Logicandreason

I've noted your comments. and everything may be solved for me following Mordred's tutorial. So, thanks for these tips, and I'll be sure to remember them when Mordred is giving his spiel. Other wise, Ill get back to you.

Follow my discussions with Mordred, and we will see how he unpacks this one stumbling block I have, about how Einstein concludes that classical Physics makes clocks get out of sync. But I take you point, that practically all of modern physics uses SR and GR in some way. So I must be in error. That is also a rational assessment.

Not so simple. My reasoning is that its very highly unlikely that SR can be correct, as the consequences are so unbelievably bizarre. In almost every University lecture on SR that I watched from the USA's top universities and best Professors, they invariably mention something like, "Now this is going to seem really weird", "Unintuitive" is a popular word, followed by the disclaimer that "you have no right to expect that Nature ought to conform to your idea of what rational is". So I'm immediately on the defensive, expecting that there might be an error somewhere, and its going to take a lot of solid rational, logical explaining as to how Einstein came up with his conclusions. I have the right, and its also advisable to be critical of a claim especially if its opposite to the beliefs of classical physics, none of which make weird claims as does SR. So, Mordred is going to explain how Einstein got to the point of being able to state that classical Physics has this very massive problem. Right now, I don't see the Problem. I see what Einstein is saying, but I don't see how he made the conclusion that a problem exists. He jumped from the equations (that I first thought was wrong) where the equations had different results about time, all the way to "the stationary and the moving clocks will now be out of synchronization". So, now I will wait for Mordred's reply. Geographically, its a worn down very old island. No real mountains, no amazing gorges, if we have a pile of dirt more than 10 feet high, we name it a mountain. This is relative to what I saw in Europe and China. If you like sand on the beach and sand in the backyard, then Australia is fine. (there are some great forests, but we are working on turning them into paper as fast as we can.) I also exaggerate somewhat, and generalise, did I mention generalise? However to compensate, I'm grumpy.

Nope, my 2nd wife is the Chinese Professor of Math, my current and last wife is also Chinese. But I am born and bred in Australia. I've lived in Australia mostly, but also lived briefly in the UK, Germany, 6 years in China and 18 in New Zealand.

I am English, was there some problem with the way I expressed my self that gave you reason to think I was not a native speaker?

Thanks for your interest in helping me understand. But as I have already gotten two different members comments mixed up, I feel that I am only able to attend to one persons explanations at the one time. So currently I have begun a tutorial offered by Mordred which I intend to see thorough to his satisfaction. Following that, I'm happy to pick up where we left off. And allow you to present what you feel is the best way to present this matter. I'm retired and 70 y.o. being self taught, so I should not try to be multi tasking at this stage in my life. So as much as I might like to respond right now, prudence tells me to take one step at a time. As I said to Mordred, understanding this theory must begin with understanding the actual hypothesis that gave birth to the theory. And that will be found within the 1905 document, where Einstein spells it all out in full. I'm not "doing science" I'm trying to understand how Einstein came to his conclusion, by working through his actual argument, line by line. Right now, we are up to the part where he has just announced that Classical Physics has a terrible problem, which he intends to fix. He has yet to explain how he intends to fix the problem. However, I've read this section, many times, and just cant see how he comes to the conclusion that classical physics will have the two observers disagreeing on anything. So far it seems that their different measurements are fully to be expected according to the application of those Laws of classical Physics. So right now, Mordred is about to show me why Einstein said that the two observers clocks would become un synchronized. Something to do with "relativity of simultaneity". I have to now wait for his next lesson. I had questions about his previous lesson, which I'm sure he will have a rational explanation.

