[David Cooper]

Once again lets look at a situation to determine if you believe light can go 90 degrees from a vector direction. I do not believe that is possible.

Could you phrase that more carefully so that I can tell what it means? Do you mean that if an object is moving along, it can't emit light at 90 degrees to it (the object's) direction of travel? It can put light out in all directions. If you are imagining a laser with the object aligned perpendicular to the direction of travel of the object, then that can't put out light at 90 degrees to that direction unless the object is stationary.

So,

Two ships going the speed of light ( can't happen but just for grins and giggles) shoot out light perpendicular (you can't create light at the speed of light but humor me). Could one ship view the light from the other.
The real answer is no but you may have another view.

If we allow the ships to move move at c [as opposed to at sea], their clocks will stop and so will their functionality, so they cannot produce light. If we magically allow them to produce light, it would either have to go backwards at some angle (although I suspect that would be zero-energy light and would therefore not exist) or directly forwards (at the same speed as the ships, so it would never appear to be emitted).

Now at 0.999 c perpendicular view?
0.867 c perpendicular view?

Now light can be produced that can go slightly to the side, thereby allowing it to make the trip between the two ships at an angle which to them appears perpendicular. It will take a long time to make the trip across in the 0.999c case, but it should do as their clocks are running very slow to match. In the 0.867c case it will take twice as long for the light to travel between the ships as it would if they were both at rest.

I do not believe any relativistic speed can have a perpendicular view. Light being independent of the source and simultaneity of relativity.

What is your understanding?

I can't see what the problem is. If you have two cars moving along a runway, each at opposite sides but level with each other, you can aim a gun on one car directly perpendicular to the car's direction of travel and hit the other car with a bullet. If we did that in a vacuum, the bullet would hit the other car as near to the front or back as the gun is positioned in the first car. If you replace the gun with a laser, the same thing applies - the light follows the path it takes through the laser and continues moving in that direction, then it would burn a hole straight through the other car perpendicular to that car's direction of travel, even though the light's not moving perpendicular to the runway. If you make the cars move at 0.999999c, the light will move so slowly through the laser (while moving through space at c) that it will be directed almost directly forwards, but it will still reach the other car eventually and burn a hole through it perpendicular to the car's direction of travel.

[GoC (OP)]

I can't see what the problem is. If you have two cars moving along a runway, each at opposite sides but level with each other, you can aim a gun on one car directly perpendicular to the car's direction of travel and hit the other car with a bullet. If we did that in a vacuum, the bullet would hit the other car as near to the front or back as the gun is positioned in the first car. If you replace the gun with a laser, the same thing applies - the light follows the path it takes through the laser and continues moving in that direction, then it would burn a hole straight through the other car perpendicular to that car's direction of travel, even though the light's not moving perpendicular to the runway. If you make the cars move at 0.999999c, the light will move so slowly through the laser (while moving through space at c) that it will be directed almost directly forwards, but it will still reach the other car eventually and burn a hole through it perpendicular to the car's direction of travel.

Ok, here we might have a difference in understanding.

There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?

[guest39538]

I am afraid that nothing still means nothing, for something to exist, it has to have nothing to exist in.

There is no reason why there should be any nothing at all, and all the objects that we think of as existing in space may actually be that fabric of space, just as waves on water are the water. What we do know of space though is that it imposes order on its content. What is it that makes all objects in our universe three dimensional, and what stops them rotating into other dimensions within a space that doesn't impose a three space-dimension limit on them? 2D objects in our 3D space would drift out of alignment with each other and seem to disappear for other 2D objects, and 3D objects in a space that doesn't have a 3D structure would drift out of alignment with other 3D objects in the same way as they rotate into other dimensions and appear to vanish. Light wouldn't spread out according to the inverse square law because it wouldn't be forced to remain within a 3D space in a space that doesn't impose that restriction upon it. Two objects that are supposedly a metre apart would actually be touching each other if there was literally nothing between them. Space is not nothing, and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not in the game.

Quite clearly you are incorrect and indeed nothing exists, May I ask are you defining nothing as without dimension?  or considering nothing to be a dimensional volume of 0 points?

You keep mentioning LET, however I do not think you understand this is far more than just time dilation, ...

