Logicandreason

This is what I found: Multiplying values with different units can lead to nonsensical or meaningless results. Units represent specific measurements or dimensions, and multiplying them directly would result in a combination of those units that might not have any real-world interpretation or significance. To perform valid multiplication, the values should be in compatible units or have a specific relationship that allows for meaningful multiplication. If the units are not compatible, you would typically need to convert them to a common unit before performing the multiplication. Question: does 2 Farad/metre = 2 Henries/metre ? ChatGPT No, 2 Farads/meter (F/m) does not equal 2 Henries/meter (H/m). Farads (F) and Henries (H) are units of capacitance and inductance, respectively, in the International System of Units (SI). They represent different physical quantities and cannot be directly equated. Farads (F) measure the capacitance of a system, which is the ability to store an electric charge. In contrast, Henries (H) measure the inductance of a system, which is the ability to store magnetic energy in a magnetic field. While both units involve the concept of storing energy, capacitance and inductance are distinct properties and cannot be equated without further context or specific relationships. So, a unit of capacitance is not equal to a unit of inductance. Because they are measuring totally different properties. The Mass may be the same, but not the calculated results. Horses cant be multiplied with basketballs. Apparently if you multiply a Farad by a Henrie, you get Seconds Squared. A factor used in acceleration of a Mass, as in F = m*a So that gives us a FORCE result. So in that original equation involving mu and epsilon, we end up with 1, over the Square Root of A FORCE. The 1 relates to speed, m.p.s and the denominator is a force . As there is no Mass involved in the calculation, the result is zero.

But my issue is that mu and epsilon use totally different units. Its like trying to multiply 3 horses with 7 basketballs, what is the result? Mu an Epsilon must be in meters per second units to get the result 297 million meter per second result. 3 (horses) * 7 (basketballs) = 21.... but its not 21 ANYTHINGS.

Its that last step that I cant get to work. What actual numbers do I input into my calculator for mu and epsilon? Can you show me what you do? Line by line for this part?

Can someone help me apply Mu nought and epsilon zero values to the derived final equation for calculating light speed from Maxwell's equations? I cant seem to calculate 300 million meters a second. Is there is some trick that's not talked about much?

Consider for now, that GR and Quantum are nonsense please. Its possible. Its also explainable how and why its nonsense. But I cant jump into that argument. Both GR and Quantum are saying opposing things, both have lots of fun math and both have concrete evidence it is claimed. But both can't be correct as they contradict each other. Only one can be correct, but of course both can be wrong. I go with the latter. Because both Quantum and GR are irrational and illogical. Neither actually has any incontestable observed evidence. GPS actually works accurately DESPITE the claims of Einstein, It doesn't apply SR ad GR corrections at all. there are several Papers explaining all the reasons why GPS signals get out of sync with Earth clocks, there are 7 I recall from memory, and NONE of them involve SR but they do account for Gravity differences. If you look at the magnitude of those errors, and place the claimed amount due to Relativity on the list, it comes last, the least magnitude. SO of they can solve those other factors by software on Earth receivers, then that could also easily do the same for the claimed relativity errors. Add to that the fact that every satellite clock is RE SYNCRONISED on a daily basis , occasionally twice daily, then this fact alone shows that the claim that they changed the ticking rate on the clocks is a bit far fetched. The papers have a one line in the intro probably the authors were instructed to place it there, it simply says that the clocks were adjusted while on earth to account for Einstein's fantasy. Yeah, right, I believe anything they say. There is no absolutely ZERO proof that they pre adjust those atomic clocks prior to sending them into orbit, we can only trust their word. And I don't trust them one little bit. Again there are excellent reasons and arguments as to why GR and SR can NOT be used on those satellites. But you don't want to hear anything opposed to you pet theories, your dogma. Really, I've hade more open minded discussions with Mormons about the claims that Joseph Smith was a Prophet than I can elicit out of you guys. I've made some excellent rational points in my arguments, but you just skip over them and pretend that I said nothing. I've watched a number of Leonard Susskinds Lectures, He strikes me as guy that ought have retired many years ago. His approach changes nothing, only reaffirms the same old errors. But NONE of this is important unless you have that rational Hypothesis which you don't. However you practically admitted that the theory is not important, only the experiments are valid. A nonsensical hypothesis containing errors is not any base I am willing to use that will encourage me to rush off to try to prove that I'm wrong by looking at experiments interpretations. No rational hypothesis then no experiment can possibly prove the unprovable. Your experiments and their interpretations are seen through rose coloured glasses. I also don't have the knowledge and equipment to check the claims of the people who ran the experiments. But if they seem to confirm the impossible, then something is wrong with the way the experiment is done.

