[CrazyScientist (OP)]

But wait a second - from your description it seems, that this ship is moving at 100%c. Am I right?

No, as I stated earlier the ship just under the speed of light, specifically c - 1km/s.

So is the diagram correct?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Nope.  The scenario is that the laser is at rest relative to the ship.  So let's assume the laser is on earth and it is aimed at a photoreceptor 4 ly away in the same frame as the earth.  As the ship flies by the earth the laser is fired at the target.

So.....

From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time.  From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years.  So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives.

Still this doesn't make sense. If the laser is fired when space ship is passing next to Earth and that space ship moves at 0,99c (or so), then from where did you get those 2ly???

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

The scenario is that the laser is at rest relative to the ship.

Also this won't never happen, if that laser is about to ever hit the space ship

[Origin]

Ok, so this is what I figured out from your desccription - I just made the velocity of space ship little less than c. Is this correct?

Assuming the yellow line is light and the blue line is the ship that is not right.  You have the ships starting point 2 ly from the origin for some reason.  The laser and the ship both are at the origin at t = 0.

The other major problem is you have no transforms to make your graphs!

This is not a mathematical transform:  X' = X - vt + (light doesn't follow these rules).

Edit to fix x and x'.

[Origin]

Still this doesn't make sense. If the laser is fired when space ship is passing next to Earth and that space ship moves at 0,99c (or so), then from where did you get those 2ly???

I was trying to make it easy by using rough numbers.  Actually the ship will be 31,536 km short of 2 ly after 2 years of travel using a speed of (c - 1 km/s) I stated, which is small enough to disregard.

[Origin]

Also this won't never happen, if that laser is about to ever hit the space ship

What?  Why would the laser hit the ship?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Ok, so this is what I figured out from your desccription - I just made the velocity of space ship little less than c. Is this correct?

Assuming the yellow line is light and the blue line is the ship that is not right.  You have the ships starting point 2 ly from the origin for some reason.  The laser and the ship both are at the origin at t = 0.

The other major problem is you have no transforms to make your graphs!

This is not a mathematical transform:  X' = X - vt + (light doesn't follow these rules).

Edit to fix x and x'.

I wanted to show just one frame - in this case the frame of Earth and the photoreceptor 4ly away. I think, that the best way would be, if you would make the diagram by yourself - here's the interactive diagram, which I'm using:
http://ibises.org.uk/Minkowski.html
It's pretty simple to use, so you should figure out how to do it...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Still this doesn't make sense. If the laser is fired when space ship is passing next to Earth and that space ship moves at 0,99c (or so), then from where did you get those 2ly???

I was trying to make it easy by using rough numbers.  Actually the ship will be 31,536 km short of 2 ly after 2 years of travel using a speed of (c - 1 km/s) I stated, which is small enough to disregard.

But how? If the ship is traveling at around 0,99c and the laser is being fired when that ship is passing right next to Earth, then there won't be such a number in this scenario....

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Also this won't never happen, if that laser is about to ever hit the space ship

What?  Why would the laser hit the ship?

It won't hit it, if it travels at 100%c - and in any other case light can't be stationary in the frame of ship

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Still this doesn't make sense. If the laser is fired when space ship is passing next to Earth and that space ship moves at 0,99c (or so), then from where did you get those 2ly???

I was trying to make it easy by using rough numbers.  Actually the ship will be 31,536 km short of 2 ly after 2 years of travel using a speed of (c - 1 km/s) I stated, which is small enough to disregard.

