Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Oh my God!
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 19:24:31 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <6867f373a4258380db55b48d0a440d90@www.novabbs.com>
References: <Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp> <vd0ojs$3l9ep$1@dont-email.me> <llkd25FlhobU6@mid.individual.net> <ZoXepwEI4CdYzUI6TGjcOT0vC0Q@jntp> <llpubiFgheaU8@mid.individual.net> <Zq1pHnYCgAwr5qC37tYAjjYmORY@jntp> <c343b16e27e0220d0b586aadaac601bb@www.novabbs.com> <38a724f9aa7028dc455f71fda36abdb8@www.novabbs.com> <ad8212d173bdfb8447f337e7cbc13dda@novabbs.com> <1ea43eb5545f362bbcdb802e857bb126@www.novabbs.com> <ed8708d5473172c7f8fb0799eb5753a1@www.novabbs.com> <a7c57e3f538be43cae943e94dff13256@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="143676"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="Ooch2ht+q3xfrepY75FKkEEx2SPWDQTvfft66HacveI";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 504a4e36a1e6a0679da537f565a179f60d7acbd8
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$nuCJEK0qhKROjMqWllAQu.PZe3oebWXdEhE38pdgGd7.muTUBLsVm
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3633
Lines: 46

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:47:16 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

> And you haven't acknowledged your confusion about what frame
> is the "stationary" one in the right and left figures.  Just
> proclaiming a frame as stationary doesn't make it so, particularly
> when you draw its time axis skewed.

I have told you several times that I am designating the S' as
stationary, in addition to plainly stating that fact in my drawing.

Our frame, the S frame, is moving. To simplify the figures, I have
not drawn the S axes, which are orthogonal. The S' axes are skewed
because I am mapping events in S' to our coordinate system, where
our S coordinate system is moving relative to the S' coordinate
system at speeds -0.1c, 0c, and +0.1c.

> Prok, I have shown that you completely misunderstood my thesis
> whereas the reviewer of DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 did not
> or he would have rejected it.  Rather than acknowledge your
> error and try to understand, you launch another baseless attack
> because of your confusion about what v means.  It is the speed
> that D must send the signal (Event E1) so it arrives when C and
> A are adjacent (E2).  Furthermore, A must send a signal to B
> when B is adjacent to D.  Your figures are only half of the full
> problem, and they do NOT describe my "proposal."  They are your
> imaginings.  If you want to discuss my thesis, then use my
> figures (4 and 5, particularly).  Yours are straw men.
>
> And you haven't acknowledged your confusion about what frame
> is the "stationary" one in the right and left figures.  Just
> proclaiming a frame as stationary doesn't make it so, particularly
> when you draw its time axis skewed.

There is only one person here who is confused, and that is YOU.

In the S' frame, an infinite speed tachyonic signal is emitted from
(x',t') = (D,0) and is received in zero time at (x',t') = (C,0)

That is zero time as measured in the S' frame.

The emission and receipt events are concurrently monitored by
observers in three "S" frames, where the "S" frames are moving
relative to the S' frame at speeds -0.1c, 0c, and +0.1c, and so
forth.

In general, observers in the "S" frames do not consider the signals
as traveling from D to C in zero time.