## Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x-d?

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

Thanks for the recent posts.

Basically, I am out to prove that
with one universal coordinate system, say the (0,0,0) is Earth where 0 degrees longitude meets 0 degrees latitude
and one universal time, say midnight GMT, year 2000, that an event time can be determined wrt the universal time...using any 4 sensors.

Then we allow another event to occur at some other time, and we use any random set of 4 sensors to determine the universal time for that event.

If we compare the determined universal times...we can determine which event occurred first and which was second or if they happened at the same universal time.

So, this is NOT about COMPARING two reference frame results or about there being two origins. This is about a universal time and a universal coordinate system having only one assgned (0,0,0) location.

Note, that absolutely any location could be selected for this (0,0,0) physically. Note too, that this also ignores time zones where one can change move time 24 hours ahead or 24 backwards by moving an inch along the International Date Line. Time zones are merely a human convenience.

So, the location I picked for (0,0,0) could have been anyplace in the universe, If you do not like my choice, simply pick another specific POINT location. If you do not like my reference time, then pick say, 0 A.D. on January 1, at exactly 1:14 A.M. or say the year 2525, June 8th at 12:35 and 43.21679 seconds EST and say some exact spot/point on Jupiter as your own personal (0,0,0) for you universal set up.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

What is Universal time?
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?

steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

yurell wrote:What is Universal time?

When it is now at some point/place/location, the rest of the universe share that same exact time/now...whatever time was assigned to that location.

That is when it is now at Noon at say some location on the Moon, then everyplace also share that SAME now/time/noon simultaneously. It is Noon 10 billion light years from the Moon too, when it is Noon on that place on the Moon. This was the way all the world thought when Newton was alive. I suspect that he painted a better description than I have just rendered.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

Oh, so we're treating the entire Universe as Newtonian (that is, ignoring spec. & gen. rel, and the postulates that define them)? I didn't notice that earlier, sorry.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?

Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:So, the location I picked for (0,0,0) could have been anyplace in the universe, If you do not like my choice, simply pick another specific POINT location. If you do not like my reference time, then pick say, 0 A.D. on January 1, at exactly 1:14 A.M. or say the year 2525, June 8th at 12:35 and 43.21679 seconds EST and say some exact spot/point on Jupiter as your own personal (0,0,0) for you universal set up.

But you've left out, once again, the most important point. Not only do I get to pick my own origin for my universal time, I get to pick my velocity relative to your universal coordinate system. So while everyone will agree that event A precedes event B in Steve's Universal Time, everyone will also agree that event B precedes event A in Schrollini's Universal time. (I'm assuming here that A and B are spacelike separated.) This means that calling either of these times "universal" is incredibly stupid. Instead, we should call them "particular" times.
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

Schrollini wrote:
steve waterman wrote:So, the location I picked for (0,0,0) could have been anyplace in the universe, If you do not like my choice, simply pick another specific POINT location. If you do not like my reference time, then pick say, 0 A.D. on January 1, at exactly 1:14 A.M. or say the year 2525, June 8th at 12:35 and 43.21679 seconds EST and say some exact spot/point on Jupiter as your own personal (0,0,0) for you universal set up.

But you've left out, once again, the most important point. Not only do I get to pick my own origin for my universal time, I get to pick my velocity relative to your universal coordinate system. So while everyone will agree that event A precedes event B in Steve's Universal Time, everyone will also agree that event B precedes event A in Schrollini's Universal time. (I'm assuming here that A and B are spacelike separated.) This means that calling either of these times "universal" is incredibly stupid. Instead, we should call them "particular" times.

I keep stating this, which is certainly critical to my logic. At the exact moment of receipt, the sensor IS at some exact location. I do not care what a sensor's velocity is either the moments before receipt nor the moments after receipt.
The sensor for that one moment can mathematically be considered to be zero, as we are dealing with just ONE point and a minimum of at least two points are required to possible determine velocity. I really should repeat this a few times and place it is caps and use extreme print size. I grasp that this will be hugely difficult for people to accept.

I totally understand why xkcd thinks I am wrong and that I am not listening. Without this particular logic/understanding/conjecture then I would have crap and would be talking out of my ass. So, I will likely need to keep stating this premise again in every future post. I see absolutely no way that I will change my mind about this. xckd is invited to try but I doubt I will ever agree to change my logic as I grasp this concept now. I do not mean to seem arrogant or closed-minded, only to expose my stance. I will need to hear sufficient counter-logic to change my conjecture/premise/challenge-basis. Simply saying that I am wrong because Relativity is right will not do the trick for me.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:I keep stating this, which is certainly critical to my logic. At the exact moment of receipt, the sensor IS at some exact location. I do not care what a sensor's velocity is either the moments before receipt nor the moments after receipt.
The sensor for that one moment can mathematically be considered to be zero, as we are dealing with just ONE point and a minimum of at least two points are required to possible determine velocity. I really should repeat this a few times and place it is caps and use extreme print size. I grasp that this will be hugely difficult for people to accept.

