Logicandreason

And this explanation about the M & M experiment, the illustration and the supplied Math, is inadmissible on account of the fact that it offers no proof of anything. A null result on an experiment is not proof of some claim, its perhaps if you are really generous with your standards, POSSIBLY ONLY HINTING that there is no Aether. but its also, if you are not so loose with your assumptions, the M&M experiment and all subsequent experiment results HINT that this equipment is just not suitable to demonstrate the existence of an Aether. Also, it could HINT that the results are invalid because the machine was never calibrated to fixed standards before it was used. or another thing that could be HINTED is the fact that never has anyone demonstrated that the equipment was even able to show any velocity of light differences in the first place. (N.B. Einstein's actual words were that he believed that Maxwell and M&M Null result "SUGGESTED". I used the word HINTED as a synonym. Nowadays, the existence of an Aether in some form or other is STILL postulated by many Physicists especially of the Quantum persuasion. But they re label it as the Quantum Field or some such thing. Changing the name means nothing, the idea called quantum Field is along the same lines as the idea of an aether or even the idea of a fixed Spacetime of GR. So, sorry but M&M is not the way past this problem. Nor is Einstein's statements about the HINTING that he thinks is really important regarding Maxwell's claimed "non invariance" which simply doesn't exist. SIGH, (meaning: why do I have to keep baby stepping you through all this? ) your inference when you used the word SIGH. I have posted as much evidence as Einstein including the Math. And of similar quality. NO one has yet shown where I have it wrong. Why don't you have a go? Well I am really doubting that you guys really have Ph.D.'s in Physics or Math now. There is no intellectually honest Mathematician or even high school student that will say they the Numerator in this equation can be a fixed static length. In Physics used a LOT today, and in Mathematics, they often reduce a moving subject to a hypothetical entity called a Point. The do this for Planets, and even whole Galaxies. The concept is sound. When I travel in my car, I never consider when the front of the car gets to the shop compared to when the back of the car gets there. I consider my car a single entity with no regard for its length, Its a Point that I can consider as having reached the shop. The cop with his radar also treats my car as a point. So now let's revise Einstein's equation USING THE CLAIMS YOU ARE MAKING about the Rods length, rAB but now we shall just look at it as a POINT. You say that the "v" in the Denominator defines the MOTION of the ROD so we dont need to use v in the numerator. But what happens now to this equation, given that it is squarley based on the standard velocity equation t=d/v? Well we get Time = ZERO/ c + v). and also Time + ZERO/ (c-v) Whereas I contend that the Distance in the equation can only be the DISTANCE MOVED, and can never be the length of the car or Rod. Another reason why you are impossibly wrong, is revealed by the fact that if we simply rotated the same rod into a vertical orientation, so that now the ROD's Length is maybe 1/20 the of the actual longest part of the rod, so now "D" is say 1 unit instead of 20, yet nothing else has changed, the velocity is identical, you actually must believe that the TIME PERIOD the rod is in motion is now different! But obviously a short Rod and a vey long rod moving at the same speed both start and stop motion at the same time, irrespective of their length. So your statement, "It’s clear to me (and others) that the equation is correct, so just asserting that it’s wrong is meaningless." , Has now been shot to hell. And I have given you the "correct equation" 27 TIMES now. Stop claiming that I have not. It is: t= the distance travelled / the velocity but your claiming that: t = the length of my garage / velocity of my car. (my car is the same length of my garage) It's not not really possible to make this any clearer or any simpler. Its getting so simple that I will need to use crayons or finger paint soon to explain it to you.