No, its been assumed to have been observed. This stuff is not like looking art a girl in a red dress, she is either there or not. But with EVERYTING to do with SR, experiments magically and conveniently, the 'observations" are about invisible particles, speeds that can't be confirmed, only calculated, and incredible assumptions. No alternative explanations are entertained. Anyway, as I've said before, no experiment can prove relativity, and no interpretation of what's going on with light is slam dunk. You are kidding if you believe that its all beyond contest. But regardless, you have admitted that the ONLY basis for SR is now in the interpretation of observations. Because rational analysis of the hypothesis leads nowhere. So I've proved my point. Next,, Am I supposed to spend the next few decades digging up any alternative interpretations and criticisms of experiments that claim to support SR., just to show you what obvious? That NO amount of observations can PROVE SR. And the ones cited CAN BE OTHERWISE interpreted. None of this is supporting information is beyond question. 1. what exactly was Newton unable to account for? And why does his inability necessitate all his laws being discarded? There were other alternatives keeping with Newtons Kinematics that could solve the issues. 4. There is something a bit suspicious about the claims that there could exist a "universal constant" for Permittivity and permeability of "Free Space" that just happens to reveal the same magic number claimed for Light speed. Permittivity and Permeability are PROPERTIES, and properties (height, weight, hardness, temperature, colour, density, ANY Property is a property of some OBJECT. Energy is even a property of some object. So how can you claim that you have measured the Property of NOTHING? Free Space, has no properties, that is part of its definition, if there are measurable properties, then there is something there to which those Properties are associated. So clearly you are NOT measuring the "Free space" , you are measuring something to do with those plates, a property of the plates and the energy contained. and how the associated energy can bridge the gap. Thus it can only be a clever fudge to come up with such "universal constants", which magically were able to back up some other claims. The value of those constants is almost identical to the measurement of Wood, some metals, and a whole list of other substances. How come NOTHING measured has the same value as solid plastic or wood? Meaning that EM waves travel through glass, wood plastic and some metals as fast as in a vacuum.??? 6. Newton's mechanics does actually conform perfectly to that Principal. Why do you say it does not? By confusing the constancy of motion with a measurement of that motion I bet. 7. I bet you are still using that same error about constancy and measurements yet again. Any imagined inability of Newtons mechanics can be solved by the correct understanding of constancy and how measurements are not the same thing.

But its Ok for you to pretend that those observations are in fact the only possible explanations? Even though they are made by people who have a vested interest in supporting Einstein? There is no possibility of error or misunderstanding something? Yes, the independence of light from the source or receiver may very well be demonstrable reliably, but that is not the same as saying that the measure of light speed is independent of its origin of measurement. Never been done, not even possible to demonstrate or test. For the same reason why they haven't measured the speed of light in a one way experiment. So let's sum up about experiments: No experimental evidence to support things changing length, no experimental evidence that proves that Time has changed. Evidence shows that clocks get out of wack, but this is not the same thing as time warping, its only wacky clocks due to physical changes. There is no possible way to prove that Time itself is dilating. No one knows what Time is anyway how you going to show that its changed? Next, Mass increase. Experiments consist of the calculation heavy results of "observing" the apparent invisible hypothesised particles and figuring out what may have occurred. Particle Physics is hardly a strong branch of Physics these days, haven't you heard? And finally to show that the predictions that result form Einstein's theories are terrible, we only have to look at the belief that the hypothesis (which includes Einstein's theories) that 95 % of the whole universe is missing. No one stopped to think about how stupid this conclusion was, they never stopped to think, gee, clearly our prediction is incredibly, wildly wrong, indicating that the theory is based on total nonsense. Actually the whole idea of Mass increase was recognised quite early as being totally silly and could never be explained. So they don't mention it now, its all just SR is length contraction and Time Dilation. In a stupid move, they try to claim that Mass is actually Momentum,, yes, of course Einstein the Genius wrote Mass many times, but really was meaning to write Momentum. and that swap is probably the most stupid thing I've read about Physics. Mass is NOT Momentum. Foe decades they had the excuse that there was a big difference between rest Mass and relativistic Mass. Decades later after those expert professors who understand SR, had been teaching this at Uni, they realised that this duck and dodge excuse was also stupid, so now they have just gone back to Mass is Mass. The current duck and dodge will have something to do with quantum, its the ultimate duck and dodge tool ever conceived. In any case Mass increase in Einstein's Paper was clearly nonsense. You are NOT using the scientific method when you say that the theory can't be explained, cant be understood, contains rational errors but, "because of experiments" it must be accepted anyway. This is not the scientific method. Show me one Physics Professor that skips all explanations of SR, won't answer student questions, refuses to address issues, then just states that SR is a FACT, irrational but still a FACT, there IS Time dilation and Length Contraction and its all correct because of experiments, and that is all you need to know. Just ONE.