This is hugely difficult for us to accept because it is wrong. The sensor needs to know what time it is when the signal arrives. Which means it need to be carrying a clock. Whose running depends on the past velocity of the sensor.

Now it's true that you could fill space with a bunch of synchronized, comoving clocks to define Steve Standard Time, and your sensor could work out the arrival time from the nearest clock. But I could fill space with another bunch of synchronized, comoving clocks, moving relative to your clocks, to define Schrollini Standard Time. If the sensor uses my clocks instead of your clocks, it will get a different answer for the coordinates of the initial event. And neither answer is righter than the other.
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:
Schrollini wrote:
steve waterman wrote:So, the location I picked for (0,0,0) could have been anyplace in the universe, If you do not like my choice, simply pick another specific POINT location. If you do not like my reference time, then pick say, 0 A.D. on January 1, at exactly 1:14 A.M. or say the year 2525, June 8th at 12:35 and 43.21679 seconds EST and say some exact spot/point on Jupiter as your own personal (0,0,0) for you universal set up.

But you've left out, once again, the most important point. Not only do I get to pick my own origin for my universal time, I get to pick my velocity relative to your universal coordinate system. So while everyone will agree that event A precedes event B in Steve's Universal Time, everyone will also agree that event B precedes event A in Schrollini's Universal time. (I'm assuming here that A and B are spacelike separated.) This means that calling either of these times "universal" is incredibly stupid. Instead, we should call them "particular" times.

I keep stating this, which is certainly critical to my logic. At the exact moment of receipt, the sensor IS at some exact location. I do not care what a sensor's velocity is either the moments before receipt nor the moments after receipt.
The sensor for that one moment can mathematically be considered to be zero, as we are dealing with just ONE point and a minimum of at least two points are required to possible determine velocity. I really should repeat this a few times and place it is caps and use extreme print size. I grasp that this will be hugely difficult for people to accept.

I totally understand why xkcd thinks I am wrong and that I am not listening. Without this particular logic/understanding/conjecture then I would have crap and would be talking out of my ass. So, I will likely need to keep stating this premise again in every future post. I see absolutely no way that I will change my mind about this. xckd is invited to try but I doubt I will ever agree to change my logic as I grasp this concept now. I do not mean to seem arrogant or closed-minded, only to expose my stance. I will need to hear sufficient counter-logic to change my conjecture/premise/challenge-basis. Simply saying that I am wrong because Relativity is right will not do the trick for me.

With regards to your idea of an exact location at an exact point in time, I wonder if you have read about Zeno's paradoxes, especially the arrow paradox?

ucim
Posts: 6671
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

We've been here before, let's not tread the same ground without something new.

Steve's latest is to treat the entire universe as Newtonian. Fair enough. This will not be an accurate model of the universe we actually live in, but it will be a self-consistent model of itself, which is all we need. In this universe, all we need is Newtonian equations of motion. And the Galilean transformation in order to translate coordinates from one system to another.

We're still stuck on that. There is no reason, and no gain to be had, in moving past that at this point.

Steve wants to define "x" as a distance. Fine. I posted the first part of my treatment here. Steve, are you on board with that one?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

PM 2Ring
Posts: 3664
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Mid north coast, NSW, Australia

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

Schrollini wrote:
ahammel wrote:Surely if there are four detectors they're all in different reference frames by definition?

Yes, but I'm willing to be sloppy and say that all comoving observers are in the same reference frame. After all, they are related by a translation, which is simple enough that ....

Oh, crap.

:giggles:

steve waterman wrote:
Schrollini wrote:But you've left out, once again, the most important point. Not only do I get to pick my own origin for my universal time, I get to pick my velocity relative to your universal coordinate system. So while everyone will agree that event A precedes event B in Steve's Universal Time, everyone will also agree that event B precedes event A in Schrollini's Universal time. (I'm assuming here that A and B are spacelike separated.) This means that calling either of these times "universal" is incredibly stupid. Instead, we should call them "particular" times.

I keep stating this, which is certainly critical to my logic. At the exact moment of receipt, the sensor IS at some exact location. I do not care what a sensor's velocity is either the moments before receipt nor the moments after receipt.
The sensor for that one moment can mathematically be considered to be zero, as we are dealing with just ONE point and a minimum of at least two points are required to possible determine velocity. I really should repeat this a few times and place it is caps and use extreme print size. I grasp that this will be hugely difficult for people to accept.

I totally understand why xkcd thinks I am wrong and that I am not listening. Without this particular logic/understanding/conjecture then I would have crap and would be talking out of my ass. So, I will likely need to keep stating this premise again in every future post. I see absolutely no way that I will change my mind about this. xckd is invited to try but I doubt I will ever agree to change my logic as I grasp this concept now. I do not mean to seem arrogant or closed-minded, only to expose my stance. I will need to hear sufficient counter-logic to change my conjecture/premise/challenge-basis. Simply saying that I am wrong because Relativity is right will not do the trick for me.