You have a model with magic in it because it gives properties to nothing that nothing cannot have. Whatever you build upon that failure is almost certainly going to be worthless.

There is no properties in nothing, there is properties in the ''0'' field that occupies the volume of nothing. XYZ is the properties of nothing, do you even understand Minkowski's space-time?

...they do not say on places I am the ''anti-science'' for no reason.

[quoteThat is more than evident.

That would again be an incorrect statement, I am science.

I do not think you understand that my notions ''destroy'' most theories because I ''destroy'' the very mechanical relativity GOC is talking about that you presently use by equating our present ''speed'' of time to the rotational speed of the Earth .

Magical thinking doesn't destroy any theories, but should actually allow you to see them all as valid by fixing any faults they might have with more magic. You also have enormous comprehension difficulties, in this case leading you to state incorrectly that I've equated our present "speed" of time to the rotational speed of the Earth. There are many different things that measure time, but they all measure apparent time rather than absolute time, slowed by any gravitational interactions and by their speed of travel through the fabric of space (as well as the fabric of space's possible movement/expansion within another fabric [of which it may again be a part rather than content]).

There is no magic involved in my physics of the universe, there is only parlour tricks in your science, and not even good parlour tricks might I say, every thought experiment you think you have, I can discourse and show them to be fictional .

Quite clearly you do not understand how I have ''stuffed'' science .

All you've done is put yourself in an irrational position and fool yourself into thinking you're the one who's got it all right, but when your "nothing" has properties and thereby reveals itself to be something rather than nothing, everyone can see your position as ridiculous (unless they have the same ridiculous beliefs, and some SR fans aren't that far away from your position, failing to understand that their beloved Spacetime is also a fabric (aether).

You will see in time. I am correct and the whole world is wrong, and no I am not deluded or have Dunning and Kruger or any such. I know how smart I am.

[David Cooper]

There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?

You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.

The reason you've made this mistake is that you're thinking of the visual warping caused by looking at things moving at high speed relative to you, such as the railway sleepers which the railway track rests on - they are arranged perpendicular to the track, and we can extend them sideways to make them easier to see from inside the train, but let's also give the train a glass floor and glass walls so that we can see everything clearly. If we look at those lines, they will appear to curve with their leading point directly underneath us and then bend back as we follow them out to the sides, becoming straight lines once they're further away, pointing at some angle far behind the perpendicular. This is the warping you're thinking about, but it doesn't apply to things moving along with you.

[guest39538]

There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?

You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.

The reason you've made this mistake is that you're thinking of the visual warping caused by looking at things moving at high speed relative to you, such as the railway sleepers which the railway track rests on - they are arranged perpendicular to the track, and we can extend them sideways to make them easier to see from inside the train, but let's also give the train a glass floor and glass walls so that we can see everything clearly. If we look at those lines, they will appear to curve with their leading point directly underneath us and then bend back as we follow them out to the sides, becoming straight lines once they're further away, pointing at some angle far behind the perpendicular. This is the warping you're thinking about, but it doesn't apply to things moving along with you.

I don't want to sound rude but you keep mentioning trains and tracks and ignoring the reference frame that surrounds them of space. Whilst your trains are doing whatever , trying  to subjectively shrink them, it has no affect what so ever on space-time.

FYI 

[guest39538]

Goc- For an object to physically contract the space around it would have to contract/expand also?

They are contracting the length of the object relative to space?

x₁------------------------------------------------------

x₂------------------------------------------------------

x₁(space)=x₂ (space)

Although I have used their parlour tricks to contract the length of the lines I can not contract the space thereafter x₂

The red dots are just space beyond the black dots of length.

[David Cooper]

I don't want to sound rude but you keep mentioning trains and tracks and ignoring the reference frame that surrounds them of space. Whilst your trains are doing whatever , trying  to subjectively shrink them, it has no affect what so ever on space-time.

If we're doing SR we can assert (irrationally) that there is no preferred frame of reference, so we only need to think about the frame of reference in which the track is stationary (let's call this frame X) and the frame of reference in which the train is stationary (which we can call frame Y). If we are working with frame X as our base, then the train is length contracted. If we are working with frame Y as our base, then the track is contracted.