We are no where near up to the point of looking at claimed results and conclusion about any experiments. Which part of . "Results of experiment can not prove that a hypothesis is correct." do you not understand? And we are still stuck on showing how Einstein explained that there is some problem with classical physics. Your 'huge problem" about Maxwell, was an academic storm in a teacup. There isn't actually a problem in in anyway. Einstein tried to explain how it was a big deal, but his explanation is contains irrational logic. More about this in another topic, not here. But he did not present that as any part of his explanation of where the problem was. His actual words were that it and the lack of an aether discovery so far, SEEMED to indicate that something might be wrong. After broaching the possibility that something COULD be amiss, he went on to explain where an error could be found, in the Rod in a moving frame experiment. There is nothing weird about my Ansatz, its very methodical on starts the the beginning and makes no assumptions, it contains no postulates. (Top marks though for the word of the day competition) The 1905 Paper was what was peer reviewed, and on that Paper alone, classical Physics was overturned. Are you saying that the Original Paper is alone unable to make a rational statement, it needs 100 years of additional explanations in order to accept the claims? Every single article I've read, and every video lecture and short video explanation (Don Lincon and Brian Green, and every other big name in Physics, many dozens of them, has a video on this, about SR and all are identical in that every one makes the exact same error right at the beginning. So they all get the same results of course. One definition of stupidity is: Expecting a different result If you keep doing what you have always done, because you will always get what you have always got. That actually explains most of those thousands of experiments, they are doing exactly that, adding to the grand total, by repeating the essentially same things. So either Einstein can explain away those two points I've recently spelled out, using only classical Physics, or he can not claim that there is a problem with classical Physics. Simple as that. But Einstein is not here, and never bothered to explain it in the whole rest of his life, so its up to you to defend his good (too good) name. Surely I don't have to repeat the two points again do I? And rather than all this dancing about, surely it s just easier too explain those two points and settle this once and for all? Please disregard a few typos in preceding posts, I cant seem to return to them to make corrections, but you can easily supply the appropriate word according to the context.

Hey, It also doesn't make any sense no matter how educated you are. If it made sense to Mordred, he could explain it to me in simple terms but he failed. He ended up always trying to get me to look at the replacement theory to classical physics, before he could show me that there was even some problem to solve. I actually understand what the SR concepts are, but its all based on the error of presuming some problem exists, when it doesn't. To overcome the rational and logical thoughts of the common sense human, you know the poor suffering ignorant masses, and get them to accept SR, then you simply have two tasks. 1. Prove rationally that "consistency of motion, also known as "inertial motion" is interchangeable with "a subjective measurement of speed" namely 300 million meters a second. 2, then also prove that its possible to make a measurement of ANYTHING AT ALL without having a necessarily related starting point. Now it only take a pig farmers son to realise that these two tasks are impossible to prove. The ONLY possible answer to the first point is the two statement are never interchangeable. NO. The second is an impossibility. So that means that you can't make any of those clever math derivations that are the heart of SR, even if I let you away with not showing me how there was a massive error with classical Physics in the first place. These are the 3 things you have failed at , or soon will fail at. Thus there can be no such thing as Special relativity. Q.E.D. Unlike you, I may not know algebra. But you got to admit I'm not an idiot. I actually understand what Einstein is saying, I have spent a lot of hours of reading, watching University lecturers etc, so I know how they take a student from nowhere to understanding the Hypothesis, at least up to an including the Kinematic part. So Length contraction Time dilation and Mass increase, Even the basics of e=mc2.. There are about 5000 videos on YouTube all saying the exact same things. (University sources videos) seems Ive watch every one of them, according to my wife. And afterwards I realised that something was amiss somewhere, it was just a matter of giving it some though to find where. Yes there are many people who have tried to show errors in SR but they all attack the theory AFTER the Theory has been presented, It turns into a shouting match. Relativist I've found are excellent at having a foot in all possible camos, so if they get attacked on some point they switch feet, thus changing the goal posts. So that why I decided to look at why exactly Einstein was unhappy with classical Physics, and I quickly found that his explanation had those two misrepresentations of what Classical Physics actually said. As I said in the earlier post, to defend SR theory you MUST prove that these two statements are correct. 1. Prove rationally that "consistency of motion", also known as "inertial motion" is interchangeable with "a subjective measurement of speed" specifically 300 million meters a second. So if I go into a rocket, and stabilize my speed, does that mean I must now be doing 300 million meters a second? because that is what "constancy of motion" is defined as, you told me as much. 2, then also prove that its possible to make a measurement of ANYTHING AT ALL without having a necessarily related starting point. And obviously they are not. But to accept SR you have to skip lightly over these points not even giving them a split seconds attention, and pretend that everything is ok. Only then can you work your tricky Lorentz equations and distort time and distances and other insane claims such as e=mc2.

