As frame A's measurement of what? Speed of light relative to an object at rest in A, or relative to the object at rest in B? I am presuming the latter with this statement:David Cooper wrote: ↑September 11th, 2018, 8:19 pm(Remember too that this whole thought experiment is only needed to show people that the rules of frames work the way I say they do on one crucial point - that you aren't allowed to pass off frame B measurements of the speed of light relative to objects at rest in frame B as frame A measurements.
Relativity does not assert otherwise. The object would be measured as moving in frame A, and thus the measured relative speed in that frame would be dependent on both the measured direction of light and the measured direction of object movement.
Apparently that's a crime, but SR would only be inconsistent if it asserted that measured relative speeds between objects is not frame dependent. Fancy examples like Sagnac are not necessary. Two rocks have different measured speeds relative to each other in different frames. LET also acknowledges this, but somehow LET is not wrong when it says the same thing.That's all it's for, so there shouldn't be any need to spend a lot of time exploring it if you aren't guilty of that crime.
This rambling sentence asserts faults in SR but doesn't point them out, especially since SR predicts Sagnac effect. Not sure what rule you're talking about. SR would accept the wording you used above, which was labeled a 'crucial point'.The way SR is disproved is the way that all the models that are recognised as SR have faults which invalidate them, and Sagnac/MGP's role is in providing proof that my thought experiment is valid, which in turn proves that frames work by the rules I claim of them, which proves that SR generates contradictions which invalidate some models of it (while the remaining SR models are invalidated in other ways).
You have exhibited pretty much zero understanding of other models. This statement is a classic example. It even denies the straw man accusation as it makes one: that the model "reduces all paths to zero length". You have a picture of the model in your web page, and I notice path lengths are not zero.There's no straw man there - there's no point in pretending there's a speed of light involved if it reduces all paths to zero length. There is only a speed of light in 3D models.
Again you leave off the frame references when you want to make a point, knowing that it makes your statement sound contradictory instead of just deliberately misleading. SR does not claim what you say. It claims that it will be measured thus in respective frames where each clock is slower than the other. LET asserts the same thing.Indeed - that is not a contradiction at all. It only becomes a contradiction in cases where a clock is claimed to be ticking faster than another clock that is claimed to be ticking faster than the first and when both are asserted to be true
What law of logic would be violated by A faster than B relative to one frame, and B faster than A relative to another? Never mind the measurement business. By what valid law of logic is this a contradiction? A you perhaps invoking law of non-contradiction in an invalid way? Or is it something else? You seem to accept an object having different speeds relative to different frames, but a second example has you crying contradiction. This seems like classic confirmation bias. You accept facts that seem to support your view, but find nearly similar facts to be nonsense if you feel it threatens your view. If we really get close to pointing out your errors, then the accusations of 'magic' and 'dogma' come forth. I must be doing something right because I've driven you to that point on a number of occasions.
No model claims that. This presumes an interpretation where there is a current state of the universe and all events are in exactly one of a category of (happened, happening, and will-happen), and only the happening events are real. Only in this interpretation would it be found contradictory for an event to be in two or all three of those states due to a contradiction with the premise that it is in one one from the list. Yes, in this interpretation, only one probably non-inertial 1) preferred frame coupled with a 2) preferred moment would define the separation of all events into those three categories. I know of no scientific theory that asserts the second premise: that of a preferred moment. It certainly is absent from Lorentz's theories. The theories don't deny it either, but they deny its detectability.or where an event is claimed to have happened by one frame and claimed not to have happened yet by another and when both claims are asserted to be true.
So when I say no valid model claims that, I mean interpretations with the premise of there being a preferred moment do not claim that other events have both happened and not happened. This is why your mode 2 doesn't depict any known valid interpretation since it is contradictory exactly for the reasons you state. Interpretations without the premise of there being a preferred moment do not have a concept of those three states, and any reference to the states is meaningless mixing of models, not contradictory.
You deny that you do this mixing of interpretations, but I'm trying to be quite explicit about pointing out where you very much do.
Ooohh... I scored two more dogma's! I must be making progress if your argument resorts to this. No invocation of magic? I was hoping to up my count on that one as well.while all the mis-educators should be told in no uncertain terms that they need to disown SR's metaphysics (the irrational dogma) and stop trying to force it on everyone. I see a major mismatch between the real world in which the dogma is pushed relentlessly and the way you're presenting SR.