Back this up. There would be no need for it to be a postulate in relativity if it was the case. Well I TRIED to back this up but I was told that any explanation would precipitate me getting blocked from the conversation. I was only permitted to supply Math with no explanation. The key to this question is understanding, (try hard, I know understanding is not easy for religious people, and this point is mentioned the the site rules and guidelines as explained by Swansont in his comment on page one. The key is to realise that the nature of MOTION, namely having a consistency of motion, is NOT interchangeable with A Subjective MEASUREMENT of that Motion. In every statement now, since Einstein, any enquiry(google search) about the "Constancy of Lights motion", automatically gives results relating ONLY to a NUMERICAL measurement of Lights motion. 186,000 m.ps. Maxwell was one of the ways that people before Einstein could see that Light probably had a constant speed, Measurable relative to SOMETHING, but they could not figure out what that something was. So pre Einstein there was evidence that Light had a set speed according to Maxwell and most likely postulated by others of the day too, but their voices have ben lost in history now, as they have nothing more to add of note. So yes, there was really no need for Einstein to make the constancy of Light MOTION a postulate. But he did have to postulate that it was constant, and always measurable as 186,000 mps. There is more to this, but I have a pressing need to go into the yard and rake up leaves.

You are mathematically in error. You need to consider what you are claiming is correct math when its obviously wrong. c+ and c- in this equation is the calculated SPEED of the LIGHT relative to a stationary frame. such as previously identified by Einstein. That is the denominator in a velocity equation t=d/v But as the equation is dynamic and not static, indicated by the fact that we have a duration tA to tB. then the NUMERATOR which is a DISTANCE can ONLY mathematically be a "DISTANCE TRAVELLED" in the Time period tB - tA. The Numerator in the velocity equation as applied to a dynamic condition can never remain as a non moving distance. We call these FACTS, "Mathematics". You ought to look it up one day. Even a child can follow the reasoning in simply classical Physics Math such as this. Einstein's Equation is NOT classical physics at all. its an error of classical physics math.

The math in front of me is attached. I showed that it is incorrectly representing what Einstein is claiming in the Rod in a moving frame" thought experiment. He claimed the we were measuring the time it took for light to traverse a moving rod, but in the math the Rod is not moving. RAB is the static Rod length and light will span a static length in the same time for anyone that is in the same static frame. But in the equation that Rod is supposed to be in motion, as is the light, which the equations shows has motion relative to the Rods motion. ( c+ or _ v) Therefore , that motion + and - v, MUST be included for the NUMERATOR so the Numerator MUST be (RAB + or - v). and not simply RAB. This is 100% correct Classical Physics applied mathematically. Prove mathematically that this is not correct. Then I'll accept the consequences.

When I was informed that I would be banned from this forum unless i restricted my argument to Mathematics alone, I was unable to explain texturally, in plain English where Einstein's logical and rational error was to be found. I warned everyone that this was not the professional approach, and that even if I show the Math error,, (which I have just done) you all could simply loop back on the argument are reapply the original concept error, which in your minds negated my math. Its circular logic fallacy. In fact, classical Physics DOES say that Light has constant motion. But Classical Physics was not developed by stupid men. So while light speed is indeed "constant" of motion, its measurement can only ever be related to the origin of the measurement. Like ANY measurement, the Origin is PART of the Measurement. In Einstein's paper he acknowledges this when he wrote, Quote: "The “time” of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock. ....... It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it “the time of the stationary system.” Clearly for Einstein's thought experiments to make any sense, he HAD TO HAVE A ORIGIN for the experiments, which he identifies as "the Stationary System, the clock in the stationary system". This provides the ESSENTIAL ORIGIN for both LOCATION and for TIME which MUST be defined or else no time period or length measure can have any meaning. I can not say, the object everyone and anyone is looking for is located at 345 meters north. and if any person and every person walks north for 3 minutes at speed of 4 mph, anyone and everyone will find it." Its gibberish, because no reference origin is specified to which the measurement are related. Same with Einstein's paper. He initially specifies the origin for distance and time, being the stationary frame, but later deletes all reference to that origin replacing that required origin with the claim that ANY and ALL origins are going to give the same result. This is nonsense.