If we're doing LET, we have a third frame to consider which is the preferred frame (which we can call frame Z). The speed at which the train and track move through frame Z determines how much they are actually contracted (in their direction of travel). We can still use frame X or Y as our base rather than Z (which is a frame we can't actually identify), but if we use frame X and say that the train is contracted for that frame, we are fully aware that the amount of contraction we calculate for the train almost certainly does not give us the true length of the train (which is almost certainly contracted to some degree in some direction). Switching the frame used as the base for our calculations has no effect whatsoever on the actual reality which is represented by frame Z (whose space fabric can never be contracted by anything moving through it - it is always the moving object that is contracted). We can use frame Z in thought experiments, but not in real-world experiments as we cannot identify it for those.

You should know ALL of that already and should not be making such objections.

[GoC (OP)]

There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?

You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.

While we agree on the 60 degree angle we do not agree on the perpendicular view. The light from the bar right next to your position hits your eye first then it takes longer for the light from the other side where the bar attaches to the other train. So the view from the past position when the light left is behind you for the further distance light has to take to reach you. I agree the perpendicular laser will hit perpendicular like you were at rest but the laser light will bend its view also. Simultaneity of relativity. Your view would rotate to observe the front of the other train. Your understanding is infinite speed of light to maintain a perpendicular view. The view has to rotate if you follow light independent of the source. If light were infinite we could not distinguish between objects.

If you were in a train car with different people in the windows across from you at the same speed the faster your speed the further up you view the other train. That angle is the length contraction. We could really never test for physical contraction but simultaneity of relativity that includes light independent of the source has an inescapable conclusion of length contraction of view. Try to follow when the light wave would hit you and from what position from the past to get the angle of view. Light is just leaving the other train when you suggest you have a perpendicular view. That is impossible in relativity's simultaneity of relativity.

[guest39538]

I don't want to sound rude but you keep mentioning trains and tracks and ignoring the reference frame that surrounds them of space. Whilst your trains are doing whatever , trying  to subjectively shrink them, it has no affect what so ever on space-time.

If we're doing SR we can assert (irrationally) that there is no preferred frame of reference, so we only need to think about the frame of reference in which the track is stationary (let's call this frame X) and the frame of reference in which the train is stationary (which we can call frame Y). If we are working with frame X as our base, then the train is length contracted. If we are working with frame Y as our base, then the track is contracted.

If we're doing LET, we have a third frame to consider which is the preferred frame (which we can call frame Z). The speed at which the train and track move through frame Z determines how much they are actually contracted (in their direction of travel). We can still use frame X or Y as our base rather than Z (which is a frame we can't actually identify), but if we use frame X and say that the train is contracted for that frame, we are fully aware that the amount of contraction we calculate for the train almost certainly does not give us the true length of the train (which is almost certainly contracted to some degree in some direction). Switching the frame used as the base for our calculations has no effect whatsoever on the actual reality which is represented by frame Z (whose space fabric can never be contracted by anything moving through it - it is always the moving object that is contracted). We can use frame Z in thought experiments, but not in real-world experiments as we cannot identify it for those.

You should know ALL of that already and should not be making such objections.

Just No, the preferred reference frame is always space, everything is relative to 0. 0 is equal to all of space , every zero point of space.

Quite clearly you need to understand 0 if you want to understand the Universe and where I am at with my thinking.

p.s keep going on LET in the Let thread, I need to know more about the Lorentz field idea by your own words and others words.

[guest39538]

Let me do some train thought for you, at the center of a circular track is platform.  A train that is 10 meters at rest length starts to travel around the track at the near speed of light, the observer observers a visual length expansion, the train also looks length contracted because it is curved on the track,
The train does not physically contract, do you think you can possibly understand that things contract when an equal and opposite force is attached , the train is actually stretched in a linear vector path, the field stretches the train and the gravity pulls the train back, the molecules widen not contract.

[guest4091]

My observations after visiting the "Magic Schoolbook" site.

Clocks are slowed by movement, but importantly, Lorentz Ether Theory says that actual time is not slowed at all: you can see that this must be the case because the light is still travelling through the fabric of space at its full normal speed.

__
The propagation speed of light in space is c, and it's independent of any moving object.
The actual time is what a local clock indicates.