I thought I just explained why I can't be considering any claimed experimental evidence. I was pretty sure I explained that in some considerable detail. If you wish to explain "relativity of simultaneity", the you need to restrict the explanation to what information the hypothesis contains. You can't add beliefs retrospectively. That is just reinforcing a claim by applying the same claim's conclusions. A Circular argument, feeding on itself. Are you not able to explain "relativity of simultaneity" without addition of material and information that did not exist at the time the Hypothesis was written? The hypothesis was approved as valid Physics in 1905, it is obviously able to stand scrutiny relying solely on the strength of its own internal logic. So are you able to explain according to these reasonable conditions, or not?

Not really interested in looking at interpreted results of measures at this point. You were in the middle of explaining the " relativity of simultaneity". to me in terms of the Laws of Classical Physics,, as we have not even begin to explore Einstein's new improved Physics. I have issues with Einstein's claims assuming that you are correctly relaying them to me, because Classical Physics is very strong on the matter of relative velocity between differently moving objects. Velocities are additive or subtractive depending on the direction. You have just confirmed that the first subjective measure of light speed (call it 186), is relative to the observer who measured it. Now should another observer come along and take a measure of light speed relative to himself, and he is moving relative to the original observer with some velocity we shall call 45, then the Laws of Physics say clearly say that the second observer can only get 141 measurement, relative to him. This is observed in every relationship of objects in motion. Because light speed measurement is not relative to the source or to the aether but only to the observer who is measuring. And if Obs1 and Obs2 have a relative speed of 45, then the math and logic is clear as a bell. Or do you have some new classical Physics facts that I've not heard before? Because its pretty clear that we have now successfully identified that the measure of light speed does have a set value, and that particular measure has a specific origin, and its that one observer. (whether or not he thought he was moving) So the origin wasn't the source, nor the aether, but is IS that specific observer, who has recorded that specific measurement from his specific location. And this is what the Classical Physicists understood as can be seen by their use of c + or - v So how to get from here to your statement that suddenly light speed measures have no origin? Please explain, Logically and Rationally, Mathematically if you must, but not involving any subjective interpreted results of subsequent experiments. Because we are nowhere near looking at experiments yet. We are still trying to understand "relativity of simultaneity". And the experiments you mention were not available to Einstein either, as he was forced to make the idea of "light speed measure having no origin", a Postulate, meaning a statement offered as conjecture, without any evidence, with the intention of showing that it could possibly be correct as explained later in the hypothesis. (Still without evidence.) We can examine the validity of the "we have measured light speed" claims later, much later. Maybe the interpretations of light speed experiments are not as solid as is believed. You can not rule that out, because experiments results can not prove a theory. It only takes a few incorrect beliefs to make any interpretation and conclusion invalid. All claimed measurement results are CALCULATED , not directly measured. No one has a tape measure stretched from here to the next galaxy, (so a fixed empirically proven distance) and they can't know the instant someone in that galaxy has fired of a light pulse, so we can then time it. And then they can't know if we are moving or not relative to that light. All of this is calculated including the distance to that other galaxy, using the same equations that we are here trying to explain. Because they already believed Einstein. Its very hard to find a single observation and conclusion in cosmology or other sciences that doesn't rely on Einstein's math. And that's why we can't depend on the result of these experiments. Because it would amount to circular reasoning. So you were explaining how the subjective measure of the speed of light does relate to the observer, and yet it does not. Please proceed.

What fool just gave me a reputation downgrade while I'm in the middle of a tutorial being given by Mordred? So a measure IS relative to an observer. What observer measured light speed from his unique position and recorded 186.000 m.p.s ?

Sorry, I'm busy conversing with Mordred. I can't divert my attention from his tutorial. So you are only talking about MEASUREMENT of Light speed, your first statement was wrong, because you said that measurement of Light speed WAS referenced to the Observer. Now you have confirmed that Light speed MEASUREMENT is NOT referenced to the Observer, nor to the light source, and Ill add, not to any Absolute medium like an Aether. Is this now your final statement on the measurement of Light speed?