I got a nonsense result, so rather than destroying all of known classical Physics, I instead decided to first check the Equations. And its clear that the Equations do NOT represent Classical Physics, and they do not even make sense. The Rod has motion, but the equation has not considered that motion. It only refers to the static lenghth of the rod, which is NOT what the experiment is trying to measure! Of course you can, but that is only going to give the same distance if you know the actual measurement of lights speed, relative to the object being measured. IN classical Physics, c is a constant relative to the origin of the measurement. but the measurement of c is not a universal constant.. That is the postulate of Einstein, nothing to doo with classical physics. Its exactly his second postulate. (a Postulate is a claim that the author is asking us to accept without any justification, as he intends to prove that its correct by application of his conclusions which he hopes are obviously correct. But its not what we are measuring. We are supposed to be measuring how long light will take to traverse the length "rAB" WHEN rAB is in motion an directions with and against the direction of the light. In the equations, reference of the motion of the rod is totally missing. I've explained the error in terms so simple that a child can follow it, yet you just cant see it? You cant even comment on what in the preceding paragraph I just wrote? WHERE HAS THE EQUATIONS OF EINSTEN ALLOWED FOR THE MOTION OF THE ROD? SHOW ME. Fantastic, however none of this is included in an way in Einstein's "Rod in a moving frame experiment". So why on earth are you hung up on something that is not relevant to the topic.? Stick faithfully to the contents of Einstein's thought experiment which MUST be self contained else its not admissible as any proof that classical physics is wrong. Einstein wrote the "Rod in a moving frame" experiment, claiming that this was what classical Physics contends. But as I have shown its neither classical Physics nor is it even rational. If you intend to show where I'm wrong, you an not introduce other concepts that are not in the original text.

The "ROD in a moving frame experiment" has exact Math equation, and exact textural explanation from Einstein's own statements. The Experiment is fully unpacked by Einstein and is self sufficient. If you are claiming that other concepts can be inserted into this Experiment after the fact, then you must prove that your claims are valid. Merely shouting at the clouds, Biden fashion, is not providing the required proof. Show me exactly where, that Equation, Einstein has allowed for "interval length". "ct" is simply a distance. In the Example, "Rod in a moving frame," which Einstein claims is Classical Physics (but its an abortion of Classical Physics) 'ct" for a set time, is NOT a CONSTANT. Because in classical Physics the measurement of c has to include consideration of the measurers speed, thus c= or - v.

In Einstein's example "rod in moving frame" nowhere in his written text does he mention "Interval Length" or "ct". You were supposed to restrict your explanation to what Einstein actually wrote, especially when it comes to the equations he supplied. You have created a strawman by introducing terms and functions that do not appear in Einstein's Hypothesis. You then misrepresent what Classical Physics says about a train carriage. This is NOT what classical Physics says at all. IT IS WHAT EINSTEIN CLAIMS classical Physics is, but he is creating a strawman by misrepresenting what classical Physics actually says . Your equation is not visible in your comment, but I know what you are attempting to say, which is falsely representing classical physics, substituting it with Einstein's corrupt version. The two guys on that carriage and the guy in the middle, all agree on the constancy of Light, and they all agree that MEASUREMENT of lights sped is relative to the origin of the measurement, so they get c + and - v, AND they will all conclude that the carriage has a single length, by the application of ACTUAL Classical Physics, not the corrupted version of Einstein. Both equations versions then, as recorded by the one observer if you insist. The conclusions are still the same. Your logic is wrong when you try to conflate Einstein's experiment having multiple observers with the phrase 'We shall see". the "we shall see" phrase is addressing the papers readers and Einstein, he is not writing to the observers in his thought experiment, how futile that task would be. Talking to imaginary people. But this sort of poor logic seems to be rife here.

Quote: "The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call “the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.” This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l. Current kinematics tacitly assumes that the lengths determined by these two operations are precisely equal, or in other words, that a moving rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by the same body at rest in a definite position." The premise is that classical Physics observers would think that the Rods LENGTH was the same in either frame. Its clear from this extract. They were NOT measuring TIME. *but it doesn't matter anyway, the equation he gave is clear in meaning. Unfortunately its not a classical Physics equation, its not anything. The rod ought to be moving not fixed and all we have to go on is start end A and mirror end B. THAT is what MUST appear in the NUMERATOR to accurately represent what Classical Physics actually requires. Not the static Rod length, which won't give any sensible results as I show. Length is a distance, and Einstein's is using classical Physics velocity equation, t= d/v But measuring LENGTH not in distance units, but in time elapsed by Light covering a known distance. giving Time. But as we can rearrange this equation, we can solve for time or distance or velocity. But as Einstein doesn't give the Rod length, only the ends A and B, then we can only work with what he supplied. And we do know that the light began at the Rod end A, and then ended back at End A after reflecting off End B. and That is what I worked with. But I gave the Rod a known length, and Einstein said that both observers agreed on that rods length Quote: "Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary.... The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest." So clearly both observers at this stage have measured the Rod when its stationary and when it is moving using the same ruler. Both agree with the measured length. I said that measured length was 10 units. Now return to my work and continue finding where I'm wrong. The equation Einstein supplied is not a valid equation, so can not be proof that classical Physics is wrong, as it is not representative of what classical physics says. Its a strawman argument fallacy. There is no discrepancy when you use correct classical physics equations.