You may not care that Schrollini's sensor has a non-zero velocity with respect to your sensor, but observation shows us that the relative velocity cannot be ignored. The fact remains that the time ordering of events with space-like separation depends on the relative velocity of the observer / sensor. So we need to use a theory that conforms to that observation. Newtonian physics assumes that there is universal time and that we can ignore sensor velocity. Special Relativity disagrees with both of those assumptions; it takes sensor velocity into account and gives predictions that match up with observation. So in such situations we have to abandon Newton and use Relativity if we want our calculations to agree with our observations.

Why does Special Relativity disagree with Newtonian physics? Because Special Relativity takes into account that the velocity of light in a vacuum is independent of the velocity of the light source and of the velocity of the light sensor, a phenomenon which doesn't make sense in Newtonian physics but which has been verified many times. Special Relativity is essentially the simplest mechanical theory that can handle this constancy of light speed.

Pfhorrest
Posts: 5091
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

Steve, if you just want to talk about what one theory (classical Newtonian physics) predicts that two observers (two sets of enough of sensors to do multilateration) will say about the times and order that two event occurred, then there's no argument. Everyone here will agree that classical physics predicts any two observers will assign the same time to any given event, and say that they happened in the same order. Isn't that right everyone?

See, nobody contests that a theory like that can be constructed. Everyone thought the universe worked that way for the longest time. It is totally possible to build a mathematical model that works that way. Nobody doubts that. There's nothing needing to be proved there.

The question is, do the predictions of that mathematical model bear out in observations better or worse than the predictions of a different mathematical model, namely that of Special Relativity? That is the only point of contention here. (Well, that, and that you don't seem to understand how the math of the model you like even works; the Galilean transformation is designed to be used in the model of classical physics, not Special Relativity. The Galilean agrees with you. But reality doesn't).
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

Steve, everyone agrees if you pick a single coordinate system and ask when events happened in that coordinate system, and observers that can detect the events, it can be determined exactly when and where the event happened in that coordinate system, giving an ordering for the events as observed by anyone in that coordinate system.

We also all agree that if the velocity of an observer didn't affect how it observed events, then every observer would agree on event orderings.

You assert that velocity doesn't affect how observers observe events. We don't accept that assertion because experimental evidence doesn't bear this out. But we do all agree that if this were true, then the observers would all agree on event orderings.

Your failure to grasp how it's possible for the velocity of a sensor to affect when it detects an event is because you are using the existence of universal time as a premise. So you say "well, it doesn't matter how fast the sensor is moving, because it will only detect the event at a single point in time." When in reality, the point in space-time at which the sensor detects the event depends on the reference frame.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

Роберт wrote:When in reality, the point in space-time at which the sensor detects the event depends on the reference frame.

I'm going to be pedantic here. I know you know what's going on; this is just to try to reduce Steve's confusion.

Each (suitably capable) detector will properly find the location of the initial event in space and time. But each detector will give this event different coordinates. Same event, different coordinates. This is not a problem with our detectors; this is the fundamental nature of reality.
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

Schrollini wrote:
Роберт wrote:When in reality, the point in space-time at which the sensor detects the event depends on the reference frame.

I'm going to be pedantic here. I know you know what's going on; this is just to try to reduce Steve's confusion.

Each (suitably capable) detector will properly find the location of the initial event in space and time. But each detector will give this event different coordinates. Same event, different coordinates. This is not a problem with our detectors; this is the fundamental nature of reality.

Shoot, I think I missed what the agreed-upon vocabulary is. What you said makes sense to me and doesn't contradict what I was trying to say.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

xkcd -

a health note...

It did not go well at the hospital yesterday and was told I have had a 5 percent of getting a blood clot. So, I must take added injections for the next 4-5 days plus my normal 10 pills a day. One injection is over 28 dollars...but thankfully I am in Canada and over 65 years young...so, I pay a maximum of 50.96 per month for ALL my pills and those injections. I suspect my heart operation(s) would have cost close to perhaps a 1/2 million bucks in the states, as I was in for some 7 weeks...and all that was totally free, including several ambulance rides too! That does make it a lot easier to focus upon getting better. Off to get my injection today and will definitely have some things to say later today regarding the most recent posts. I am not trashing the states, I lived there for over 20 years. I am just glad to be living here in wonderful Montreal for over the last 40 years.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

I think we all can agree health care in the U.S. has serious problems. I'm glad you're able to get the treatment you need.

Meanwhile in the U.S., our government is shutdown because on we passed legislation (eventually ruled constitutional by the supreme court) to try to address the brokenness (but not really doing the best possible job of it), and then a bunch of legislators decided they hated it so much that they'd try to force the government to remove it by refusing to pass budgeting legislation without undoing or delaying the Health Care legislation.

But yet, that's another issue, unrelated to coordinate systems.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1828
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:xkcd -

a health note...

