[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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.

It has everything to do with your 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.

Yes. But the only valid results are the one observed by receiver in HIS 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.

And you obviously are unable to understand the difference between moving and inertial frames. I don't know if you noticed, but you're the only one here, who can't understand the basic principles in my model

[jeffreyH]

Origin is trying to help you out of the hole you are digging for yourself and therefore should be commended for the effort. You, on the other hand, obstinately refuse to admit you are wrong. That is what children do before they grow up. Would you like a lollipop?

[Origin]

It has everything to do with your example.

Nope.

Yes. But the only valid results are the one observed by receiver in HIS inertial frame

Nope.

And you obviously are unable to understand the difference between moving and inertial frames.

A frame that is moving at a constant speed is what an inertial frame is!

I don't know if you noticed, but you're the only one here, who can't understand the basic principles in my model

What I noticed is that you have realized (at some level) that your idea is wrong, but you won't admit it.  Apparently you would rather live the fantasy that you have made an amazing scientific discovery.  Seems like a waste of time to me

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

It has everything to do with your example.

Nope.

Yep

Yes. But the only valid results are the one observed by receiver in HIS inertial frame

Nope.

Yep

And you obviously are unable to understand the difference between moving and inertial frames.

A frame that is moving at a constant speed is what an inertial frame is!

Let me help you

Inertial frame of receiver: valid result


Moving frame of receiver: invalid result

I don't know if you noticed, but you're the only one here, who can't understand the basic principles in my model

What I noticed is that you have realized (at some level) that your idea is wrong, but you won't admit it.  Apparently you would rather live the fantasy that you have made an amazing scientific discovery.  Seems like a waste of time to me

Then won't waste your time any more, because to me it seems, that you're not the brightest star on the nightsky. I spoke with smarter people on this forum and i seems, that in the difference to you, they were smart enough, to understand the basic mechanics of my model...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Origin is trying to help you out of the hole you are digging for yourself and therefore should be commended for the effort. You, on the other hand, obstinately refuse to admit you are wrong. That is what children do before they grow up. Would you like a lollipop?

I will admit being wrong, when my predictions will be refuted by experiments or real-life obsrvations - and as for now, nothing like this happened. As for now, my predictions seem to make much more logical sense, than those predicted by SRT

[jeffreyH]

Origin is trying to help you out of the hole you are digging for yourself and therefore should be commended for the effort. You, on the other hand, obstinately refuse to admit you are wrong. That is what children do before they grow up. Would you like a lollipop?

I will admit being wrong, when my predictions will be refuted by experiments or real-life obsrvations - and as for now, nothing like this happened. As for now, my predictions seem to make much more logical sense, than those predicted by SRT

You are not a genius with some revolutionary idea that will change science. You are sitting at a computer, anonymously pestering members of a science forum. Can't you find regular employment?

[Origin]

Let me help you

OK

Inertial frame of receiver: valid result

Laser frame.jpg (22.46 kB . 600x450 - viewed 4781 times)
This is from the reference frame of the laser and receiver(the inertial frame as you call it).  So in this space time diagram it shows the receiver at rest and the space ship in motion.

Moving frame of receiver: invalid result

ship frame.jpg (21.29 kB . 600x450 - viewed 2799 times)
This is from the reference frame of the spaceship (the inertial frame as you call it).  So in this space time diagram it shows the spaceship at rest and the receiver in motion.

So why is the second space time diagram 'invalid'?  In the first space time diagram the receiver is at rest and the ship is in motion and in the second space time diagram the ship is at rest and the receiver is in motion.  This exactly the way to represent the 2 frames.

A space time diagram is not invalid simply because you don't like the result.  For it to be invalid there needs to be an actual physical reason. 

Again, in the first diagram the ship is moving and in the second diagram the receiver is moving.  Do you think there is some sort of problem with that?

Then won't waste your time any more, because to me it seems, that you're not the brightest star on the nightsky. I spoke with smarter people on this forum and i seems, that in the difference to you, they were smart enough, to understand the basic mechanics of my model...

Insulting me does not in any way strengthen your position.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

So why is the second space time diagram 'invalid'?  In the first space time diagram the receiver is at rest and the ship is in motion and in the second space time diagram the ship is at rest and the receiver is in motion.  This exactly the way to represent the 2 frames.

