A Fallacy about Einstein's Relativity

[discountbrains]

Consider 2 spaceships going from planet A to planet B on the same path and with the same velocity very close to c. One is ahead of the other by several millions miles and is just a few 100 miles from planet B and the trailing one is a few 100 miles from planet A. Since they are going close to c an observer at rest watching them off to the side sees their separation actually appears very small. He adds their separation to the distances of each to the respective A and B planets and calculates the distance between the two planets and finds it now much smaller than he hnows it should be. How can this be? This same reasoning can be applied to Einstein's explanation of the electro-magnetic effect and it can be concluded his theory does not explain this either. Once I posted the spaceships example before on one of these sites and was told "This site is physics not math". I'm puzzled why I didn't counter this remark with, "This is science not religion".

 I will give details why relativity doesn't explain the magnetic effect of an electrical current through a wire later-its not complicated. 

[Endy0816]

The stationary observer and the ships will not agree on those distances.

Distance is contracted in the direction of motion, while our stationary observer is not going anywhere.

Be at the maximum for one and a lesser value for the other two.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, discountbrains said:

A Fallacy about Einstein's RelativityT

And yet over 100 years of physics and scientists since SR was arrived at, have missed, or purposely hidden the fallacy that you claim exists? I mean, why hasn't someone else many years ago pointed this out? I mean with all the young up and coming professionals, one would have thought that they would jump at the idea to show Einstein was wrong and gain fame and fortune. Or perhaps on the other side of the coin, it is you and your claims that are totally baseless and/or has been looked at previously and invalidated.

I certainly know which is more likely. 

 

[discountbrains]

Yes, you certainly know which is likely. BUT, your argument in no way proves me wrong. If I'm wrong give me a proof! This reminds me of a job I once had. I told the boss a guage we were using was damaged and he jumped on me for not telling him sooner. Do you get the point, In fact, I was precisely telling him at this time the guage was damaged.

[Mordred]

13 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

Yes, you certainly know which is likely. BUT, your argument in no way proves me wrong. If I'm wrong give me a proof! This reminds me of a job I once had. I told the boss a guage we were using was damaged and he jumped on me for not telling him sooner. Do you get the point, In fact, I was precisely telling him at this time the guage was damaged.

That's not the way this works. The onus is upon you to prove the mainstream understanding is incorrect not prove you wrong. We have 100 years of experimental evidence on the tests of GR on our side. This includes muon decay that without the length contraction the muons could not reach the Earths surface within their mean lifetime. This is just one of many supportive pieces of evidence on the accuracy of GR.

A simple verbal explanation is inadequate you will require mathematics that within your model can explain the observational evidence with the same degree of accuracy if not better than the standard model of GR.

Here is the essential detail you need to apply. Why is c invariant to all observers but any massive particle displays variant mass and velocity quantities ?

Start with that question and explain this without the combination of length contraction and time dilation.

another piece of evidence of length contraction is gravitational redshift but lets leave that detail for later.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Mordred

[discountbrains]

I learned what you say long ago in class. The muons survive because time is slower for them. I don't think length contraction plays a role. I don't know how your mass remark relates to what I said. It's all simple arithmetic; it either adds up or it doesn't. Why does the distance between the two planets change-and by a large amount at that?

[Mordred]

You cannot have time dilation without length contraction. This is apparently a lesson you missed when you did the space time graphs. Think about how time is modelled under SR coordinates with the ct coordinate.

[latex] x^{\mu}=(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)= (ct,x,y,z) [/latex] the ct gives the constant c units of length. So in order to contract the time coordinate ct you must apply the length contraction.

As your a new poster you will probably hit your 5 post limit for the first day, so I will look for your response tomorrow.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Mordred

[Janus]

1 hour ago, discountbrains said:

Consider 2 spaceships going from planet A to planet B on the same path and with the same velocity very close to c. One is ahead of the other by several millions miles and is just a few 100 miles from planet B and the trailing one is a few 100 miles from planet A. Since they are going close to c an observer at rest watching them off to the side sees their separation actually appears very small. He adds their separation to the distances of each to the respective A and B planets and calculates the distance between the two planets and finds it now much smaller than he hnows it should be. How can this be? This same reasoning can be applied to Einstein's explanation of the electro-magnetic effect and it can be concluded his theory does not explain this either. Once I posted the spaceships example before on one of these sites and was told "This site is physics not math". I'm puzzled why I didn't counter this remark with, "This is science not religion".

 I will give details why relativity doesn't explain the magnetic effect of an electrical current through a wire later-its not complicated. 