It did not go well at the hospital yesterday and was told I have had a 5 percent of getting a blood clot. So, I must take added injections for the next 4-5 days plus my normal 10 pills a day. One injection is over 28 dollars...but thankfully I am in Canada and over 65 years young...so, I pay a maximum of 50.96 per month for ALL my pills and those injections. I suspect my heart operation(s) would have cost close to perhaps a 1/2 million bucks in the states, as I was in for some 7 weeks...and all that was totally free, including several ambulance rides too! That does make it a lot easier to focus upon getting better. Off to get my injection today and will definitely have some things to say later today regarding the most recent posts. I am not trashing the states, I lived there for over 20 years. I am just glad to be living here in wonderful Montreal for over the last 40 years.

Well, get better - we need you here to keep arguing with us.

seriously, though, hope you get better soon.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

given the equation 23x + 14y = 117...what does y equal?

answer; there is not enough information to solve this equation as we have two variables with just one equation.

What if we are also told that 103x +5y = -88.54 also applies to the initial equation above7?
Now we can can determine what both x and y are as we have a set of simultaneous equations.
http://www.hellam.net/algebra/simul1.html

As an analogy,
Given two sets of four observers, each set with their own reference frame/origin, then either answer to what was the transmission site and time for an event observed by each set...is just as good as the other, even though there answers do not match.... ( in Relativity ).
conclusion; there is not enough information to solve this as there are two reference systems with two unique origins.

However, given two sets of four observers with a universal origin and universal time...now mathematicians can determine both the exact transmission time and the exact location for an event or events.

from page 97 on oct 24, 2012 of the monster thread
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=96231&start=3840

steve waterman wrote:Max and Schrollini stated that I could not manifest a unique transmission site and time sequence*, because there was not one.

where the asterisk was later added by Schrollini to supply the caveat that...
Schrollini wrote:... in relativity.

... in relativity.

... in relativity.

To understand that statement, you have to work ...

... IN RELATIVITY.

Indeed, that IS exactly the problem. In Relativity, they do NOT possess enough info to facilitate the determination of THE UNIQUE transmission sequence of multiple events! However, using a universal coordinate system with a universal time, then THE UNIQUE transmission sequence of multiple events is absolutely determinable!

So, I agree that without sufficient math, then Relativity is left without a clue as to multiple event sequence. Just as only knowing one of two simultaneous equations is left without a clue as to what either variable value actually is.

To support the idea that, steve
Schrollini wrote:could not manifest a unique transmission site and time sequence*, because there was not one,
This argument tactic is again used as a another straw man example to supersede/ignore that with my premise of a universal coordinate system with a universal time that there IS a unique transmission site and time sequence that can mathematically, absolutely be determined. So who cares that if in Relativity that you cannot have that mathematical awareness and do not posses a clue as to which of your set of sensors applies? Obviously, there IS ONE and ONLY ONE UNIVERSAL SEQUENCE to events occurring, Just as obvious, is the FACT that using the math of Relativity, IN RELATIVITY, there was not just one possible event sequence. [ which we all know to be a physical untruth. ]
http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/TALL.html
Even the order of events in time can be different for observers moving relative to one another; there is no absolute meaning to such time orderings."
( Only using the math of Relativity, of course ).

Thus, I conclude that using my math, where sensor receipt has no associated velocity at the moment of receipt, that
four sensors ( themselves in random motion/having random velocities over some time period ) can manifest THE UNIQUE event sequence.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:Indeed, that IS exactly the problem. In Relativity, they do NOT possess enough info to facilitate the determination of THE UNIQUE transmission sequence of multiple events! However, using a universal coordinate system with a universal time, then THE UNIQUE transmission sequence of multiple events is absolutely determinable!

Yeah, but using a universal coordinate system with universal time, observers that aren't co-moving see light moving in a vacuum at different rates and clocks that are acellerating relative to one another tick at the same rate. Neither of those things happen in the universe in which we live.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

ahammel wrote:
steve waterman wrote:Indeed, that IS exactly the problem. In Relativity, they do NOT possess enough info to facilitate the determination of THE UNIQUE transmission sequence of multiple events! However, using a universal coordinate system with a universal time, then THE UNIQUE transmission sequence of multiple events is absolutely determinable!

Yeah, but using a universal coordinate system with universal time, observers that aren't co-moving see light moving in a vacuum at different rates and clocks that are acellerating relative to one another tick at the same rate. Neither of those things happen in the universe in which we live.