It is invalid because:
1. moving frame of the receiver is distorted due to it's motion
2. speed of light is immeasurable i one-directional motion and the space ship can't know the time at which light is reaching the receivcer without getting that information from the receiver (what leads to two-dirctional motion path for light)

[Origin]

It is invalid because:
1. moving frame of the receiver is distorted due to it's motion

So that would mean in the frame of the receiver that the moving frame of the spaceship is distorted due to it's motion.  So based on that, both space time diagrams are invalid!  You can't have it both ways.  If it's invalid in one frame it's invalid in the other.

speed of light is immeasurable i one-directional motion and the space ship can't know the time at which light is reaching the receivcer without getting that information from the receiver (what leads to two-dirctional motion path for light)

There is absolutely no reason or attempt to measure the speed of light in the example.  We know based on your postulate that the speed of light is c in all frames.  The diagrams are a accurate depiction of your postulates, no need to measure the speed of light in either frame.  In the first diagram the light takes 4 years to reach the receiver and in the second diagram the light takes 2.7 years.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Here's the proper solution for two-diretional motion of light according to my model:

Sorry for me being rude, but I really don't like to repeat myself over and over again...

I have it both ways and those diagrams should explain everything. I really feel, like I would be talking with a 10yo kid...

[Origin]

Sorry for me being rude, but I really don't like to repeat myself over and over again...

Then stop repeating incorrect information.
In the second diagram the green line (please label your additions) which presumably is the light beam, travels 2 light years in 4 years.  That obviously means that the light was traveling at .5c, so that means the second diagram violates your own postulates.  That's a rather large problem.

I have it both ways and those diagrams should explain everything.

Sorry, the explanation is not logical using your postulates.

I really feel, like I would be talking with a 10yo kid...

There is no need for personal attacks.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Sorry for me being rude, but I really don't like to repeat myself over and over again...

Then stop repeating incorrect information.
In the second diagram the green line (please label your additions) which presumably is the light beam, travels 2 light years in 4 years.  That obviously means that the light was traveling at .5c, so that means the second diagram violates your own postulates.  That's a rather large problem.

I have it both ways and those diagrams should explain everything.

Sorry, the explanation is not logical using your postulates.

I really feel, like I would be talking with a 10yo kid...

There is no need for personal attacks.

The problem is, that you just seem to be unable to  understand basic facts about the constant speed of light. For example you write:

There is absolutely no reason or attempt to measure the speed of light in the example.  We know based on your postulate that the speed of light is c in all frames.  The diagrams are a accurate depiction of your postulates, no need to measure the speed of light in either frame.  In the first diagram the light takes 4 years to reach the receiver and in the second diagram the light takes 2.7 years.

And you don't understand, that to know the time at which light reaches the moving sensor, you actually have to measure it's speed

[Origin]

I can't help but notice that you never actually answer any of my questions.  Like you have completely ignored my question as to why in your last diagram you have the speed of light at 0.5c.  That violates your postulates!  I think this is a rather important question to answer.

The problem is, that you just seem to be unable to  understand basic facts about the constant speed of light.

Nope, I get it just fine.

And you don't understand, that to know the time at which light reaches the moving sensor, you actually have to measure it's speed

That statement is wrong for 2 reasons:
1.  Your postulate states that the speed of light is c in all reference frames.  In other words it is not possible that the speed of light is not c.  There is no need to measure it, it is always c.
2.  All the clocks tick at the same rate regardless of their inertial frame in your relativity.  So before the experiment we synchronize the clocks.  That means when the laser fires we can write down the date and time and when the laser hits the receiver somebody at the receiver station can give us a call and tell us the time and date it arrived.  All we have to do is compare these 2 times.

But you don't need to really worry about any of that, because you can just draw a space time diagram and see that your relativity does not work.

I am anxiously awaiting your answer as to why you drew the speed of light at 0.5c on your last diagram.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

That statement is wrong for 2 reasons:
1.  Your postulate states that the speed of light is c in all reference frames.  In other words it is not possible that the speed of light is not c.  There is no need to measure it, it is always c.

No. My postulate is that: c is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame.

It IS constant in relation to the receiver in it's inerial frame

It is NOT constant in relation to a moving receiver

2.  All the clocks tick at the same rate regardless of their inertial frame in your relativity.  So before the experiment we synchronize the clocks.  That means when the laser fires we can write down the date and time and when the laser hits the receiver somebody at the receiver station can give us a call and tell us the time and date it arrived.  All we have to do is compare these 2 times.

Yes - this is called two-directional transfer of information. Space ship has to ASK the receiver at which time the laser reached it. That's what I'm telling you all the time

And when asked the receiver will give those rsults:

Which were observed in it's own inertial frame: light remitted 4ly away from it, reached it after 4 years.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I am anxiously awaiting your answer as to why you drew the speed of light at 0.5c on your last diagram.

this is why:

My postulate is that: c is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame.

It IS constant in relation to the receiver in it's inerial frame

It is NOT constant in relation to a moving receiver

[Origin]

No. My postulate is that: c is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame.