Thanks, enjoy you coffee, its bed time here. But do remember that you can not depart from the original Papers format. The "Rod in a moving frame" example is fully concluded and is of no further use by the end of Section 2. Einstein claimed with that Thought Experiment he has proved mathematically that classical physics is wrong. The observers are getting two different lengths for the one rod when classical physics believed that they would not. So then he was free from section 3, to make his first explanations as to how he could solve this issue beginning in Section 3. But you can't call on any of that material for the Rod experiment, as its the math that Einstein said was correct classical Physics math, when I show that its not valid math in anyone's book. Of course, after he complete his "kinematic proofs of SR, he can return to the Rod experiment and with totally different math, get a totally different result. But that has nothing to do with what I'm claiming.

But you are misguided. He never once departs from Classical Physic math in his "Rod in a moving frame" example. Its designed to show the claimed problem with classical physics, so there is no opportunity to call on a feature of Special Relativity such as Length contraction which has not even been proposed at this stage in the paper. Not even a twinkling in Einstein's eye. Einstein concluded the "Rod in a moving frame" example by saying that the two observers wont agree on the length of the Rod, therefore finally concluding that there is something wrong with Classical Physics. After that he starts to unfold his solution in the remainder of his hypothesis. As far as insulting behaviour goes, you guys collectively have been most unscientific to refuse to review what I'm trying to say with an open enquiring mindset, ( or even let me explain it ) rather, you have all automatically considered me as a crank. And done so before you have heard what I'm trying to say. Prejudged and condemned by a biased jury that has heard no evidence. Not professional in any way and insulting to me.

Clearly Einstein is using classical Physics equations here, no SR or Lorentz equations are anywhere. So you still need to show where my analysis is wrong.

Now you are guilty of exactly what you said I was doing. Not giving the details. But there is no SR transformations in this set of Equations. Its Classical Physics , but the derivation is nonsense. Is that not clear?

You can see my conservation with Mordred, where I fully explained one part of the Math portion of where I believe Einstein made an error. I was not permitted to explain where the error came from in the Papers explanation introduction. So Mordred's rebuttal was suggesting that I was incorrect because I did not use length contraction of relativity of simultaneity in my criticism of Einstein's theory! This is simply silly. His reply is nonsense and I told his as much. But you are welcome to explain where I'm wrong and why. I hope you do not make similar errors of simple logic. Any one can reply of course. My explanation was not aimed specifically at Mordred. So I've shown the Math error, which was what you all wanted to see. So where is it wrong? I actually fully explained mathematically where the first error in Einstein's can be found. I was conversing with Mordred at the time, Its a few posts back. So you have nothing to complain about. You can now simply show me where I'm wrong, mathematically. That's the best way to end the debate.

If you can show where I'm making an error, that would be nice.