You are kind of using double negatives...I will address what I think you are saying/driving at...
ahammel wrote:observers that are co-moving see light moving in a vacuum at different rates

We are only concerned with receipt at a sensor at one instant in time..so sensor movement does not enter into any calculations to determine event sequencing.
ahammel wrote:clocks that are accelerating relative to one another do not tick at the same rate

Only if you START with Relativity as accepted. In my premise, I start with universal time. So, as one second ticks off in your living room, that same second also ticks off in each sensor, regardless of their velocity or location. You cannot simply disprove that event sequencing can be determined by stating, in Relativity, time dilation or length contraction are right, so therefore I must be wrong. Time dilation and length contraction are conclusions based upon Relativity's short-coming; the inability to mathematically determine THE UNIQUE event sequence ( which DOES manifest itself in our physical universe and no posters at xkcd seems to be denying ).
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1259
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

You're getting the cause and effect backwards, Steve. We are NOT stating that "in Relativity, time dilation or length contraction are right, so therefore [you] must be wrong". We're stating that in reality, we observe time dilation, length contraction, etc. to occur, therefore relativity is right. Or at least, more correct than a Newtonian framework with a universal time.

Vetala
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:07 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:
ahammel wrote:observers that are co-moving see light moving in a vacuum at different rates

We are only concerned with receipt at a sensor at one instant in time..so sensor movement does not enter into any calculations to determine event sequencing.

Well, regardless of what Relativity says, scientific observation disagrees with you and says velocity matters: Read the research cited from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilat ... nfirmation. Velocity affects time. See also previously mentioned Zeno's Arrow Paradox (referenced by WibblyWobbly a couple of days ago) - in short if you make the claim that at any given instant there's no movement, then nothing moves, and we know that to be wrong, because things move.
steve waterman wrote:
ahammel wrote:clocks that are accelerating relative to one another do not tick at the same rate

Only if you START with Relativity as accepted. In my premise, I start with universal time. So, as one second ticks off in your living room, that same second also ticks off in each sensor, regardless of their velocity or location.

We don't need to start with Relativity as accepted, no. And that's a mistake you keep making in this discussion. Again nobody is saying "you're wrong because Relativity is right". Everyone is saying "Your premise rejects scientific observation. Relativity explains and predicts observation. Ergo, Relativity is a better theory." In fact it's quite the opposite, given you are starting with your theory as accepted (without the support of observations of reality), and claiming that because it's right, Relativity is wrong.
steve waterman wrote:You cannot simply disprove that event sequencing can be determined by stating, in Relativity, time dilation or length contraction are right, so therefore I must be wrong.

You're absolutely right, and nobody is doing that. I'll get to the punchline in a second...
steve waterman wrote:Time dilation and length contraction are conclusions based upon Relativity's short-coming; the inability to mathematically determine THE UNIQUE event sequence ( which DOES manifest itself in our physical universe and no posters at xkcd seems to be denying ).

Nope, time dilation has been confirmed, and length contraction indirectly confirmed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_con ... ifications). I don't really give a rat's ass what relativity says, or if it eventually turns out to be insufficient or wrong. What matters is that your theory is not being rejected based on Relativity being accepted, but rather your theory is rejected and Relativity are accepted for the same reason - and that reason is that only one of those two theories is supported by observation. And it's not yours.

You want a fixed reference frame? Demonstrate that there is one reference frame that is more right than all the others. Explain why different reference frames get different results - as observed by experiment, not just predicted by Relativity, so you can't just say "shortcoming in relativity" because it's been observed.

Hmm... beaten by JudeMorrigan to my main punch, but posting anyway.

yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:
ahammel wrote:clocks that are accelerating relative to one another do not tick at the same rate

Only if you START with Relativity as accepted. In my premise, I start with universal time. So, as one second ticks off in your living room, that same second also ticks off in each sensor, regardless of their velocity or location. You cannot simply disprove that event sequencing can be determined by stating, in Relativity, time dilation or length contraction are right, so therefore I must be wrong. Time dilation and length contraction are conclusions based upon Relativity's short-coming; the inability to mathematically determine THE UNIQUE event sequence ( which DOES manifest itself in our physical universe and no posters at xkcd seems to be denying ).

Steve, we are beginning with the premise that light moves at the speed in all inertial reference frames, all those other things follow from that (well-tested) premise. If you disagree with this premise, you are free to do so, but the fact is the premise is true within our ability to measure it.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?

steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/worlds-most-precise-clock

clocks measure rotation rates of some condition
it is the rotation rate that changes and that does not mean that time changes
this concept seems to be beyond the level of current understanding except for me alone
I accept that and will be moving on

Hence, one of these clocks does not exist in a different time as the other, merely that the mechanics involved
show different rates of rotation. Sure, measurement of time passage can be different, because of the physics of the clock conditions...mostly due to velocity and proximity to mass. The rate of time passage is constant, whether or not your measure it so, is a physical problem involved in generating EQUAL conditions. For one, no two clocks can occupy the exact same space, and thus clock/gravity/magnetic field conditions can ever be equal.

I went all through this in the monster thread and I am not doing this in detail again on this thread, and hearing and seeing the multitudes of visual graphics as insults again. You missed the logic then and surely will again. I have spouted thought experiments and you will say/have said, we do not care because of the physical evidence that exists to every physical "proven/measured/confirmed" Relativity example is well documented and universally agreed to nr true/valid.