Nope, you lost me with this claim: Quote: "Yes an observer will measure the velocity of light at c regardless of the velocity of the emitter. This is an invariant quantity. It never varies regardless of observer Nor how fast the emitter is travelling." So I agree with this statement up to where you said, " It never varies regardless of observer". But I cant agree with that part. I also agree with the remainder of the statement, "Nor how fast the emitter is travelling." Can you clarify, Are you referring to the fact that light' condition of motion (specifically its velocity) is unvarying, or are you meaning that any MEASURE of that velocity is going to be the same, "irrespective of the observer"? Because a second ago you said that QUOTE: "All events.... ie light.... are (is) always relative to the observer." So I'm confused, is measurement of of Light speed "relative to the observer" as in your original statement, or is it "not relative to the observer" as in your second statement.?

Yep, the middle of the Rod. Now I have a clarification question: Is that radiated light from each clock face, that reaches the observer, relative to the clock faces? Seems not, as Einstein and classical Physics agree, "light speed is not influenced by the motion (or Not) of the source."

I am in agreement, However I will accept that I am indeed of strong character, but that comes with a price, I'm also very stubborn, so I don't give in easily. So to win me over, you will need patience and a really really great logical argument. I doubt that a math equation solution that is devoid of a logical explanation will be sufficient to win the day. As I've recently said, I STILL believe that there is an issue in SR somewhere, but it was not in that Equation. I was barking up the wrong tree, but I see more trees out there.

Referencing your first paragraph: Well of course they are going to be different, they are measuring different events. Not a problem for classical physics. About your second Paragraph. A tick is a second. So one second in the rest frame, is supposed to equal a different number of seconds in a moving frame? How so? Only if the distances covered by light are identical can you come to this conclusion. (Meaning that there is an error in classical Physics) In reality, the distances assessed by the stationary observer is not referring to the same distance that the moving Observer is interested in. Because you already said that as far as the Stationary observer is concerned, the rod is in motion, but as far as the moving Observer is concerned he believes that the Rod moved nowhere, so he never had that as a variable in his equations. He is only measuring how long it takes light to span the Rod length. Whereas the stationary observer is accounting for Rod length as well as Rod change in location, relative to the Light. One observers account of distance traversed by light, is different that the other observers account of how far light traversed, simply because they each were using different goal posts. Different distances covered by light at a constant speed must give different answers, and that's what Classical Physics repots, It is not an error.