During the second half of the rocket's journey though, the rocket will be calculated to be chasing the Earth at 0.99 of the speed of light to catch up with it,

__
You stated previously "then turns round and comes back at 0.866 of the speed of light,"

There is only one frame of reference which can be tied to the fabric of space, so its accounts are the ones which are true while all the other accounts are false.

__
Beginning with the hypothetical absolute rest frame, which experiences no time dilation and no length contraction, it can be shown that all moving inertial frames can be used as reference frames with the same equations describing the behavior of the universe. This results from the independence of light speed, which produces motion induced phenomena, time dilation and length contraction.

The way things work in LET results in it being impossible to tell if anything is moving or not: there is an absolute frame of reference which is tied to the fabric of space itself, but it cannot be identified because from where we are (inside the universe) all frames behave as if they might be that frame.

__
The universe as a complete entity has no external reference point for motion, thus by definition, it is not moving. Simple observation, near and distant, indicates a dynamic universe, thus the most realistic assumption is, everything is moving. If any frame can serve as a reference for motion, it greatly simplifies modeling the world with theories.
Think how complicated it would be to need to know where the center of the universe is, or where an absolute reference point is, before you could formulate the rules of physics.

Much more interesting though is what Einstein did with the nature of time, because he changed it into a dimension and in doing so turned the fabric of space into a four dimensional fabric called Spacetime.

__
He did not, Minkowski did when he expressed the coordinates in a general form. Something mathematicians like to do, make neat and tidy compact expressions.
A quote by A. Einstein:
"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."
His 1905 paper explicitly distinguishes time from spatial coordinates.
 

[David Cooper]

There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?

You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.

While we agree on the 60 degree angle we do not agree on the perpendicular view. The light from the bar right next to your position hits your eye first then it takes longer for the light from the other side where the bar attaches to the other train. So the view from the past position when the light left is behind you for the further distance light has to take to reach you. I agree the perpendicular laser will hit perpendicular like you were at rest but the laser light will bend its view also. Simultaneity of relativity. Your view would rotate to observe the front of the other train. Your understanding is infinite speed of light to maintain a perpendicular view. The view has to rotate if you follow light independent of the source. If light were infinite we could not distinguish between objects.

If you were in a train car with different people in the windows across from you at the same speed the faster your speed the further up you view the other train. That angle is the length contraction. We could really never test for physical contraction but simultaneity of relativity that includes light independent of the source has an inescapable conclusion of length contraction of view. Try to follow when the light wave would hit you and from what position from the past to get the angle of view. Light is just leaving the other train when you suggest you have a perpendicular view. That is impossible in relativity's simultaneity of relativity.

A correction to begin with: I think I was wrong in what I said about the appearance of the railway sleepers - I now suspect they would curve forwards rather than backwards, but that's another discussion.

What matters here though is that the bar connecting your trains will continue to appear perpendicular at all times as viewed by the people on the trains regardless of their speed of travel. If that wasn't the case, it would be dead easy to detect our movement through space as we could simply move along with a perpendicular bar and measure how much it appears to bend as we speed up and slow down, but that will produce a null result because no such bending will show up. Indeed, we could simply line up a camera on any point and watch for that point moving as the Earth moves through space at different speeds and angles.

On the issue of light coming from further away:-

Imagine two lasers in the right-hand train (train R), both in line with your bar which joins train R to train L. One laser is at the left-hand side of train R and the other laser is at the right hand side of train R. Both lasers are pointing along the bar towards train L, but they are at different heights so that the laser on the right doesn't shoot the laser on the left, so it shoots its light over it instead. This will burn two holes through train L, one a couple of inches above the other, and these holes will both run perpendicular through train L (as measured by someone on the train) even though the light path runs at 30 degrees to the perpendicular through space. The light from the laser on the right had further to go before it reached train L, but it followed the same path as the light from the laser on the left. The difference is that the light in the higher beam was emitted before the light in the lower beam at any point where you compare adjacent photons (one directly above the other). If we use less powerful lasers again so that we can look at the laser light from train L, we find that they appear to come from the same direction as each other (horizontally, but with a small height difference between them). Just as each laser sends the light at 30 degrees to the perpendicular even though it's pointed perpendicular to the train, the eye corrects the 30 degree angle back to zero degrees due to the way the eye moves between the light entering the iris and hitting the retina, so the observer on train L who is next to the rod will always see the lasers directly to his side, and the bar likewise - there is no visual shift of these things backwards.