By definition every observer can only be in their own frame.

It IS constant in relation to the receiver in it's inerial frame
It is NOT constant in relation to a moving receiver

Sorry but that means not every observer (in their own frame of course) will say the speed of light is c.

I see you are still not answering my question I asked.
I asked, "Why did you draw the speed of light at 0.5c on your diagram in post #169".
You answered:

Why? Because constant c is immeasurable in one direction.... I'm telling this for 100'th time already

Seriously, the speed of light is 0.5c because you can't measure the speed of light.  In what universe does this make sense?

Listen closely, YOU drew the speed of light as 0.5 c in the space time diagram in frame of the spaceship.  That means the speed of light in that frame is not always c.  For the love of god, don't tell me its because you can't measure the speed of light!  If that was true all you could say is the speed is unknown.  You didn't say it was unkown, you said it was 0.5c.  It's really very simple, in the reference frame of the ship you said th speed of light is not c.  That means your postulate that the speed of light is constant in all frames is incorrect.
You can wave your arms all you want and obfuscate all you want, I will simply show you your space time diagram that shows the speed of light is not c in the frame of the ship.

[Origin]

I see that you edited your post so your reply to my question is not there so I will respond to what is there now.
I asked, "Why did you draw the speed of light at 0.5c on your diagram in post #169".
So your reply is:

My postulate is that: c is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame.

It IS constant in relation to the receiver in it's inerial frame

Let's review what an inertial frame is.  An inertial frame is any frame that is not accelerating.
Neither frame in my example is accelerating, so whatever the point of view of whatever frame you look at it will be an inertial frame.

The spaceship is in its own inertial frame in my example, and yet on the space time diagram of the spaceships frame you had the speed of light at 0.5 c

It is NOT constant in relation to a moving receiver

I really don't know what you are talking about.  When comparing reference frames one of them will ALWAYS be moving relative to the other.

[jeffreyH]

@CrazyScientist You refuse to admit to not understanding relativity, when you clearly don't. You make illogical assertions and stubbornly defend them. That is very troll-like behaviour. Are you going to start addressing the points that people are putting to you or will you continue to act like a troll?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

No. My postulate is that: c is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame.

By definition every observer can only be in their own frame.

No. A frame, where observer is moving is not his frame

It IS constant in relation to the receiver in it's inerial frame
It is NOT constant in relation to a moving receiver

Sorry but that means not every observer (in their own frame of course) will say the speed of light is c.

Yes - but in relation to him and not to a moving frame
I see you are still not answering my question I asked.
I asked, "Why did you draw the speed of light at 0.5c on your diagram in post #169".
You answered:

Why? Because constant c is immeasurable in one direction.... I'm telling this for 100'th time already

Seriously, the speed of light is 0.5c because you can't measure the speed of light.  In what universe does this make sense?

Because you can't measure the speed of light in one-directional motion. This means, that you have to "ask" the receiver at which time the light reached it - and if that light was emitted 4ly away from that receiver, it wil "tell", that light reached it 4 years after emission

Listen closely, YOU drew the speed of light as 0.5 c in the space time diagram in frame of the spaceship.  That means the speed of light in that frame is not always c.  For the love of god, don't tell me its because you can't measure the speed of light!  If that was true all you could say is the speed is unknown.  You didn't say it was unkown, you said it was 0.5c.  It's really very simple, in the reference frame of the ship you said th speed of light is not c.  That means your postulate that the speed of light is constant in all frames is incorrect.

I didn't say it is constant in relation to all frames. I said, that it's constant in relation to observer in his own inertial frame

You can wave your arms all you want and obfuscate all you want, I will simply show you your space time diagram that shows the speed of light is not c in the frame of the ship.

Sure - you can show it to me. I did it, so I know, what it represents. Yes - I boosted the light according to the velocity of receiver (0,5c) - and now 0,5c + 0,5c makes 1c, which is observed in the rest frame of that receiver

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Let's review what an inertial frame is.  An inertial frame is any frame that is not accelerating.
Neither frame in my example is accelerating, so whatever the point of view of whatever frame you look at it will be an inertial frame.

No. Frame in which the receiver is moving is not the inertial frame of that receiver.

The spaceship is in its own inertial frame in my example, and yet on the space time diagram of the spaceships frame you had the speed of light at 0.5 c

Yes - because speed of light in relation to the MOVING receiver is not constant. It is constant in relation to the reeiver in it's own inertial frame, where it remains at rest.

I really don't know what you are talking about.  When comparing reference frames one of them will ALWAYS be moving relative to the other.

YES. And in my model speed of light is constant in relation to the STATIONARY one and is NOT constant inrelation to the MOVING one