Ok, I think that I've got your point and I know where did you get those numbers from. Let us then compare the results predicted in both models of relativity (Einstein's and mine). Below is the scenario, as it is observed in the frame of Earth and the photoreceptor 4ly away from it (red worldlines represent Earth and the fotoreceptor, blue worldline is for the ship and yellow ones for the laser). I've made as well a small "upgrade" of the scenario and now in the frame of Earth at t=0 both the Earth and the photoreceptor (let's make it a space station) are simultaneously emitting lasers towards each other - this way things will be more interesting:

since the interactive diagram is not precise enough, let's assume, that at t=0 distance between Earth and the space ship is equal to 0,1ly :

at t=0 Earth and the space station emit lasers simultaneously
at around t=1,9 laser emitted from space station is passing next to space ship
at t=4 we have 3 simultaneous events:
-laser emitted from space station reaches Earth
-laser emitted from Earth is reaching the space station
-in the same time space ship is passing right next to the space station

***
Here is the frame of Earth and the space station, as it is predicted by my model of relativity

Here is the frame of space ship, as it is predicted by my model of relativity

at t=0 Earth and the space station emit lasers simultaneously
at t=0,1 laser emitted from Earth is reaching the space ship
at t=3,9 laser emitted from space station is reaching the space ship
at t=4 we have 3 simultaneous events:
-laser emitted from space station reaches Earth
-laser emitted from Earth is reaching the space station
-space ship is passing right next to the space station

***
And here is the frame of space ship, as it is predicted by SRT:

at t=-10 laser is emitted by the space station
at t=0 we have 2 simultaaneous events:
- laser is being emitted from Earth
- laser emitted from the space station is reaching the ship
at around t=0,9 we have 2 simultaneous events again:
- space ship is passing right next to the space station
- light emietted from Earth is reaching both the ship and the station
at t=10 laser emitted from the space station is reaching Earth

It seems, that both predictions have their own advantages and disadvantages. In my model at t=0 lasers are emitted simultaneously and at t=4 they are both reaching the receivers 4ly away. Problem is, that in the frame of space ship laser emitted from Earth is reaching it (at t=0,1) before it reaches the space station (at t=4) - while in the frame of Earth it should reach both of them simultaneously at t=4

In Einstein's model laser emitted from Earth is reaching the space station and the space ship simultaneously. Problem is however, that in the frame of space ship emissions are no longer simultaneous and lasers are reaching the Earth and the station at completely different times.

Ok, so now the question is: which of those predictions are the (more) valid ones? Sadly, as for today there's no way to validate any of this experimentally - so, we're left with just one option: we need to see which one of them is more logically consistent and generally more possible to actually occur in real-life. The best way to do it, is probably to see the level of disagreement as for the timeline of particular events, as they are observed in both frames.

Let's assume for a moment the possibility of instant communication between the Earth and the space station - but at the same time communication between them and the space ship is possible only when two objects are crossing the same point of space. I've extended slightly the worldlines of the Earth and the space ship, so they are now crossing each other at around t=-0,1 in the frame of Earth. I've also added another emission of light associated with the moment of their crossing:

And here's the frame of space ship according to my model:


And according to SRT:

And  this is where SRT breaks apart. Why?
1. When the space ship and the Earh are crossing one point of space, laser was already emitted by the space station (long time ago) for the space ship, but it still wasn't emitted for Earth
2. In the frame of space ship, light emitted by Earth during the crossing, is reaching the space station (at around t=-0,1) before the emission of laser is taking place on Earth (at t=0 in Earth's frame)  - but in the frame of that space station, this light is reaching it 3,9 years after this emission took place
3. In the frame of space station, laser emitted by that station (at t=0) is reaching Earth in the same moment when the space ship and the station are crossing one point of space (at t=4) - but in the frame of space ship, at the same moment the same laser still didn't reach Earth (and won't reach it for a loooooong time).

In comparisment - according to my model, laser emitted from Earth is reaching the space ship much earlier, than it reaches the station. However in the moment when space ship is right next to space station, both of them will agree, that this laser already reached them both in their own inertial frames

So, in my model the only disagreement is about the time at which laser is reaching the space ship - while in SRT space ship doesn't agree with the Earth and the station, if events still didn't or did already happen for each one of them...

