Recent content by DmitryS

I never thought of that algebra from this perspective, that you could actually set it as an experiment with light.

You really don't see the difference between "deriving the LT from the invariance of the speed of light" and "deriving the LT from Einstein's setup"? And please, don't bring up that wasting somebody's time thing again. I hope participation in this forum is not mandatory. I wouldn't take offence...

That's something, thanks.

Thank you very much for talking to the point, but there's a problem. I cannot see where ##\phi(v)## denotes ##\frac{a}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}## Maybe you refer to a different edition, or a later issue of the article? As far as I can see, in the article at my link it is universally ##\phi(v) = a##...

But I do understand it! I'm not after that!

To prove your own words, "Those are intermediate variables. He ends up with the LT further on in the paper". To prove that Einstein's model of 1905 leads to LT, and that there's an actual derivation of the LT in 1905. Instead, you provide a link to another source with the LT derivation - I...

I don't mind you asking anything as long as we remain within the protocol of mutual respect. I think I made my point abundantly clear from the start. I find the Lorentz mathematics very much consistent, but I don't like the idea of the physical evidence of relative simultaneity. It seems to me a...

I don't agree that he assumes what you say, or rather, that he only assumes what you say, but let that be for a moment. Basically, as I was saying, the starting point of his derivation is the same setup as that of the simultaneity test. I already posted the screenshot. And that setup leads to...

It isn't the center. I'm talking about lightnings. If the light of both lightnings meets at the same time at the place where the observer on the embankment is, then it is a single event. If it is a single event, it must be a single event in the train frame. I agree it's not the centre of the...

PeroK said that if something happens in one point of spacetime, that's an event that must exist in any frame of reference. I agree to this, because this is in line with the LT - and that means that inside the train frame of reference there must be a point where the light from both lightnings...

I don't have this impression from reading Einstein. To make sure we are talking about the same thing -- what's the blueprint of Einstein's derivation of LT in your opinion?

And here, I am afraid, you contradict the facts. And so on, and so forth. It is with basically the same idea as lies behind the simultaneity test Einstein is deriving the Lorentz transforms. It's from his 1905 article. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

I beg your pardon. I didn't quite follow what you were saying - I was in the one-to-one conversation mostly, and thought you were tracking it. Yes, that was my point from the start! I'm not happy with these thought experiments at all. So, you agree that they are an unwanted burden? But others...

All I am asking is, can you actually derive LT from relative simultaneity test without assumption that the LT must be the correct transformation?

Thank you very much for bringing this up! it's exactly what's worrying me. It seems that even as we stage the thought experiments, we already know that the relative simultaneity is there. The setup of the experiment already has it. So, this is either the circular argument, or all those thought...