[David Cooper]

[Just No, the preferred reference frame is always space, everything is relative to 0. 0 is equal to all of space , every zero point of space.

Why the "just no"? The preferred frame is the one in which the fabric of space is stationary (although there are complications due to the expansion of the universe, which means the preferred frame may shift as you move along, but you won't be able to handle that idea, so it would be best not to get into that here).

Quite clearly you need to understand 0 if you want to understand the Universe and where I am at with my thinking.

Quite clearly, you can take the preferred frame of LET as your "0", so what's the big problem?

Let me do some train thought for you, at the center of a circular track is platform.

That description does not fit with your diagram. What you should have said, if your diagram is correct, is that a platform runs beside the tangent to a circular track, the middle of the platform directly adjacent to the track at the point of closest approach.

A train that is 10 meters at rest length starts to travel around the track at the near speed of light, the observer observers a visual length expansion, the train also looks length contracted because it is curved on the track.

(1) You haven't stated where your observer is. (2) There is only going to be visual length expansion if the observer is looking at the train from ahead, but the actual length-contraction acting on the train will compete against that. (3) the curve of the track will not affect the nearest carriage to the observer when it is aligned perpendicular to his angle of view, so he will not be distracted by this issue.

The train does not physically contract,

Which means you either have light clocks in the train disagreeing about the length of a second or you have light going faster than c, so you've got a defective model.

do you think you can possibly understand that things contract when an equal and opposite force is attached ,

Length-contraction in relativity applies to things without needing to squish them - they do not feel compressed.

the train is actually stretched in a linear vector path,

And they aren't stretched either.

the field stretches the train and the gravity pulls the train back, the molecules widen not contract.

The problem with you has not changed - you don't take anything on board but keep on talking nonsense no matter how often you're shown the faults in your model, and the reason you do that is that you can't get your mind round all the details to sort them out and get a full picture of what's going on. All you have is a mess of ideas which you've tricked yourself into thinking you understand. There is only one thing that you should be working on if you want to get anywhere with this stuff, and that's working out how a light clock aligned with its direction of travel always keeps pace with an identical light clock moving along with it which is aligned across its direction of travel. If you can get them to tick at the same rate without length-contracting one of the light clocks or having light travel faster than c for one of the light clocks, you will likely win a Nobel prize.

[David Cooper]

My observations after visiting the "Magic Schoolbook" site.

The propagation speed of light in space is c, and it's independent of any moving object.
The actual time is what a local clock indicates.

Local clocks measure apparent time rather than actual time. Any speed of movement of the clock through space will slow it, and its own mass will also slow it, so no clock can be built that measures absolute time.

During the second half of the rocket's journey though, the rocket will be calculated to be chasing the Earth at 0.99 of the speed of light to catch up with it,

__
You stated previously "then turns round and comes back at 0.866 of the speed of light,"

It returns at 0.866c relative to the Earth, but because the Earth is moving through space at 0.866c in the same direction, that means the rocket must travel at 0.99c through space.

There is only one frame of reference which can be tied to the fabric of space, so its accounts are the ones which are true while all the other accounts are false.

__
Beginning with the hypothetical absolute rest frame, which experiences no time dilation and no length contraction, it can be shown that all moving inertial frames can be used as reference frames with the same equations describing the behavior of the universe. This results from the independence of light speed, which produces motion induced phenomena, time dilation and length contraction.

Yes - from our point of view they all behave as if they are the preferred frame, but only one of them can actually be the preferred frame.

The universe as a complete entity has no external reference point for motion, thus by definition, it is not moving.

We can't tell if the universe is moving, but we shouldn't assume it isn't moving through some other kind of space (or expanding within another kind of space).

Simple observation, near and distant, indicates a dynamic universe, thus the most realistic assumption is, everything is moving. If any frame can serve as a reference for motion, it greatly simplifies modeling the world with theories.