I think, that in this case, my model makes predictions, which make much more sense. But since my opinion is probably biased - you'll be the judge...

[Origin]

I've made as well a small "upgrade" of the scenario and now in the frame of Earth at t=0 both the Earth and the photoreceptor (let's make it a space station) are simultaneously emitting lasers towards each other - this way things will be more interesting

Let's not make it 'interesting'.  I don't want to over complicate the example, the point of the discussion is to clearly and simply test your concept of relativity.  The goal here is to test your hypothesis as clearly and concisely as possible.
You also seem to have trouble understanding my proposal that the speed of the spaceship is almost c.  That is my fault and since the speed of the spaceship is not important, let's make the example simpler and say the spaceship is moving at .5c.
Here is my example and I hope it is clear to you:
There is a laser and a receiver both at rest with 4 ly separating them.  There is also spaceship that is traveling at .5c relative to the rest frame.  Here is a picture showing that.


explain1.JPG (10.45 kB . 600x300 - viewed 2690 times)

Here we show the spaceship as it flies by the laser.  Just as the ship reaches the laser the laser fires at the receiver.  We will designate this point (the ship passing the laser) as the origin of our coordinate system.  Here is the picture of that.


explain2.JPG (20.71 kB . 600x300 - viewed 2698 times)

Now we can draw a space time diagram for the 2 inertial frames.  Your relativity is based on Galilean relativity (t' = t and L' = L) and also states that the speed of light is c in all inertial frames.  Since t' = t, we can have all the clocks synchronized.

The first space time diagram is from the frame of the laser and the receiver.  This shows that the laser light would reach the receiver in 4 years and the spaceship would reach the receiver in 8 years.  This makes sense so far.


Laser frame.jpg (22.46 kB . 600x450 - viewed 9906 times)

The second space time diagram is from the frame of the spaceship, which means the ship remains at x = 0 and the receiver 'moves' towards the spaceship.  Since the speed of light is c in all inertial frames, that means the laser will move at c towards the receiver relative to the ship.  After approximately 2.7 years the light from the laser will reach the receiver.


ship frame.jpg (21.29 kB . 600x450 - viewed 4894 times)

There is obviously something wrong!  The light from the laser cannot arrive at the receiver at year 2.7 and year 4!  The reason for the discrepancy is because you arbitrarily put in the stipulation that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames without any mathematical reason.  In other words you allow light and only light to violate Galilean relativity.  It is no wonder the results don't make sense.

Please let me know if you think there is a mistake in this.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I've made as well a small "upgrade" of the scenario and now in the frame of Earth at t=0 both the Earth and the photoreceptor (let's make it a space station) are simultaneously emitting lasers towards each other - this way things will be more interesting

Let's not make it 'interesting'.  I don't want to over complicate the example, the point of the discussion is to clearly and simply test your concept of relativity.  The goal here is to test your hypothesis as clearly and concisely as possible.
You also seem to have trouble understanding my proposal that the speed of the spaceship is almost c.  That is my fault and since the speed of the spaceship is not important, let's make the example simpler and say the spaceship is moving at .5c.
Here is my example and I hope it is clear to you:
There is a laser and a receiver both at rest with 4 ly separating them.  There is also spaceship that is traveling at .5c relative to the rest frame.  Here is a picture showing that.


explain1.JPG (10.45 kB . 600x300 - viewed 2690 times)

Here we show the spaceship as it flies by the laser.  Just as the ship reaches the laser the laser fires at the receiver.  We will designate this point (the ship passing the laser) as the origin of our coordinate system.  Here is the picture of that.


explain2.JPG (20.71 kB . 600x300 - viewed 2698 times)

Now we can draw a space time diagram for the 2 inertial frames.  Your relativity is based on Galilean relativity (t' = t and L' = L) and also states that the speed of light is c in all inertial frames.  Since t' = t, we can have all the clocks synchronized.

