steve waterman wrote:Schrollini,

What would really be superb!

Let the applet have three rogue receivers, that can be (x,y,z) user inputted.

Have the rogues transmit green circles as if they all part of a detector C.

We do not need to show a detector C, nor any numerical values at all for it. The visuals alone will be quite fine.

"Any random set of three observers will also work!'

Implementation of the rogues would hopefully facilitate the verbal discussion.

And what the hell would this be good for? What would the rogue receivers show?

And why are _receivers_ _emitting_ something anyway?

will a second observer of the same design, moving relative to the first, come up with the same set of coordinates. The applets show they will not

which same design? Relativity's or the intersecting circles?

Two observers that are all alike - each consisting of three sensors that record the time of receipt of the signal.

I COMPARE the red circles and blue circles that ALWAYS runback to THE same POINT, even when V >0.

Well of course, they are looking at the same event. They only have different coordinates for it. Remember how a point could have the coordinates (2,0,0) in system A and the coordinates (-1,0,0) in system B? An event likewise can have different space-time coordinates in one system and in another system. The transformation between them is not Galilean (simply add/substract a constant to/from x), it's the Lorentz transformation - factors are involved. And one of the coordinates is time, and the time coordinate also changes during the Lorentz transformation, not just the other three coordinates that are for the three directions in space.

steve waterman wrote:The applets of my desire has zero percent to do with what Relativity does.

MY applet

1 has one origin

2 has one clock

3 has fixed points wrt the origin

4 has fuck all to do with anything related to Relativity.

5 determines the transmission site and transmission time

Oh, that's easy! Just use the existing applet and only look at the red observer, ignore the blue observer. That way you have just one origin, one clock, not sure what you mean with fixed points, it has fuck all to do with Relativity and obviously it still determines the transmission site and transmission time, just like when you look at both the red and the blue observer. Does this make you happy?

read everything twice, with my poor eyesight.

Yes, please, read everything twice, with your poor eyesight. This will save you from

- misunderstanding

- replying nonsense

- getting lots of replies that tell you it's nonsense

- having to read those replies.

So it helps your eyes to read everything twice.

Then compose a post to 7 posters in one post with 7 different mind-sets, and be damn sure to get the tags right and try not to lose your post or add to the end.

I tend to say that when you reply to different posts, especially if they are from different people, it's okay to make separate posts, even two in a row. It increases readability. The mods may disagree. The mods don't seem to care about this thread, luckily. I have already posted twice in a row in this thread.

Does the applet work to determine the transmission site and time of a transmission;

as the common intersection point for both the circle method and the hyperbola method,

even when v = > 0 ?

Why do you need two methods? If one method shows that the order depends on the reference frame (in some cases), then the other method will show the same. Both methods will determine the exact same (space-time) coordinates for the event.

steve waterman wrote:I wanted the good old "what if" mindset allowed/tried out. Let's try an applet that does not use relativity at all, what happens?

I figured, that if I COULD prove that the unique transmission sequence existed, then I would let the relativity chips fall were they may.

That's circular logic. You are doing:

If there is no Relativity => then we have a unique transmission sequence => then there is no Relativity

We totally agree with you on the first part!

"If there is no Relativity => then we have a unique transmission sequence" - this is obviously right.

If there is no Relativity, meaning that c is not the same in all reference frames, i.e. light on a plane moving at speed v actually moves at c+v relative to the ground, and therefore Galilean transformation is sufficient to calculate coordinates in different reference frames from each other, then we would in fact have a universal time and a unique transmission sequence.

What would this prove about Relativity? Absolutely nothing, or "zip" as you like saying. You assumed that there is no Relativity. So you can't use this to prove that there is no Relativity.

I am making a mathematical observation wrt a Cartesian coordinate system.

We agree with your observation with respect to a Cartesian coordinate system (I know by this you mean what I write above, c is not the same in all reference frames, light on trains moves at c+v, coordinate transformation between events happens via simple Galilean, not via Lorentz). In that case there would be a universal time and a unique transmission sequence. None of this has anything to do with reality.

At low speeds (you know the kind of speeds we generally experience of not more than a couple of hundred kilometers or miles an hour) this is a good approximation of reality, though. We will excuse poor Newton for not having noticed that it cannot work at higher speeds. We will not excuse you, though.

Look! Let's see what happens if we extended the observer count to more than two for a single transmission.

Nothing. We are not suffering from a lack of information. If a certain number of sensors determine the coordinates of an event to be (2.38, 1, 2, 0), how could a higher number of sensors possibly determine different coordinates?

Tell me! Inquiring minds want to know.

steve waterman wrote:Do you agree that the ONE UNIQUE transmission sequence DOES exist under a math only, one Cartesian system, more than two receiver setting?

Sure, in what you call a Cartesian math only system, and others call the classical system, Newtonian physics or Galilean Relativity, everybody and their brother and their dog agree that there is one unique transmission system. Nobody has ever doubted that. Stop pretending we doubt it.

Stop asking for applets that prove that statement, because they are a waste of time, because everyone has always agreed with it.

In the real world, you know the one with Relativity and Lorentz transformation and time dilation and length contraction and c being the same in all reference frames we unfortunately do not have a universal time and we do not always have a unique transmission sequence. More precisely spacelike separated events do not have a unique transmission sequence.