I tire of this constant denial. I am not going through this crap over and over every 100 pages. I have spent too much time trying to convince those that are never going to budge an inch. Let me know when the theory of Relativity become the Law of Relativity. Do not bother to tell me that time passes differently due to some conditions of measuring light or measuring some atomic rotational scenario.

I see no reason to continue with either challenge; x' = x-vt being about distances not points, nor that a universal coordinate and time system ( denied as a premise and therefore ) manifests THE unique event sequence. These premises are denied by ALL xkcd people that have posted.

I accept that you all believe in Relativity and that you all believe that time passes according to varying conditions and is not universal. I accept that you think the supporting physical evidence proves that you are right. So be it. I no longer care that what I believe and what you all believe differs. I also accept that you all believe that I am wrong in both cases just stated above. I can live with that and still continue to chose to be happy, as always has been my/anyone's choice. I shall do my very best to make this my final post re Relativity at xkcd, and try not get sucked into defending any related concept as well.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:clocks measure rotation rates of some condition
it is the rotation rate that changes and that does not mean that time changes
this concept seems to be beyond the level of current understanding except for me alone

Oh, woe is you, the unappreciated genius, the transcendent ubermensch, the sparkling intellect, surrounded on all sides by uncaring, ignorant philistines who, envious of your dazzling ratiocinations, seek to tear you down and crush you beneath the cruel heel of experimental results. Fly, fly away, up above their lowly, mean logic, their lack of appreciation for the inherent meaning of symbols, and their dull insistence that parabolas and hyperbolas are different things. Loose your intuition to dance joyously amongst the clouds of pure thought, finally free from the slings and arrows of reality. Godspeed, good sir, godspeed!

The rest of us shall remain trapped down here, blind to your relevations, but with working GPS devices.
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:I tire of this constant denial. I am not going through this crap over and over every 100 pages. I have spent too much time trying to convince those that are never going to budge an inch. Let me know when the theory of Relativity become the Law of Relativity. Do not bother to tell me that time passes differently due to some conditions of measuring light or measuring some atomic rotational scenario.

Do you know the difference between a law, a theory and a hypothesis? This statement gives me serious doubts.

As for the clocks, do you accept the premise that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames? If you do, then we can derive time dilation from those premises — and if you want us to, we will. If you don't, then every experiment we've ever run on clocks sensitive enough to detect the effect (e.g. the entire GPS network) is wrong. Which is it?
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1259
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

Really and truly, Steve - the problem is not that we don't understand your thought experiments or that we're in denial. The problem isn't that we love relativity so much that we're blinding ourselves to other possibilities. As a life-long science-fiction geek, relativity is something of a nuisance. If you genuinely found a way around it, that would be awesome. And it's not just me. The existence of a preferred reference frame was the default assumption for a long, long time. There were plenty of scientists who would have been very, very happy to have found evidence of one. I promise you, people would be delighted to award you a Nobel if presented a compelling alternative theory.

The problem is that we do understand your arguments and their implications. If the things you are suggesting are true, they would result in certain testable predictions. It so happens that the experiments that would test those predictions have been done. Repeatedly. And existence of a preferred reference frame and the universal constancy of time has lost out. Every single time. And to be clear, we're talking about quite a bit more than just clocks, although those are a major piece of evidence. Hell, I've done the Michelson-Morley experiment myself. I regret to tell you that I saw no evidence of a luminiferous aether.

Now, let me be very, very clear. We are NOT denying your premise - we're demanding a testable prediction. That, good sir, is science. If you can think of another actual test to do (and no, apps can be lovely learning tools, but do NOT qualify as an experiment) - great! But until you give us some reason to believe in a universal time beyond its being more aesthetically appealing to you, your writings are a tale full of sound and fury.

Finally, we've been over the theory vs. law thing before. You're making the same mistake there that young-earth creationists make. Please stop and think about that for a second. In short there is NOT a hierarchical relationship between scientific theories and scientific laws. But please, don't take my word for it, go here:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26365
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

Statement 1. GPS satellites are built with under the premise that Time is Relative - the notion that time slows when you go fast - so their clocks go faster than normal clocks. If left on the ground, the clocks measurably go out of whack in a matter of minutes (off by nanoseconds), and notably in a matter of days (off by tenths of a second to maybe a full second) and just totally wrong after a year or two (like, ten-twenty minutes off or whatever).

Statement 2. GPS satellites only work when the time they report is consistent with the time on the ground - if they are fast or slow, they will say you are somewhere you are not.

Statement 3. GPS satellites have been in orbit, without any human interaction, for quite some time.

Statement 4. GPS works and the clocks in the satellites report the correct time.

This suggests to me one of three (or more accurately, two with a minor footnote to one) hypothesis. Hypothesises. Hypothesi. More than one Hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1a. Time is Relative - the notion that time slows when you go fast is apparently factual. This is the commonly accepted one.

