting to learn holistically.

I hope Naked Scientist and the other forum gets mentioned in the credits for your papers.

PS PmbPhy, the beers are here anytime you are over this way  [)]

[PmbPhy]

His problem is that he wants his idea to be correct, not get the physics correct.

[Colin2B]

His problem is that he wants his idea to be correct, not get the physics correct.

Ah, so there is an agenda, I just couldn't put my finger on it.
He calls it a maths problem, but to me it seems like bad methodology.
I'll put the beer on ice.

[PmbPhy]

His problem is that he wants his idea to be correct, not get the physics correct.

Ah, so there is an agenda, I just couldn't put my finger on it.
He calls it a maths problem, but to me it seems like bad methodology.
I'll put the beer on ice.

Colin - You never answered me. I sent you a PM asking you a question. What is your response?

[Colin2B]

Colin - You never answered me. I sent you a PM asking you a question. What is your response?

Sorry, hadn't noticed it, reply sent.
Been busy repairing a microscope and haven't logged on to email either for a while.

[Waste of Time (OP)]

Colin2B + PmbPhy,
It's a hobby...It's a math problem...even if I'm wrong, it's fun to me...stop being so offensive and judgmental! You're both acting like a couple drama queens on here.

[PmbPhy]

Colin2B + PmbPhy,
It's a hobby...It's a math problem...even if I'm wrong, it's fun to me...stop being so offensive and judgmental! You're both acting like a couple drama queens on here.

There's no reason to insult us. That's very rude and extremely uncalled for. Also there's nothing that you claimed here that is correct. I haven't insulted you or judged you whatsoever. And I know that's true because only **I** know what I'm thinking. You don't.

You've been operating under false assumptions, perhaps because you don't understand how you've been coming across to people.

Perhaps what you've perceived as insults and judgments has been attempts at constructive criticism.  Point out some of these so-called "insults" and "judgments" and I'll explain why you're wrong.

I will admit that I've been frustrated with you because I've asked you so many questions and you haven't answered them. You've been appearing to ignore them or trying to talk around them. It's come across to both myself and Colin that you've simply been unwilling to admit that you made a mistake or your skills are so bad that you've been unable to recognize them.

It's also possible that we've said that you don't understand something or something of that nature. That is **not** an insult. That is merely an observation of a fact and nothing else.

Colin and I were unaware that you considered this a hobby. When visitors come to this part of the forum its almost always because they think that they've proved SR or QM to be wrong and they want to prove it to us, sometimes they provide what appears to us to be some sort of attempt at a scientific paper. That's how you've come across to us. And that's not our fault, that's your fault.

Your insults will be reported to the forum moderator.

[Waste of Time (OP)]

Posts #48-#49. And don't bother "explaining", not interested.

[PmbPhy]

Posts #48-#49. And don't bother "explaining", not interested.

Well, HeyBert. I really don't care whether you're interested or not. I'm defending myself so that bystanders aren't misled by your claims.

Before I go on I'd like to point out that if this is the way you react to criticism then in a real meeting with real physicists criticizing your claim that SR is wrong then you'd walk out of that meeting crying your eyes out because physicists can sometimes be brutal in their criticism. They don't shy away from telling it like it is just because you insult them by calling them drama queens. In fact you'd probably be banned from all other meetings with such a terrible attitude.

As for myself I said His problem is that he wants his idea to be correct, not get the physics correct. which is exactly how you're coming across to all of us. However that's certainly a far cry from all the bogus accusations that you leveled against us, that's certainly for sure!

As for Colin, he was both describing how you're coming across to all of us and also criticizing your style of attempting to work this problem. It was certainly constructive criticism. It's clear now that you're seeing constructive criticize and claiming that its insults merely because your mistakes are being pointed out to you.

You can't go to a forum and post claims that SR is wrong and then assume that everyone is going to admire you for it. Countless people go to physics forums with their own pet theories with the belief that they've also proven SR to be wrong. All of them fail and they all believe that we're just too stupid or too closed minded to see that they're right when in fact 99% of them have never studied physics.

[Waste of Time (OP)]

In the 'New Theories' section of "Got a new theory on something? Post your hypotheses here..."

This is where you choose defend the pillars of science? Your actions do nothing but make people afraid to freely discuss their ideas on this forum. Great job Ace!

[PmbPhy]

In the 'New Theories' section of "Got a new theory on something? Post your hypotheses here..."

This is where you choose defend the pillars of science? Your actions do nothing but make people afraid to freely discuss their ideas on this forum. Great job Ace!

And you actually thought that means that nobody is going to show him the mistakes that he's making which are causing the false claims that a theory in physics is wrong? You're really deluded "Ace".

His (and perhaps your) problem is that he's as sensitive as a teenage girl who can't stand people showing them what they did wrong. If he didn't want people to show him his mistakes then he simply should say so in his first post, e.g. say something like this

Here is my new theory which shows that relativity is wrong. If it's wrong then keep it to yourself because I don't care. If what I'm writing is confusing then please don't ask me to clarify. etc.

That will get you what he wanted.

Now please stop being such a jerk. People like you are not welcome in this forum.

[Ethos_]

Posts #48-#49. And don't bother "explaining", not interested.

I suggest that if you're "not interested" then we'll have to assume that you're also unprepared to learn or share with us. If such is the case, I suggest we all ignore you as well!