I do not want to understand SR. At least I was not attempting to understand SR. I was very clear that I wanted to understand how Einstein came to the conclusion that classical physics was wrong. That is the end of my interest at this moment. I though I made that very clear many times? That link will lead to a explanation of SR that begins with the same error you have made, confusing "constancy of motion" with "a measured value of motion", and then deleting any reference for that measurement. Same result, a nonsensical exercise.

Another anonymous down vote? Really? You guys with those silly down votes? If Einstein himself was here making comments, I could down vote every comment he made, just for the hell of it, no reasons are required. If you don't like what I say, then have the courage and common decency to state what it is that you don't like. Downvotes with no explanations are just making this science forum seem like a popularity contest. But that's the way science is done right? By popular vote and appeal to authority. It is NOT IN section one or two. Why do you keep wandering off the agreed material? Anyway, you gave it your best shot, just wasn't as clear and easy as you believed was it?

Ok, Mr Swansont, You will see that the discussion I was having with Mordred has now concluded with the issue remaining unsolved. If you have any insights that Mordred may have missed, or some other way of explaining that I might follow, then I'm all ears. If not, then thanks for the information you have supplied and your time.

We all understand what constancy of motion is, BUT we all ought to also know that ANY measurement MUST have an associated reference from where that measurement was started. This is the bit you do not understand. A number ascribed to a speed, is nothing but a meaningless set of digits, unless you tell me where you were located relative to the thing you were measuring. EVERY MEASUREMENT MUST HAVE A MESSUREMENT ORIGIN. Now because all origins are not the same, possibly having different relative velocities, then RATIONALLY, LOGICALLY, Mathematically, and according to common sense, and to Physics and to Dung beetles, then measurements from different locations MUST reflect that change on location or relative motion. But Einstein says, "NAH, forget about that, looky here at this shiny amazing thingy I have to dazzle you with untold mysteries and endless conundrums and a bunch of paradoxes, isn't that more fascinating?" You also get to play about with heaps of cool math to show how smart you are at parties. And think of the girls, wont they be impressed that you are better than most commoners, because you are one of the elite, who know it all. Girls love a know-it-all. I am joking with you, but you get my points. I reckon we are done here, I doubt you have anything of value to add, I think all your cards are laid out already. So I will offer to Swansong my attention to see if he has any great ideas that can solve my concerns. But I would like to thank you for you time and patience.

It all boils down to the fact that you cant seem to grasp the difference between these two totally different phrases: "constancy of motion", and "the measurement of that motion". If you could understand this, I'm sure you would be better off. I don't expect you to depart one little bit from what Einstein said. But you don't want to stick with what he said. I expect you to use what Einstein claimed he was using when he proposed that Rod Experiment, that is pure classical Physics. Can you not do that? I need to see how Einstein came up with the statement that classical physics has an error. A rational explanation is not apparent in the place where he said he had shown that classical physics was wrong. Section one and two. No where else does he show the issue for classical physics. The words invariant or invariance do not appear anywhere in his whole paper. Why are you bringing up an unrelated term all of a sudden?