Not when it generates contradictions. There has to be a rational mechanism behind what happens, and you can't have the same acceleration of a clock cause it both to tick faster and to tick slower. The accounts of events generated by using different frames of reference contradict each other, so they cannot all be correct.

Think how complicated it would be to need to know where the center of the universe is, or where an absolute reference point is, before you could formulate the rules of physics.

You don't need to pin a preferred frame down to formulate the rules of physics. LET manages to do it without identifying it.

Much more interesting though is what Einstein did with the nature of time, because he changed it into a dimension and in doing so turned the fabric of space into a four dimensional fabric called Spacetime.

__
He did not, Minkowski did when he expressed the coordinates in a general form. Something mathematicians like to do, make neat and tidy compact expressions.
A quote by A. Einstein:
"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."
His 1905 paper explicitly distinguishes time from spatial coordinates.

That's a complication which I avoided going into on the basis that those who know the details would recognise that it's unimportant, but I think I should edit it to mention it as a side issue. The problem is that the Spacetime model that's presented almost everywhere and attributed to Einstein is the one I've described, and the reason for that is simple - he's mixing incompatible models to hedge his bets, and one of the models he's trying to build his compound mess out of is LET.

[guest39538]

[Just No, the preferred reference frame is always space, everything is relative to 0. 0 is equal to all of space , every zero point of space.

Why the "just no"? The preferred frame is the one in which the fabric of space is stationary (although there are complications due to the expansion of the universe, which means the preferred frame may shift as you move along, but you won't be able to handle that idea, so it would be best not to get into that here).

Quite clearly you need to understand 0 if you want to understand the Universe and where I am at with my thinking.

Quite clearly, you can take the preferred frame of LET as your "0", so what's the big problem?

Let me do some train thought for you, at the center of a circular track is platform.

That description does not fit with your diagram. What you should have said, if your diagram is correct, is that a platform runs beside the tangent to a circular track, the middle of the platform directly adjacent to the track at the point of closest approach.

A train that is 10 meters at rest length starts to travel around the track at the near speed of light, the observer observers a visual length expansion, the train also looks length contracted because it is curved on the track.

(1) You haven't stated where your observer is. (2) There is only going to be visual length expansion if the observer is looking at the train from ahead, but the actual length-contraction acting on the train will compete against that. (3) the curve of the track will not affect the nearest carriage to the observer when it is aligned perpendicular to his angle of view, so he will not be distracted by this issue.

The train does not physically contract,

Which means you either have light clocks in the train disagreeing about the length of a second or you have light going faster than c, so you've got a defective model.

do you think you can possibly understand that things contract when an equal and opposite force is attached ,

Length-contraction in relativity applies to things without needing to squish them - they do not feel compressed.

the train is actually stretched in a linear vector path,

And they aren't stretched either.

the field stretches the train and the gravity pulls the train back, the molecules widen not contract.

The problem with you has not changed - you don't take anything on board but keep on talking nonsense no matter how often you're shown the faults in your model, and the reason you do that is that you can't get your mind round all the details to sort them out and get a full picture of what's going on. All you have is a mess of ideas which you've tricked yourself into thinking you understand. There is only one thing that you should be working on if you want to get anywhere with this stuff, and that's working out how a light clock aligned with its direction of travel always keeps pace with an identical light clock moving along with it which is aligned across its direction of travel. If you can get them to tick at the same rate without length-contracting one of the light clocks or having light travel faster than c for one of the light clocks, you will likely win a Nobel prize.

Firstly, there is no problem with me, I took everything on board and in my reality things ''add'' up to accurate information and not parlour tricks.   The line at the side of the circular track shows the rest length of the train relative to the trains rest length when on a circular track and curved. From a distance the curved train will not look curved and look shorter than the linear train. The 1st person view observer is on the platform in the center of the circular track.  They will observer a blur that entirely surrounds them in a circle as the train travels around the track, quite clearly you do not understand about visual illusions of length that are not physical processes.
There is no opposing force to contract the physical length of the object. Also even if it did contract it wouldn't mean anything other than an opposing force putting pressure on the front of the object to contract the object.

Which part of Einsteins thought experiments do you not understand is ''parlour tricks'' that can be easily proven to be false logic? 