The first space time diagram is from the frame of the laser and the receiver.  This shows that the laser light would reach the receiver in 4 years and the spaceship would reach the receiver in 8 years.  This makes sense so far.


Laser frame.jpg (22.46 kB . 600x450 - viewed 9906 times)

The second space time diagram is from the frame of the spaceship, which means the ship remains at x = 0 and the receiver 'moves' towards the spaceship.  Since the speed of light is c in all inertial frames, that means the laser will move at c towards the receiver relative to the ship.  After approximately 2.7 years the light from the laser will reach the receiver.


ship frame.jpg (21.29 kB . 600x450 - viewed 4894 times)

There is obviously something wrong!  The light from the laser cannot arrive at the receiver at year 2.7 and year 4!  The reason for the discrepancy is because you arbitrarily put in the stipulation that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames without any mathematical reason.  In other words you allow light and only light to violate Galilean relativity.  It is no wonder the results don't make sense.

Please let me know if you think there is a mistake in this.

I don't understand your confusion... Stationary source of light has an invalid view of the frame of a moving receiver. Valid results are those observed in the inertial frame of that receiver - light emitted 4ly away from it will always reach it 4y later (t=4):

To represent it on the diagram for inertial frame of space ship, you simply boost the light cone according to the relative velocity of the receiver:

Invalid? Not at all - constant c is always maintained in each case of two-directiconal motion:



Speed of light is constant in each inertial frame what makes it specific for it.  And that's it - it couldn't be more simple. And yet no one didn't figure it out before.

[Origin]

I don't understand your confusion... Stationary source of light has an invalid view on the frame of a moving receiver.

As I clearly stated the laser and the receiver are stationary with respect to each other. 

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I don't understand your confusion... Stationary source of light has an invalid view on the frame of a moving receiver.

As I clearly stated the laser and the receiver are stationary with respect to each other.

So? It doesn't matter. Here you have (added second blue worldline at x=0)

[Origin]

So? It doesn't matter. Here you have (added second blue worldline at x=0)

No, you have added a blue line.  Presumably the world line of the laser, which changes nothing.

[Origin]

The issue is that in the ship's frame the light will reach the the receiver in about 2.7 years instead of 4 years.  If you decide to add lines to the graph, please label them.

ship frame.jpg (21.29 kB . 600x450 - viewed 2636 times)

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

The issue is that in the ship's frame the light will reach the the receiver in about 2.7 years instead of 4 years.  If you decide to add lines to the graph, please label them.

ship frame.jpg (21.29 kB . 600x450 - viewed 2636 times)

So what? His view of a moving frame is distorted and invalid by default...

[Origin]

So what? His view of a moving frame is distorted and invalid by default...

Why?  Because this gives a result you don't like?

Could you please cite your source that says there are certain inertial frames where relativity is invalid.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

So what? His view of a moving frame is distorted and invalid by default...

Why?  Because this gives a result you don't like?

No. Because it's a well known scientific fact, that moving things appear distorted for a stationary observer

Could you please cite your source that says there are certain inertial frames where relativity is invalid.

In my model ALL inertial frames ARE valid. Moving frames are the invalid ones

[Origin]

No. Because it's a well known scientific fact, that moving things appear distorted for a stationary observer

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the thought experiment in my example.

In my model ALL inertial frames ARE valid. Moving frames are the invalid ones

What are you talking about?  Every single inertial frame is a moving frame relative to another inertial frame.

I have presented 2 scenarios that based on your hypothesis give impossible results.  In the most recent scenario I have given you 2 space time diagrams to clearly show that your hypothesis is incorrect.  Are you claiming the space time diagrams were wrong?  If so please point out exactly where there is an error and we can discuss it. 
If the diagrams are correct, then your hypothesis is incorrect.  At that point you could admit that your hypothesis is wrong, which means you are still doing science or you could ignore the things that show your hypothesis is wrong in which case you will be doing pseudoscience.  I hope you pick science.