You speak nonsense now. We are not supposed to "keep c a constant across any frame". c is only a locally constant measurement. So now you are admitting that the whole paper of Einstein's can not be explained because its not rational, (if it were you could explain it) and none of it matters anyway, because you have observational evidence. So to submit papers for review is silly now, correct, Just BLURT out your belief as a single conclusion, not bothering to develop any explanations, , and instruct people to go away and not come back until they have invented experiment that support your faith based beliefs. Because as we all know, An positive experiment is 100% Proof of any theory. And we also know that Experiments are designed by INFALLABLE men, and we also know that results of Experiments are never made by man INTEPRETATING those results, and we know that all science is 100% an honest institution,(money and business cant corrupt it) We also KNOW there has never been any BS artists, liars, frauds who have any agenda, we know that there is no opportunity for misinterpretation, We know that there is no chance that our previous bias could influence our approach to running any experiment, and finally we all know that there is always only ONE way to interpret any experiment result. and we all know that Reality is Irrational, so we can't rely on our common sense, or even our best attempts to understand, because unlike reality, which is claimed to be irrational and unintuitive (a soft version of irrational) we as mere men are burdened under the weight of a rational mind, so we can never understand the irrational. And on these 100% certain truths rests the infallible Einstein.

In conclusion its clear that none of you can explain or make rational sense out of Einstein's statement that classical physics has a problem. Classical Physics according to Einstein in Section one and two, has a Rod in the Zylon System, with a standard measuring stick, say a meter rule, which is placed repeatedly along the rod thus getting a measure of the rods length. Then that same Rod, with known length, PLUS that measuring stick, are hurtled along together with an observer, who repeats the Rod measurement using the same measuring stick and obtains the exact same result. Further there are clocks everywhere, and all clocks are synchronized all the time. When the Observer in the Zylon System calculates the Rod length, he STILL gets the same value as he did before using standard Math and Physics rules. And the Honda System observer also reports that every thing is hunky dory from his location. All times and rod length are as expected, the same. Duh. But now for no reason at all, Einstein sys, Hey guys lets measure that Rod length again, this time with a tricky exercise that can never be actually performed by mortal man, using Light instead of that un trust worthy carbon fibre Meter certified rule. And guess what? the calculated length if the Rod is now different! So instead of Einstein thinking to himself, Gee, I must have made an error somewhere in my assumptions, NO, he declares that ALL of known Physics is wrong, and all the math equations are wrong, and ALL must to be dumped in exchange for his new math and new physics laws, where there are no no such things as a time or distance standard. (the foundation of classical physics) And as if that's not enough, we just have to believe that the unbelievable is somehow real. "Its UNINTUITIVE" a "HARD PILL to Swallow", "What makes you think that reality has to be rational", and the good old, "Stop asking questions, Shutup and Calculate".

Therefore in Classical Physics, c is not 186.. unless that measure has a specific origin. c can only refer to the constancy of motion, not the measurement. Exactly correct, well put, there is no point to Einstein's paper. Because he fails to provide rational explanation of any actual problem. No problem - then nothing to solve with a brand new irrational Physics. c is a constant in Classical Physics, but its value will change when the reference frame changes, if there is relative motion between frames. c is locally constant within the frame where its value was determined. And no where else. Einstein absolutely stipulated a specific speed measurement in the paper in section one, Quote: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c" And EVERY expert globally agrees that this measure of c is 186.... and have repeatedly told me that this is the case. If Einstein had only though of c as a "consistency of motion", allowing it to be a variable dependant on the origin of measurement, then he could not have proceeded with his argument that is supposed to reveal the big problem on classical physics. For the section one and two, c must be a fixed value, 186... And maybe you missed it, but "Zylon System" is just another word to replace the confusing "Stationary System" term that Einstein choose. But calling it Zylon makes the meaning clearer, because its not linked to any Absolute system, which was Einstein's intension. The "state of Physics" cant have been so well known as you claim, because if it were, Einstein would not have to had spelled it all out as a teacher does to children which is what the first two sections are doing. If you were correct, and you clearly are not, Einstein could have simply skipped the first two sections ang gotten straight into his claims. Plus, because he must show the nature of the Problem before he can solve it, his postulate, (which is opposite to classical Physics beliefs and Laws and associated Math,) cannot be used in his explanation of why classical physics is wrong. His Postulates can only be called on in his proposed solution. see my comments (in bold) inserted into the quote above. No he did not show any such thing. In classical Physics c is a variable when used between differently moving frames, but c is a constant within a single frame. Only under one special case is the measure of c equal between frames, and that is when the relative speed between the two frames is equal to ZERO. This is what classical Physics indicates. But it was your idea to explain or "prove" why Einstein was correct when he said that there was a problem with classical physics. So now you are saying that you can not prove it? As I stated, I have a difficulty in understanding why Einstein said that classical physics was in error. You offered to explain why he came to that conclusion. He explained it totally within section one and two, but now this is insufficient information to follow Einstein's logic? We have to wander off and look at other statements outside that famous paper that destroyed all of known Physics? If the problem is undefined and unexplainable in the section one and two, then I suggest that there is no problem at all. No conclusion can be made at the end of section two, yet Einstein makes one anyway?