To Mordred and Swansont, Agreed. I will try to isolate your arguments from Mordred's in my thoughts, the mix-up was unintentional. Anyway, I now have to admit that I am mathematically wrong with my claim that Einstein's equation t = rod length / c-v is incorrect. It is correct. I was wrong. The classical position is that there will be two different time periods one for the forward trip of light and a different time elapsed for the return trip of light is correct as Einstein says. But despite my error about the need to have the rod length AND the distance moved as the numerator, I still believe there is an issue with SR theory. Which I'm sure can be revealed. Its error of logic is caused by Einstein's insistence that just because the elapsed times for forward and return are different, he claims that somehow now the observers clocks must therefore now be out of sync. I believe this can't be shown, and Einstein never showed that this will be the result. He claims it is, but I cant see where he shows it. Can you point out how he comes to the conclusion that the clocks now must be showing different times on their faces? As far as I can see, all the clocks just measured different things, a forward elapsed time and a return elapsed time period. But measuring elapsed time periods doesn't equate the actual Time of day changing. I was trying to show this when I falsely believed I found that error in the equation. I was wrong on that. But none the less, I still would like to know how or where in the paper, Einstein explains how measuring durations of different events, can alter the Time on the faces of clocks. He makes that claim at the end of Section 2, immediately after that equation that I was having trouble with. But its not clear how or why he could make that conclusion. Everyone both moving any stationary had synchronized clocks, then they took two different recordings of elapsed times, so how does that cause the display time to get unsynchronized? He doesn't explain it at all. He just states it, then moves on, assuming that he has shown that there is a problem with classical physics. The observer on the station, is recording the forward trip, (c-v) and the person on the Train is measuring the return trip (c+v) BUT in fact, the person on the station can just as easily measure BOTH the forward and return trips as c-v and then c+ v, AND the person on the train can also measure the forward and return trips of the light. And according to the classical Math that you have just corrected me on, they all will get the same elapsed time periods, so they will both agree. Einstein thinks the will not agree As well as they clock hand will now move to unsynchronized locations of the faces. Show me in the text, where this is explained, as I can't see it. Which was what led me on the quest to understand the theory in the first place. Remember Einstein is still at this point explaining that there is a problem in classical Physics, by revealing that problem using classical physics. There is no such thing at this stage as Special Relativity. Please explain where he spells out how two different measures of two different speeds can mean that this is some problem. Its exactly what we expected, not a flaw. Where is the issue? P.S. As you are aware, I'm not good at math, but I do think, and know when something appears bizarre. . I'm self taught in Math so will make errors. But I will tell you that My son is now 18 and in college and is at the top of his school in Math and most other subjects, A+ scores. He's living with his mum, my Ex wife, who happens to be a resident Professor of Mathematics in a Large University in China, having also worked in a University in Australia and got her Ph.D. while studying in Edinburgh, Scotland. She has recently retired. So I do have access to advice from both my son and my ex, however as I prefer to learn on my own, try to understand a subject fully by applying my own thought processes, I have not bothered them. If I get really stuck, I will ask them. But you can see that I've now realised that my math was wrong. Took a while. However the issue remains that the verbal, textural conclusions of Einstein's about there being a synchronicity issue on those clocks is not revealed by his Math, nor explained in the text. If it is, show me where. Section one and Two are mostly text, with little math. It seems that he just made a statement that the clocks are unsynchronised but never explained why he came to that conclusion. It was all concluded very quickly. Immediately following the equation that I was labouring over, he simply states, "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" But this is not the conclusion that a classical physics can come to. He would just say the observers measured two different events and got two different durations. And all the clocks tick on in perfect synchronization. The clocks were only recently synchronized, so measuring the duration of two different events makes them get unsynchronized?

Swansont and Mordred. Mordred refereed to ctsl Mordred wrote: Forget all about observers we or relativity of simultaneity. mirror A back of the train mirror B front of the train. on a static train entire length of train to truly simplify the math lets say its the time it would take light 1 second to travel on a non moving train. Static velocity=0. now lets say the train travels at a velocity 0.5 c set the train moving from A to C. now send a quick signal pulse from B to A. time for signal to arrive at A from B is 1 second on a non moving train. However the train is moving while the pulse is in flight. It is moving at 0.5 c so the pulse will hit mirror A at 0.5 seconds and not 1 second because mirror A towards the signal while the signal was moving toward mirror A. (C-V) in math speak. 1-0.5=0.5 or more accurately (ctsl−v)where the subscript " sl " denotes the interval length it would have taken on a stationary train So, Swansont, do you agree with Mordred or disagree? And Mordred, please clarify exactly what you mean by the term ctsl.. If we have ct (a distance), then if c=10 velocity units, and t = one time unit then ct = 10 units of distance. then what do we get for ctsl. ? Just to make things unambiguous we need to pin this down. And Mordred is the person who needs to explain how he can deduct a velocity from a distance. He wrote, "or more accurately (ctsl−v)" Mordred seems to he presenting a different argument than you, and I did get all these versions mixed up between you two. I will try to address Mordred first, and reply to you after we have clarified what exactly he is claiming.