Hypothesis 1b. Time isn't Relative, but there's something else going on that makes it appear so, at least in and around our solar system.

Hypothesis 2. Technicians on the ground are resetting the time every few minutes.

The second one is easy to test - watch outbound traffic to the satellites. See who is talking to them, and track down where they are and figure out what it is they're saying.

(I'll save you some time - they aren't resetting the clock every few minutes)
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

PM 2Ring
Posts: 3664
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Mid north coast, NSW, Australia

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:
ahammel wrote:
steve waterman wrote:Indeed, that IS exactly the problem. In Relativity, they do NOT possess enough info to facilitate the determination of THE UNIQUE transmission sequence of multiple events! However, using a universal coordinate system with a universal time, then THE UNIQUE transmission sequence of multiple events is absolutely determinable!

Yeah, but using a universal coordinate system with universal time, observers that aren't co-moving see light moving in a vacuum at different rates and clocks that are acellerating relative to one another tick at the same rate. Neither of those things happen in the universe in which we live.

You are kind of using double negatives...I will address what I think you are saying/driving at...

No, he's not using double negatives. Both Newton & relativity agree that "observers that are co-moving see light moving in a vacuum at the same rate", but (special) relativity is based on the observed fact that observers (whether conscious or "mere" inanimate sensors) that are not co-moving also see light moving in a vacuum at the same rate.

steve waterman wrote:
ahammel wrote:observers that aren't co-moving see light moving in a vacuum at different rates

We are only concerned with receipt at a sensor at one instant in time..so sensor movement does not enter into any calculations to determine event sequencing.

You may claim that, but you haven't proved it. And observation disagrees with that claim, so if you do come up with some purported proof, we know that your proof is flawed.

steve waterman wrote:
ahammel wrote:clocks that are accelerating relative to one another do not tick at the same rate

Only if you START with Relativity as accepted. In my premise, I start with universal time. So, as one second ticks off in your living room, that same second also ticks off in each sensor, regardless of their velocity or location. You cannot simply disprove that event sequencing can be determined by stating, in Relativity, time dilation or length contraction are right, so therefore I must be wrong. Time dilation and length contraction are conclusions based upon Relativity's short-coming; the inability to mathematically determine THE UNIQUE event sequence (which DOES manifest itself in our physical universe and no posters at xkcd seems to be denying ).

FWIW, the observations & equations for time dilation and length contraction were found quite a while before Einstein devised Special Relativity, but it was thought that these strange effects were due to the weirdness of electromagnetism. Einstein's insight was that they could be explained geometrically, ultimately leading to the concept of spacetime.

The notion that a set of events must have a unique ordering is common sense. However, if those events are separated by a spacelike interval then the ordering is not unique: it depends on the velocity of the observer (relative to those events). So we are forced by observation to give up the common-sense assumption.

So yes, posters at xkcd are denying that event sequences are always unique.

steve waterman wrote:clocks measure rotation rates of some condition
it is the rotation rate that changes and that does not mean that time changes
this concept seems to be beyond the level of current understanding except for me alone
I accept that and will be moving on

Hence, one of these clocks does not exist in a different time as the other, merely that the mechanics involved
show different rates of rotation. Sure, measurement of time passage can be different, because of the physics of the clock conditions...mostly due to velocity and proximity to mass. The rate of time passage is constant, whether or not your measure it so, is a physical problem involved in generating EQUAL conditions. For one, no two clocks can occupy the exact same space, and thus clock/gravity/magnetic field conditions can ever be equal.

So how do you explain that we can have a set of synchronised comoving clocks that each measure time using different methods but that those clocks will disagree with another such set that is moving at a different velocity?

eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/worlds-most-precise-clock

clocks measure rotation rates of some condition
it is the rotation rate that changes and that does not mean that time changes
this concept seems to be beyond the level of current understanding except for me alone
I accept that and will be moving on

Just because certain clocks work this way does not mean all do.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

Spoilered for fairly off-topic
@ST:
Spoiler:
SecondTalon wrote:This suggests to me one of three (or more accurately, two with a minor footnote to one) hypothesis. Hypothesises. Hypothesi. More than one Hypothesis.

Hypotheses.
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:However, given two sets of four observers with a universal origin and universal time...now mathematicians can determine both the exact transmission time and the exact location for an event or events.

Yes. Unfortunately, there's currently no "special reference frame" that we can call "correct". If there was, we would just do the math from that reference frame and come up with an event ordering as the correct ordering.

Keep in mind, most of the scientific community at the time, and most people not in the scientific community, started and start with the assumption that there is a universal time, and a way to tell the exact ordering of detected events. It's only later that they figure out that the experimental evidence indicates that theory is incorrect.

You are going through the exact same steps everyone else in the scientific community has gone through. You're going through the same steps I've gone through. "There has to be an ordering of events!"