Prove mathematically using classical physics only, that light speed is measured at 186... units, in both of two systems when there exists a speed difference between the systems of k velocity, given that light is independent of both systems. That is what you must show, before we can proceed. This is not an unreasonable request. Because this is what Einstein is claiming classical physics believes, but I think its not representative of classical physics at all. Before Einstein can claim that there is a problem with classical Physics, he must first give a correct account of what classical physics actually is. In his paper, is it not divided into several sections? Yes or No? In section one and two, does he not make specific claims and then concludes with a specific statement claiming that classical Physics is in error? Why Yes he does. So why do you consider that I must look outside this self contained section of the paper, the "proffered proof that classical physics is in error" section, for the explanation? Anyway, by any means, using classical Physics alone, (for this is Einstein's claim) show me how light speed results of measure can be obtained apparently without possessing any origin from which to begin the measurement. Cant use the origin of system Zylon or Honda, because there will be a mathematical error UNLES there is no speed differential between those two Systems. So I'm listening, and willing to learn, but you need to be concise and scientifically (rationally) minded in your approach. The Logic needs to be sound. Someone said that this belief was a "tough pill to swallow", obviously because its an irrational pill, and also very large with spikes all over, but before I swallow any pill, I need to know what's inside. No one is explaining that to me so far.

au contraire, we all know that light has constancy of velocity across all inertial frames, but he never showed that it was always measured as 186... across all frames. He specifically said that its speed was 186 (c) a determined velocity IN THE System Zylon. We were going through Einstein's rod experiment, and he specifically said that 186... (c) was determined in the System Zylon. He is using classical physics here in this explanation, (in an attempt to show that it s wrong) So far c is relative only to the System Zylon. Einstein now needs to prove with classical physics, that his apparently irrational claim that 186 can be also measured an System Honda, is possible. Given that there is a speed difference between Systems Zylon and Honda. The only classical Physics and rational Mathematics situation where this is a true claim is when the difference in speed between the two systems = zero. Its therefore called a "special case". Not universal.

He did not mention Lorentz in "the Kinematic Part, Sections 1 and 2, the section of our interest. That is all that matters at this moment.

A "stationary frame" actually "System Zylon", is no more a replacement for an hypothetical "Absolute frame" than any other frame, such as the moving frame, which I well give the name, "System Honda". The ONLY thing to identify these systems that they both have in common is that they are inertial and moving or not in the same direction.( Orientated in the same plane) Now your other statement "the laws of physics are the same regardless of observer." needs fixing, it was supposed to read, "The Laws of Physics are applicable equally in all inertial frames". And that is exactly what classical Physics does. Therefore an object that possesses constancy of motion, inertial motion, will be seen to have constancy of motion when viewed from any relatively moving frame when that motion is also inertial. That is the Law of Physics we are talking about correct? The Lorentz transformation is not showing that time is dilating and length is contracting, its just a mathematical calculation of the effect of Doppler shift and speed differences. If Lorentz had already proved time dilation and length contraction and the necessary Mass increase, then Einstein's 1905 paper was not required. But regardless, none of this is explaining how Einstein came to the conclusion the clocks would get out of sync when they were used to record durations of events, or that the observers could possibly come up with different lengths for that Rod. He alluded to Maxwell and maybe was referring to the Michaelson and Morley experiment, but never mentioned Lorentz. But that had nothing to do with his Rod Experiment scenario. Those comments were simply introducing the concept that there was some chance that not all was right with the current understanding as there were un answered questions. That's all you can deduce from Einstein's reference to Maxwell and M&M. So I would like you to focus on just the Rod Experiment as Einstein explained it. Which is completely contained in the Kinematic Part, in sections one and two. About Lorentz, he was actually trying to also establish that there must be an aether for light propagation, A belief he held for many years after 1905. He thought that a medium was required because his doppler equation, the Lorentz transformation, which works for sound waves in mediums like liquid or gasses , was applicable for light but he could not understand how his equations gave the right results without the medium. Lorentz equations do not shrink lengths of objects nor distort time. Einstein applied the Lorentz equations in a different way, which did distort time and distance and mass. He applied a wave equation to a objects. Thus getting weird results.