Oh, for goodness sake! So my example of where SR is wrong, is itself wrong because its NOT applying SR? What kind of messed up thinking is this? You have to be joking right? At this stage in the hypothesis, Einstein wrote this equations and explained the moving Rod experiment, specifically to reveal a problem with classical Physics, and he is claiming that this equation is classical physics, so at this stage in the Paper, SR length contraction doesn't exist! And same for Relativity of Simultaneity He is still trying to establish that there is a problem with classical Physics.! All Relativity claims of Simultaneity and Length contraction and Time dilation can't apply before they are even proposed. Mordred, I'm very disappointed in this rather silly reply. Please try again but try to keep up. I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but really this is a silly, thoughtless response. You said, "There are no rigid rods". Really? Einstein in this very thought experiment TELLS you that there is a rigid ROD of fixed length, measured as L in the stationary system then moved to the moving system where the moving observer also says its still the same length according to his measurements using the same measuring system as was used originally. There is only one Rod. Quote: "“the length of the rod in the moving system”— must be equal to the length L of the stationary rod." Classic Physics says the two measures of the one Rod are equal, BUT Einstein says they do start this way, but he intends to prove that the will end up not being equal because of motion of one frame. He will prove that there is a problem with classical physics, by means of that equation I included in my comment. The equation is supposed to represent the equations from Classical Physics , and Einstein wants to show that it reveals a big problem. However, now I'm showing you that the equation is NOT a correct equation for any system of belief or Science. It's just junk. Its a strawman fallacy. The equation is not valid classical Physics, it doesn't even make any sense to anyone. And as such, it can never demonstrate that the two observers will disagree on the length of the rod, and so Einstein has not established that there is any problem to solve. What did I warn you about? I said that unless we set the ground rules, and I am allowed to explain where the concepts are in error, then if I present the math directly, as I've just done, then I said you would just loop back to the same original error in an endless bit of circular logic, and ignore whatever I write, because you never understood where the problem stems from. You cannot be serious to claim that the end conclusions of Einstein's hypotheses can be applied from the very first lines of his hypothesis retrospectively, before he has even hinted that these final conclusions even exist, or explain where there is even a problem to begin with, or explain with math why the end conclusions are inescapable. You may know Math, but you certainly seem to have a limited knowledge of Physics and Logic. I can only judge by what you say.

In this equation is the first Mathematical error in Einstein's paper. See the attached jpg. His conclusion was that this equation reveals that both observers will not agree on the length of the rod, but he can then solve this disagreement, with application of the Lorentz transformation, thus allowing the two observers to bot now agree on the rods length. His whole Paper rest on this problem being real, and if this equation is wrong then there is nothing remaining on which to base Special relativity. Here is the error: The whole scenario is of a dynamic motion where the light wave front is moving in time and also the rod is simultaneously also in motion. The term c-v and c+v indicates that the observes recognise the motion of the light and the rod and have taken this into consideration. However the error is here: rAB is the LENGTH of the ROD, previously measured while at rest in the stationary system. But that is a static dimension of the rod, and we are not using the light to measure the ROD, but we are measuring the dynamic Location at the instant when the light coincides with the rods ends. The ENDS “A and B”, which are moving in the stationary system, and we record the locations in the stationary systems coordinates. So as rAB is only the fixed ROD LENGTH, and its not what we are measuring according to Einstein’s description of the Experiment, then we must replace rAB with actual locations of where the “A” end will be when Light is coincident, and also when rod end B and light are coincident. To illustrate, assume the Rod is Length of 10 units, and light takes 1 second to cover one rod length. Further, assume that the velocity of the Rod is 5 units in 1 second. Let the elapsed Time be 1 second. Now we have easy to follow math. Replace the unknown variables in Einstein’s equations with the known values: 1 second [light went 10 units in this 1 second] = 10 [units length of rod] / 10 [units of speed per second] -5 [speed of rod per second] or 1 second = 10/ 10 -5 and 1 second = 10/ 10 +5 Solving the equations we get: 1 second = 2 seconds, and 1 second = 0.5 seconds WTF ????? Clearly, even to a mathematician, there is a problem here, and its Einsteins rubbish equation! So if you accept this nonsense, then of course those two observers will not agree on the length of the rod. Now lets see what happens when you fix the equation with correct values. In the first equation, We are trying to figure out where the B end of the rod is from the start of the 1 second. We know that the A end was at the same location as where the light came from. Location zero. After 1 second = 5 [distance moved by rod in 1 second ] / 5 [speed of the rod] after 1 second = 10 distance moved by Light therefore the A end of the rod is at location 5 units from the start, and the B end is at position 15 units. Therefore the Stationary observer will get a length of 5-15 = 10 units for the Rod. In the second equation from the moving observer, We are trying to figure out where the A end of the rod is after 1 second. We know that the B end (mirror end) of the rod was at the Location zero for the moving observer. After 1 second = -5 [distance moved by rod in 1 second ] / -5 [speed of the rod moving toward the start location] after 1 second = 10 distance moved by Light (light is moving away from start Positive , but Rod is moving toward the start origin. Negative ) Therefore after 1 second, the B end of the rod is at location -5 units from the start location, where the moving observer is, and so the A end can only be at position 5 units. Therefore the moving observer will also get 10 units for the Rod length from the moving observers POV. Half the Rod is on the observers left side, half is on his right side. The -5 is NOT a value, its a location in a direction. So clearly both observers can only agree, the ROD is the same length for both moving and stationary observers. This is opposite to what Einstein claims. Now what exactly are the functions “c + v” and “c – v”??? “c” has a set value for everyone, it is claimed by Einstein. Therefore they are “impossible” functions according to Einstein’s own theory, so what then is it supposed to represent? The results of c + or - v, is not the velocity of ANYTHING. It not the velocity of Light, and its not the velocity of the Rod. And its not the average speed of anything. Its the only the difference in speed between Light and the Rod. Not being the velocity of anything at all, so it can’t be the denominator in the velocity equation t=d/v Because in that equation, there is a set distance covered in a certain time, by ONE object that has a set velocity. Its not possible to insert a “speed difference value” between to other objects as the denominator. Do the exercise with two cars moving at different speeds and inserting their speed difference value into the velocity equation, and tell me what object exactly will get to the destination in the calculated time? Its not either of those two cars. So what passed the finish line that prompted you to press the button on the stop watch? A “difference in speed” doesn’t cross the Finnish line and have a recorded time. Only an Object (one of the cars) has a speed that can be used in the velocity equation. The second car has a different time recorded. So it is with Light and the Rod. The speed differential is not of any use in these equations. Only the Light speed c and the Rod speed v is important. Not the value of the difference between them.