Its late here, I'm off to bed, so ill address this tomorrow. But briefly, for tonight's effort, as you insist in measuring distances using the speed of light and time rather than a simple ruler, then lets go all out and measure ALL distance using light and time, agreed? This will simplify things a lot. Here is the meaning of the necessary variables for distances when we use light speed and time to determine distance: There are 3 different distances. The "total distance" (rod + how far it moved) as you have identified is ct. The Length of the rod has to be ctA. The distance the Rod moves has to be something else, ctB So clearly ct is equal to the sum of ctA + ctB ct= ctA + ctB So as these three distances are not equal to each other, then there has to be 3 different time periods here. Seems to be pretty clear that we can not have only ONE variable for t in your equations, because the only difference between your equation and this one is that we have measured the rods distance moved by means of light velocity instead of its velocity of the rod. Of course we can measure anything moving or stationary using light and elapsed time. In my equation we need two measures to calculate the value of ct. But the equation I supplied can now be reduced to simply t = tA + tB ( Total length of rod and rods motion = rod length plus rods distance moved.) But if I had the time to substitute real values to replace your variables it would be revealed (proven by demonstration) that your equations are unbalanced. Hence there is an error in your equations. Ok, ct can be the "interval length" meaning its the total distance of the rod and the distance that the rod moved. But its a distance. You can not deduct a measure of speed, from a measured distance. V is a speed, ct is a distance. You wrote the function (ctsl - v) Show me how you can deduct 29 mph from 69 miles.

My previous comment accidently included a bit that I forgot to remove at the very end... Please ignore the lines Which appear as the last lines in the comment. It was part of my draft. Just ignore it. Seems I cant go back and edit the comment.

Great. you just confirmed what classical physics says, that we have to use c+ v and c- v. But then you muck it up with (ctsl−v) because while c + or - v equates to a velocity, but ct or ctsl are distances. And you cant deduct a velocity from a distance. I did not insult anyone. I merely suggested that is SEEMS to me that, because on your use of Algebra, you can't have attended a school. This is not an insult, its just me posturing a likely cause for some algebra that I considered is invalid. Here is your error AGAIN. Consider this: " t is the time it takes for the light to get from one end of the rod to the other. There is only one value for this time." BUT there are TWO time periods in the Rod Experiment, if you insist in replacing (for no practical reason) the simple term r (for rod length), with the unnecessary term ct. So the first t is how long it took light to span the rod length. Unless you believe that the light can also span that same rod length plus another distance, in the same time? This is like saying light takes 1.5 seconds to go to the moon from earth, AND it also takes 1.5 second to go to the Sun. Because DISTANCE = ct. So if you insist on using ct to replace rod length as well as the distance the rod moved, then you MUST, MUST have two different variables called t and t' and they MUST have different values. Anyway, ct is not appearing in the equations Einstein gave which he claimed was pure classical Physics. Its obviously not classical physics and its not even a correct derivation. What's this about ONE CHANCE? I have given you many opportunities to show where my claims are wrong, and you have tried, but so far failed. How many chances do I have to allow you? But Ive already given the correct equation, fixing Einstein's error, and also proven that there will be no possible way that two observers can end up with different values for that Rod. here is the correct equation yet again, Let t = one second. R is length of Rod measured as 10 units Let c = 10 units per second velocity ct is the length of the rod, thus ct = 10 units of distance THUS we confirm that t is one second exactly vt is the distance travelled by the rod NEXT BUT vt is the distance travelled by the rod and ct is the Rod length. Now because we have TWO different distances in the equation, one is Rod length, and the other is distance the rod moved "ct can not be both the length of the rod as well as the distance the rod moved + the Rod length. Because there are two totally different distances here. ct doesn't cover both of them when t remains the same value. Then as you insist on using the constant "c" and a time period to measure distances, then we MUST have two different periods of Time to consider. so to reflect this, we MUST have t and t prime Light cannot take 1 second to span the Rod's length PLUS the distance the rod has moved in that same time period it took to span just the Rod alone. So we MUST have another variable for TIME. call it t' or t Prime or Z if you like. WHERE IS THE MISSING Time variable in your Algebra? I will give YOU ONE MORE CHANCE to prove that your algebra is sound. As t = distance travelled/ velocity THEN we can only derive

I proved that Swansont is mathematically wrong, and his claims are based on the approved narrative as taught by experts on Einstein's theories. So now what? Can anyone show that my criticism of Swansont has a fault? Explain then how its being used. c+v or c-v can only have one meaning. Show me an alternative meaning. And then indicate exactly where in the confines of the Rod experiment Einstein clarifies which of the alternative meanings of c+v he has used.