To address this scenario you have to take length contraction, time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity into account.

For example the initial distances you give are as measured in the frame of the spaceships.  This means that they measure the distance between the two planets as being length contracted (shorter than the distance that would be measured by someone at rest with respect to the planets).  The distance that the lead ship measures between himself and Planet B, will be longer as measured by anyone at rest with respect to the planets.   If he was traveling at 0.9999c relative to the planets, then  the distance he measures as being 100 miles, will be measured as 7071 miles in the planet frame.   

You also say that when The lead ship is 100 miles from planet B, that the Trailing ship is 100 miles from planet A. Again, as measured from the frame of the ships. But this does not mean that the rest frame of the planets will measure The trailing ship as being 7071 miles from planet A when it measures the leading ship as being 7071 miles from planet B.

When you say that the distances between the ships and planets are 100 miles at the same time, you are basically saying that if two ships had clocks in them and those clocks were synchronized to each other in the frame of the ships,then those clocks would read the same time (say 12:00) at the moment each ship was 100 miles from its respective planet.

However, due to the relativity of simultaneity, according the planet frame, the clocks in the ship are not synchronized with each other. The clock in the trailing ship will read quite a bit ahead of the clock in the lead ship.  The planet frame will agree that when the trailing ship's clock read 12:00 it was 7071 miles from planet A and when the lead ship' clock read 12:00 it was 7071 miles from planet B,   but it will not agree that clocks on the two ships read 12:00 at the same moment.  

The sequence of events in the planet frame would go like this:

The trailing ship clock will read 12:00 and it will be 7071 miles from planet A. At that time, the lead ship clock will read some time before 12:00 and will be greater than 7071 miles from planet B

The distance between the trailing ship and planet A will increase while the distance between the lead ship and planet B will decrease.

When the clock in the lead ship reads 12:00, the lead ship will be 7071 miles from planet B. The clock in the trailing ship will read quite a bit past 12:00 and the trailing ship will be more than 7071 miles from planet A.     For a thorough analysis you would need to know both the proper distance between the ships (as measured by the ships) and the exact fraction of c the ships are moving with respect to the planets. 

 

12 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

I learned what you say long ago in class. The muons survive because time is slower for them. I don't think length contraction plays a role. I don't know how your mass remark relates to what I said. It's all simple arithmetic; it either adds up or it doesn't. Why does the distance between the two planets change-and by a large amount at that?

Length contraction comes into play when you consider the muon frame.  For the muon, its clock doesn't run slow, neither is its speed relative to the earth different from what the Earth measures as the muon's speed as being relative to the Earth.  Thus the only way it could reach the ground in its lifetime at that relative speed would be for the distance between where it was created and the Earth's surface to be shorter for it than was when measured by the Earth.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, discountbrains said:

Yes, you certainly know which is likely. BUT, your argument in no way proves me wrong.

Excuse me for picking you up on the first hurdle so to speak....but science and scientific theories and methodology is not concerned nor based on "proof". Would you like to try again?

I can see anyway that the two previous replies have answered your error in claiming any fallacy. 

[Markus Hanke]

3 hours ago, discountbrains said:

How can this be?

Janus has just answered this comprehensively - it‘s because of the issue of simultaneity. 
May I just add that it can be mathematically shown in a general manner that SR is fully self-consistent, i.e. it is not possible to construct any kind of real paradox using its axioms. This is independent of the specifics of the scenario. 

3 hours ago, discountbrains said:

I will give details why relativity doesn't explain the magnetic effect of an electrical current through a wire later-its not complicated.

That‘s an interesting contradiction, because if relativity did not apply, then the very wire itself could not exist in real world (and neither could you, btw). This is because the quantum field theories that describe the behaviour of all the particles that make up the wire critically depend on the symmetries of relativity. Without it, elementary particles and their composites would either not exist at all, or have very different properties than the ones we observe.

As for magnetism specifically, it actually follows from fundamental principles, so you don‘t even need to start with relativity. Suppose we have a potential 1-form A. The source-free part of the electromagnetic field then is, as usual for all such fields,

[math]\displaystyle{F=dA}[/math]

which is a 2-form. This naturally implies, via Poincare‘s Lemma, that

[math]\displaystyle{dF=d(dA)=0}[/math]

which is precisely the magnetic part of the Maxwell equations. Since both of the above relations are manifestly Lorentz covariant, on account of the transformation properties of the exterior derivative, the validity of relativity for magnetism is quite a natural consequence of this. It is hence just as correct to say that relativity falls right out of the fact that magnetism exists.