Ok, so now you all try another cheap trick. A one on on one discussion with Mordred, that was showing promise, is now effectively buried again, thanks to the sudden combined attack with a barrage of duck and dodge comments that are intended to divert form where we were, to attend to all these side issues. (like Swanson is not Swansont) Did you guys all have a meeting privately and decide on a attack strategy? But as I've done before to your claims, I can debunk what you are individually saying, quite easily, but it will have to wait till later, after the conservation with Mordred has reached a logical conclusion. (which won't be, "I'm tired of you, so I'm not playing anymore, logicandreason". Because the "Resident Expert, Mordred is above such pettiness. So are we ready to continue or not? I laid out clearly what my intensions were in this comment to Mordred some time back. "I intend to give the Math errors, but first there is the matter of explaining how and when the problem was first developed, that led to the errors. This is logical approach is it not? Its the same approach used in all Universities by the best Professors." And further: "Unless I pinpoint the source of the Math error, which is in the logic of Einstein's argument, then its not going to be of any use supplying an alternative equation that has no context. Is that not correct? You will simply loop back to the source of the problem to defend Einstein's math, because you have not realised that its the problem source. Its a case of circular logic." Mordred, as gang leader, you decide, is this unreasonable?

Look, as you are evidently hard of hearing, I'l repeat again, that I intend to give the Math errors, but first there is the matter of explaining how and when the problem was first developed, that led to the errors. This is logical approach is it not? Its the same approach used in all Universities by the best Professors. So far every time I've tried to broach the specifics, I'm met with total silence, just a big ignore. as if I had made no statement at all. My comments just disappear into the history and are never mentioned by anyone. its like talking to a brick wall. but at least the wall can maybe provide an echo. Unless I pinpoint the source of the Math error, which is in the logic of Einstein's argument, then its not going to be of any use supplying an alternative equation that has no context. Is that not correct? You will simply loop back to the source of the problem to defend Einstein's math, because you have not realised that its the problem source. Its a case of circular logic. I try to remove any Logical errors, not surround myself in a protective fence made of them.