[David Cooper]

The line at the side of the circular track shows the rest length of the train relative to the trains rest length when on a circular track and curved. From a distance the curved train will not look curved and look shorter than the linear train.

A carriage in the middle will look longer than a carriage near the end, so a distant observer who looks carefully will not be fooled.

The 1st person view observer is on the platform in the center of the circular track.  They will observer a blur that entirely surrounds them in a circle as the train travels around the track, quite clearly you do not understand about visual illusions of length that are not physical processes.

You're back to the blurring issue again which has been dealt with before. Take photos with a camera with a high enough shutter speed to remove the blur and stop relying on your monkey vision.
 

There is no opposing force to contract the physical length of the object. Also even if it did contract it wouldn't mean anything other than an opposing force putting pressure on the front of the object to contract the object.

The forces that lead to the contraction are all internal ones which make the atoms settle closer together as the speed goes up - it is not compressed, but contracted without stress.

Which part of Einsteins thought experiments do you not understand is ''parlour tricks'' that can be easily proven to be false logic?

Length-contraction comes from Fitzgerald and Lorentz rather than Einstein, and it's necessary to account for the MMX null result. As I've told you already, until you explore that properly, you'll continue to be nothing more than a tiresome ignoramus who fills threads that he can't understand with worthless junk. You should really be banned from posting in any threads that you haven't started because there's nothing to be gained by anyone conversing with you.

[GoC (OP)]

You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.

While we agree on the 60 degree angle we do not agree on the perpendicular view. The light from the bar right next to your position hits your eye first then it takes longer for the light from the other side where the bar attaches to the other train. So the view from the past position when the light left is behind you for the further distance light has to take to reach you. I agree the perpendicular laser will hit perpendicular like you were at rest but the laser light will bend its view also. Simultaneity of relativity. Your view would rotate to observe the front of the other train. Your understanding is infinite speed of light to maintain a perpendicular view. The view has to rotate if you follow light independent of the source. If light were infinite we could not distinguish between objects.

If you were in a train car with different people in the windows across from you at the same speed the faster your speed the further up you view the other train. That angle is the length contraction. We could really never test for physical contraction but simultaneity of relativity that includes light independent of the source has an inescapable conclusion of length contraction of view. Try to follow when the light wave would hit you and from what position from the past to get the angle of view. Light is just leaving the other train when you suggest you have a perpendicular view. That is impossible in relativity's simultaneity of relativity.

A correction to begin with: I think I was wrong in what I said about the appearance of the railway sleepers - I now suspect they would curve forwards rather than backwards, but that's another discussion.

There is no curve in light for SR (ok my SR). There is no momentum for light. Light is independent of the source. Einstein was incorrect to say space and time are separate. Events in space is on the LET side of the equation. Mass does not control the event space controls the events position where light is not independent of the space source position. You are doing some hybrid of independent of the source.

What matters here though is that the bar connecting your trains will continue to appear perpendicular at all times as viewed by the people on the trains regardless of their speed of travel.

Something will appear as a perpendicular view but it will not be a 90 degree view. It will be the forward image created by reflection of 90 degrees that you arrive to view. our laser perpendicular will bend backwards to hit a position further back on the opposite train. Independence of the source.

If that wasn't the case, it would be dead easy to detect our movement through space as we could simply move along with a perpendicular bar and measure how much it appears to bend as we speed up and slow down,

Yes but how could we test that? Is our view of perpendicular really perpendicular?

but that will produce a null result because no such bending will show up. Indeed, we could simply line up a camera on any point and watch for that point moving as the Earth moves through space at different speeds and angles.

There would be no bending. It would just appear as an angle.