Again you have it arse about face. The onus is on me to prove that the Math in Einstein's paper is wrong, which I have done many time already. I am under no obligation to also delve into why people claim various experiments must be interpreted a specific way and no other options exist. That is another task. I have shown what I intended to show, that Einstein in his 1905 Paper, has failed to prove that Classical Physics has any problem that requires solving. I see none of this mentioned or used in the Rod Experiment. Please move your assumptions about the meaning of various other experiments to another new Topic.

You are using the logical fallacy of putting your words into my mouth. I said that Light has constant motion. I said that light motion is not influenced by the motion of the light source. But this is not synonymous with " light has a universal measured speed 186,000 m.p.s" And I've explained why in previous posts. And when Einstein claimed that light is a universal constant of 186,000 mps or c, that was his POSTULATE, which he was supposed to prove along with the other postulate, that measurements are unchangeable LAWS of physics. He failed to prove these postulates, or rather he failed to prove that his conclusion when both postulates are combined, was a true conclusion. But regardless, none of this has any bearing on the Rod experiment, as its 100% classical Physics which he is trying to say, is wrong. IN the rod experiment, light speed is considered as being consistent, as is the consistency of the Rods motion.

Just as I suspected. You surely have no qualifications as a Mathematician, probably failed high school math by the look of your attempt at the logic of algebra. The GLARING ERROR in your really silly algebra attempt, is here: d = ct, so r + vt = ct Its so bizarre that a grown up, in a healthy state of mind, would make the error that is obvious here. equating ct with r + vt is the error. ct is a variable, not a constant, because the elapsed time t, is a different value in the two instances that you mention in the one breath. So the correct reference to ct must show that in this set of equations that there has to be another time period, a t' for example. so if you insist on using ct rather than the more convenient v, c, d, and l, then you must have a ct and also a different distance ct'. Because first you said that ct was the distance covered by light in time t which was equal to the rod length. But then you also say they its the distance of the rod length as well as the distance the rod moved. The TIME required for light to span the Rod is t, so if now the light has to span that rod PLUS some extra distance, then it will take longer, therefore we need a t'. So there are TWO time variables in you method not one. But you only try to use one, thus there is the reason your algebra is nonsense. The only way to PROVE that you are wrong is to assign REAL NUMBERS to replace those algebraic symbols and do the math. Let t = 1 let rod length = 10 let rod velocity = 5 let light velocity = 10 Distance = to be calculated Using your equation: d = ct, so r + vt = ct and using your statement that d=ct we get Distance , (you claim is d = ct ) substituting we get: 10 = 10, so 10 + 5 = 10 so you really think that 15 = 10? These claims are contestable, but lets do it in a new thread. Its getting to complex here to debate a number of things at once. The task is to prove or disprove that Einstein's claim that classical Physics gives a wrong result. He claimed to have proved mathematically the error with the Rod experiment. Lets stay with that in this thread until the issue is resolved.

Actually, we ought not to engage in a new topic, of M&M interferometer. Please start a new topic. I have criticisms of the INTEPRETATION of the M&M equipment, but this topic is about SR as explain specifically by Einstein. I don't think "Uhuh" is showing me where I'm wrong. I cant even find it in the dictionary. If you have something to say, provide the evidence. And use understandable English and Math. So now you are saying that I am correct? Provide the evidence and the Math. Ad hominem attacks are frowned on here. Calling me incapable is a attack on my person. Stick to the evidence and the math.

Correction here, I meant You say that the "v" in the Denominator defines the MOTION of the ROD so we don't need to use distance travelled in the numerator.