However, if you accept the concept of universal time, you CANNOT simultaneously accept the speed of light being observed to be constant from all reference frames. They can't both be true. Experimental evidence has strongly suggested that the later is true and the former is false. It has so strongly suggested it that the scientific community has updated their models and theories to better accept the experimental evidence, and because they have done this, they have gotten a MUCH better model of how the universe works, enabling them to create systems like GPS that depend on the new model being precise enough and the universal time model being wrong. The GPS system functions.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:http://rschroll.github.io/relativity/ships.html
1 Yes, the transmission rate is constant
2 No, the receipt rate { observer rate ) is NOT constant as proven by this applet.

No.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/worlds-most-precise-clock

clocks measure rotation rates of some condition
it is the rotation rate that changes and that does not mean that time changes
this concept seems to be beyond the level of current understanding except for me alone
I accept that and will be moving on
You would have to legitimately believe that all scientists are imbeciles if you don't think every single person who has studied time dilation has already considered this possibility, or something similar. It's not beyond anyone's understanding, it's experimentally discounted.

steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

I thought I would give this line of logic one more chance.

Given coincident Cartesian systems S(x,y,z) = S'(x',y',z') where x = x',
where x is defined as the VECTOR DISTANCE from S(0,0,0) to S(x,0,0) and
where x' is defined as the VECTOR DISTANCE from S'(0,0,0) to S'(x',0,0)...

then if we allow either system to move or even to also manifest rotation(s) from that coincidence,
for an example of this, see the following depiction.

then the VECTOR DISTANCE from S(0,0,0) to S(x,0,0) = the VECTOR DISTANCE from S'(0,0,0) to S'(x',0,0).

Who here at xkcd would agree? A simple yes or (no), without any explanation why, would be ever so much appreciated!
I am not looking to, nor will I be available to discuss this matter, in any detail, at all. Thanks for your understanding.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

If you're not interested in discussing our answers, in any detail, at all, I see no point in giving you the satisfaction of a "yes" or "no" answer. You're the one who left the discussion - with recent health difficulties, you probably have good reason. But you gain nothing from a poll of "Is this right?" other than the ability to misinterpret the results.

Enjoy your vacation. If you don't want to discuss your assertions, stop bringing them up.

SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26365
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

steve waterman wrote:then if we allow either system to move or even to also manifest rotation(s) from that coincidence,
for an example of this, see the following depiction.

Wasn't it established that systems cannot move or rotate or anything of the sort? Or am I mis-remembering?

I ask because I'm not sure I see the point in having a coordinate system at all if we can move it around all willy nilly.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

SecondTalon wrote:
steve waterman wrote:then if we allow either system to move or even to also manifest rotation(s) from that coincidence,
for an example of this, see the following depiction.

Wasn't it established that systems cannot move or rotate or anything of the sort? Or am I mis-remembering?

Coordinate systems can be mathematically moved with respect to another system.

Indeed, that is what is done to one of the two systems and does occur in the mechanics of the Galilean transformation process, as vt gets applied to one of the coincident Cartesian coordinate systems.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26365
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

I think I see my confusion wherein you hold that x = x' prevents S from moving with respect to S'

So, with that in mind..

Given coincident Cartesian systems S(x,y,z) = S'(x',y',z') where x = x',
where x is defined as the VECTOR DISTANCE from S(0,0,0) to S(x,0,0) and
where x' is defined as the VECTOR DISTANCE from S'(0,0,0) to S'(x',0,0)...

then if we allow either system to move or even to also manifest rotation(s) from that coincidence,
for an example of this, see the following depiction.

..is impossible. Because you stated that x and x' are the same. If you move S with respect to S' or vice versa, x no longer equals x' so whatever it is you're trying to do goes right out the window. Or not, depending on which x we're talking about since you now have x standing for two completely different things.

Keep in mind, if x = x', then x = the VECTOR DISTANCE from S'(0,0,0) to S'(x',0,0)...whatever the hell Vector Distance means. So if you move S to a place where x no longer equals the VECTOR DISTANCE from S'(0,0,0) to S'(x',0,0), then whatever you're trying to do won't work.

Unless you're saying that "a distance of 2 on this arbitrary measurement scale equals a distance of 2 on this other arbitrary measuring scale" to which the only answer is "..so?" or even the more abrasive "No shit?"
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Chen
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

### Re: Galilean:x' with respect to S'? AND SPECIAL BONUS x' = x

SecondTalon wrote:Or not, depending on which x we're talking about since you now have x standing for two completely different things.

This is the problem with that new set of definitions. First there is S(x,y,z), S'(x',y',z'). Here x and x' are the first coordinate of some point as viewed from their respective Coordinate systems. But Steve, you then also define x and x' as vector distances. So x and x' now have two completely different definitions. This makes it extremely easy to draw incorrect conclusions.

How about instead we define the vector distance from S(0,0,0) to S(x,0,0) as A and the vector distance of S'(0,0,0) to S'(x',0,0) as B. Now we can distinguish between whether you're talking about coordinates or vector distances more easily. If your point holds, it should hold using this nomenclature too.