I have no interest in section 3 at this stage. Lorentz was concerning himself with figuring out how to calculate a doppler wave effect of anything that had wave propagation, and he came up with his transformation. Maxwell mentions nothing about stationary or moving other than relative motion between say a coil and a carbon rod to generate an electric field. Nothing about Lorentz or Maxwell demand a single measured value for light speed across any frame of reference, that was a postulate of Einstein, his "guess" so to speak. I already admitted or am willing to believe that it may very well be that Light always moves with consistent velocity. And I'm willing to accept that in Einstein's "stationary Frame" System Zylon, someone measured light and recorded 186 from where they were in System Zylon. Anywhere in System Zylon, light will be measured as 186. But so far its not been shown that 186 could ever be measured from any other frame unless it had the same state of motion to System Zylon. So far, everything that Einstein has explained, is relative to System Zylon. The stationary observer, and the moving observer are both in System Zylon, and most of the time Einstein uses System Zylon specific equations. Of course, the moving observer is free to take measures of anything from his own system that is moving along with him. System Zylon and the moving system have a known peed differential that needs to be considered in any comparisons.

That equation only covers how long light will take to cover a set distance in a forward and return fashion. Einstein has previously set the exact conditions under which this this equation is valid, and that was, Quote: "Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the “stationary system." So at this point, that equation is only applicable to the "stationary system", which has supplied the necessary frame to which ALL measured speeds are related. We could call the "stationary system", System Zylon, it's name is not important. Only that it is inertial. So any observer, relative to his own attached frame, can take measures from his own frame, and that equation will apply to his own frame. Is this corect?

Yep, we know that up to the conclusions about the Rod experiment, there is not yet any hypothesis about Time dilation or length contraction. Its all classical Physics and standard Math. So on reviewing what's been said so far, my understanding is this: Einstein is saying that if the measurements made by a moving observer of some event involving motion, (all inertial) are compared to measurements of that same event made by a stationary observer, then by the use of the rules of classical physics and standard Math, they will both be in full agreement about lengths and time periods, for any velocity, EXCEPT when light velocity is used. The confusing bit is of course, how come the finite speed of light gets to ignore the otherwise correct rules that apply to everything else? Not only that, but if stationary guy gets 186 for light speed measure, and moving guy also gets 186 for light speed, then what happened to the speed difference between the two observers? I can't just go away. Classical Physics fully accounts for it, but Einstein just seems to ignore the relative speed difference between the two observers .In this case setting it to zero when its clearly not zero.

Sorry Mr Mordred, but I can progress to section 3 until the final conclusion of Einstein regarding the Rod experiment has been explained. He proposed an experiment, described the results and then made a concluding statement. This is the reasoning that I am unable to follow. Unless I can understand why he concluded that the clocks would become unsynchronized simply by noting the positions of their hands while counting an elapsed period, I cant just move to section 3. Remember his exact words of conclusion were; "Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous" The conclusion doesn't seem to follow from the equation given. (which I admit is correct) And nothing even hints as to what physical process forced the clocks to become unsynchronized. Math doesn't make clocks change the positions of their hands on the face. Everyone in Einstein's experiment first all agreed that the clocks were synchronous initially, they only became unsynchronized because the observers started to record elapsed time periods. Whatever, discuss what ever you wish between other members, but, personally, I am only able to concentrate on one persons argument at a time, and right now, that happens to be Mordred. And If he has agreed to explain it step by step to be tutorial fashion, then I can call it a tutorial if I so desire. Your big red alarming box is rather pointless.