"Unproven Claims"? You really are being particularly obnoxious now. I've tried from 16 different angles to get a chance to state my reasons and explain my proofs, but you block me every time. You just do not want to hear what I have to say. period. You do not KNOW that the math works, you BELIEVE that it works. But I can show you that its all an illusion. With math. and rational analysis, and sound logic. I can show why the experiment are not valid. And you can NOT RECRIPROCATE! You can not show me where I'm wrong. Where are those 3 very best examples for observed Time dilation Length contraction and Mass increase? Why are you so afraid to THINK about this? Please go lie down somewhere quiet, and look up "cognitive dissonance" on google.

Then you are a religious person then, believing in your dogma even in the face of conflicting evidence. You don't want to hear WHY SR is wrong, you don't want to hear where the Math errors are, you are almost putting your fingers in your ears because you desperately want to keep your faith, and its not strong enough to entertain any opposition. Its really difficult now to give you any credit as a scientifically minded person in face of your closed minded stubbornness. If you review the transcript of the whole tread, not once have I lost the point. Always I could provide a rational and logical counter. Unlike the defenders of SR here, I always responded to every counter to my statements. You guys simply IGNORE what I've said, and hope that it goes away. This is NOT professional behaviour. So, OK, please retire. Maybe someone else who is willing to carry on a debate style conservation will step up. Also, you describing the first postulate with math, is fine, but its not actually solving any of the problems I'm raising here. You act as if by simply providing your math explanation for the first postulate was the end of the discussion, It isn't. It was a moot point at best, a diversion.

However his 1905 paper was accepted and published, and the essential tenants of Length contraction , mass increase and Time Dilation were accepted as being correct, the 1905 paper was self sufficient for this purpose. So it ought to be error free today. But its chock full of errors ... MATHEMATICS errors that are not able to be overcome. Nothing he added to the theory in later years changed the essential claims of the 1905 Paper. Oh and by the way, e=mc2 is also obviously wrong too. It stems from the same errors. So how about answering my question now?

Just show me where in Einstein's 1905 Paper where he addressed this. Quote Page and section and Paragraph. Ta.

So lets get this straight, now you believe that an irrational concept, containing obvious irreparable errors, and then backed up with totally incorrect Maths and incorrect Equations somehow still manages to make accurate predictions? Seems like a divine miracle to me, not science and certainly not Maths. Because I can show you the errors that are made in the text, I can show you the error in the Maths, but you still are clinging onto to the final thing, that you have "valid observations"? Sounds like an Apple add, "It just works" Wow, such absolute FAITH. You never stopped to think that maybe Science is now mostly FRAUD with a purpose for that continued Fraud? That simply IMPOSSIBLE? Really? despite all the other well known examples of fraud in Science? You think you found ALL the frauds? All that observed evidence is beyond criticisms? Really? OK, What is your very best example of Observed Length Contraction? Just the very best example.? And What is your very strongest example of the Observation of a known Mass increasing. Not energy increasing, I want to observe the Mass increasing. You may say you can convert Mass into Energy, but don't bother, just show me the Mass unconverted. After all the Genius stipulated that Mass increased, he did not say that Energy increased. (Said it several times) And finally what is your very strongest solid observable evidence for Time dilating? Cite specific examples please for each. P.s. You said-- " I asked you a while back on this thread if you had an alternative model that also accounts for these observations."???? Well how can I give you a more accurate model to account for FRAUDULENT and mistaken observational evidence? Give me those best example of time dilation, mass increase and length contraction, and we will see how strong they really are.

Shows exactly that you have very little knowledge of Einstein's Paper. There is not any reference in the Paper to geodesics which relates to Riemannian geometry's curved surfaces and tangential lines on those surfaces showing the shortest path is not a straight line. This is used on General Relativity, never in Special relativity which is employing Cartesian geometry systems. I would like to, but first I need to apply that latex to cement that Math together into a coherent whole. And you are unwilling to listen to the sound of latex as it is not in accord to your familiar sounds you have learned off by heart. To explain, I have to get you to first UNDERSTAND the PROBLEM. And you REFUSE to give me any fair hearing. I asked a simple question, the answer to which will help unravel the actual problem, and you are intentionally ignoring that Question. Why is that?