On the issue of light coming from further away:-

Imagine two lasers in the right-hand train (train R), both in line with your bar which joins train R to train L. One laser is at the left-hand side of train R and the other laser is at the right hand side of train R. Both lasers are pointing along the bar towards train L, but they are at different heights so that the laser on the right doesn't shoot the laser on the left, so it shoots its light over it instead. This will burn two holes through train L, one a couple of inches above the other, and these holes will both run perpendicular through train L (as measured by someone on the train) even though the light path runs at 30 degrees to the perpendicular through space. The light from the laser on the right had further to go before it reached train L, but it followed the same path as the light from the laser on the left. The difference is that the light in the higher beam was emitted before the light in the lower beam at any point where you compare adjacent photons (one directly above the other). If we use less powerful lasers again so that we can look at the laser light from train L, we find that they appear to come from the same direction as each other (horizontally, but with a small height difference between them). Just as each laser sends the light at 30 degrees to the perpendicular even though it's pointed perpendicular to the train, the eye corrects the 30 degree angle back to zero degrees due to the way the eye moves between the light entering the iris and hitting the retina, so the observer on train L who is next to the rod will always see the lasers directly to his side, and the bar likewise - there is no visual shift of these things backwards.

The image is coming from a forward position you catch up to and the laser hits a position behind where you aim perpendicular. The view is always from a past position. Light does not have momentum.

[guest39538]

The line at the side of the circular track shows the rest length of the train relative to the trains rest length when on a circular track and curved. From a distance the curved train will not look curved and look shorter than the linear train.

A carriage in the middle will look longer than a carriage near the end, so a distant observer who looks carefully will not be fooled.

The 1st person view observer is on the platform in the center of the circular track.  They will observer a blur that entirely surrounds them in a circle as the train travels around the track, quite clearly you do not understand about visual illusions of length that are not physical processes.

You're back to the blurring issue again which has been dealt with before. Take photos with a camera with a high enough shutter speed to remove the blur and stop relying on your monkey vision.
 

There is no opposing force to contract the physical length of the object. Also even if it did contract it wouldn't mean anything other than an opposing force putting pressure on the front of the object to contract the object.

The forces that lead to the contraction are all internal ones which make the atoms settle closer together as the speed goes up - it is not compressed, but contracted without stress.

Which part of Einsteins thought experiments do you not understand is ''parlour tricks'' that can be easily proven to be false logic?

Length-contraction comes from Fitzgerald and Lorentz rather than Einstein, and it's necessary to account for the MMX null result. As I've told you already, until you explore that properly, you'll continue to be nothing more than a tiresome ignoramus who fills threads that he can't understand with worthless junk. You should really be banned from posting in any threads that you haven't started because there's nothing to be gained by anyone conversing with you.

An object contracts through stress levels?  How quaint , what stress levels?  you are wrong.

[David Cooper]

An object contracts through stress levels?  How quaint , what stress levels?  you are wrong.

Are you a chat bot? Where did you get these "stress levels" from? I'm beginning to suspect you don't speak English at all and you're doing everything through Google Translate from Japanese.

[David Cooper]

While we agree on the 60 degree angle we do not agree on the perpendicular view. The light from the bar right next to your position hits your eye first then it takes longer for the light from the other side where the bar attaches to the other train. So the view from the past position when the light left is behind you for the further distance light has to take to reach you.

Click on attached image to see the detail properly. Two lasers (the rectangles) are moving to the right. Light is being sent from the top of them when they are shown as A and B, exiting the bottom of those same lasers when they are shown as C and D. E shows the lower laser again later with light still again coming out of it.

At the bottom of the picture, an eye (a circle) is moving to the right, and we see the same eye four times. F and G show it with light entering it, while H and I show light (which entered the eye when it was at F and G) reaching the retina. The point at which the light hits the retina guarantees that the observer sees the laser perpendicular to the direction of movement of the co-moving trains (which these lasers and eye are travelling in).

You need to study this carefully and reassess your ideas about how things appear in situations of this kind. Note that you see the lower laser at D before you see it at E, and when you see it at E, you see the higher laser directly in line with it when it was at C - yes the light takes longer to reach your eye from that laser, but you see it on the same line as the nearer laser, and you see that line as being perpendicular to your direction of travel.

If you were in a train car with different people in the windows across from you at the same speed the faster your speed the further up you view the other train. That angle is the length contraction.

No. You're still mauling this. The length-contraction acting on the train is not visible to people on the train in any way and they see no distortion on anything co-moving with them at all.

There is no curve in light for SR (ok my SR).

If the sleepers bend forwards (which I think they do), they will be straight in the distance, but curved as they go underneath you because you're looking down from a height. You'll only get a sharp angle if you go down to the same altitude, though if you do that you won't see the shape they form as you'll be viewing from the same plane.