[Eise]

If I am allowed to reflect a little on such postings, as the OP, or better, on the reactions to it.

We see three kinds of reactions here: the 'beecee-reaction', the 'Janus-reaction', and the 'Markus-reaction'. (All are equally valid).

Beecee's reaction is global, saying more or less that SR is empirically tested  to the bone, so anybody thinking he found an error in relativity will have a very hard time: it is difficult to argue against endless observational tests, and the fact that SR is technically used, e.g. in particle accelerators. These would not work the way they do if we would not take SR in account.

Janus' reaction is technical, to the point, showing where discountbrains makes errors in his argumentation. For me, with a limited understanding of SR, it is always a joy to read his exposés about errors made by 'Einstein-was-wrong!' (im)posters. Often his reactions improve my understanding another little bit.

Markus' reaction I find, as a philosopher, the most interesting: it shows that SR belongs to the absolute fundamentals of our understanding of the world, of the laws of nature. This is even so much so that the Lorenz transformations can function as a filter for new laws of nature. If new found laws are not invariant under Lorenz transformations, they cannot be fundamental laws of nature. At most they are approximations. Historically, this has been a strong guide to find more fundamental laws of nature. The most astonishing example I find is Dirac: by discovering that the laws of QM, as they were known in his days,  were not invariant under Lorenz transformations, and changing them by making them so, he was able to predict the spin of the electron and the existence of the anti-electron. Spin was already postulated on other grounds, but got its fundament with Dirac. The anti-electron was found about a year after Dirac's prediction. I am sure physicists here can come with more examples. I think e.g. that we could turn around Markus' argument: imagine we would only have known about the electric field and its impacts, but had not discovered the magnetic field. By making the electrical field Lorenz-invariant, the magnetic field would roll out.

So, discountbrains, by saying 'Einstein had a fallacy' you are opposing the whole body of established physics. I think it are the outrageous sounding effects of time dilatation and length contraction that are so counter-intuitive, and are often presented as examples par-excellence of special relativity, that lay people think this is mainly what special relativity is about (just forgetting that E=mc² also follows from special relativity), and that there must be an error. (And think that Einstein came to this theory and since then there was nothing anymore to it.)

One could even defend that special relativity is not a physical theory, but a meta-physical theory (no, not metaphysical): every theory in physics must comply to special relativity, otherwise it is just an empirical approximation.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Eise
Typo

[Markus Hanke]

Just to add to what Eise said - Lorentz invariance (i.e. Special Relativity, with length contraction and time dilation) is a fundamental local symmetry of the physical world, and in some form or another it is a critical part of all other models in physics. This symmetry has been extensively tested, and no violations have ever been observed:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

[koti]

3 hours ago, Eise said:

 

...We see three kinds of reactions...

Long time no see Eise.

[discountbrains]

I can't answer all of u now. Some of u confuse what the occupants on the spaceships see with what's seen on the ground. I'm only talking about the ground observer. He is measuring both the relativistic distance contraction between the ships and the distances remaining from the ships to the planets. I plugged what the nummbers from the ships to the planets once into the equation and found it didn't change from what it otherwise would be. I should post my work here so you'll know precisely what I'm talking about. Time dialation doesn't have anything to do with it; the ground observer simply takes a snapshot of the scene and measures from there. There really is no other way he could do it. What measurement would he get the classical distance or the relativistic one? Saying many real world observations confirm  this doesn't really prove something else cause them. I believe what Einstein says appears to be mostly right. There. however, are some discrepencies here. 

Guess what, it gets even more problematic. The ground observer sees that the distance between the two planets changes due to how close to the speed of light the ships are traveling and also how far apart they are!!    

I'm interested in what the F an Arepresent in the dF=d(dA) equation above.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, discountbrains said:

I should post my work here so you'll know precisely what I'm talking about.

Indeed. That might make it easier to explain to you where you errors lie.

1 hour ago, discountbrains said:

The ground observer sees that the distance between the two planets changes due to how close to the speed of light the ships are traveling and also how far apart they are!!    

Of course he doesn't.

On 29/06/2018 at 3:35 AM, discountbrains said:

Since they are going close to c an observer at rest watching them off to the side sees their separation actually appears very small.

That could be true, it depends exactly how you set up the scenario. (There are potential complications with time dilation and simultaneity of relativity - you can deny this, but as your understanding is clearly flawed, your denials carry no weight).

On 29/06/2018 at 3:35 AM, discountbrains said:

He adds their separation to the distances of each to the respective A and B planets and calculates the distance between the two planets and finds it now much smaller than he hnows it should be. How can this be?

How can this be? Because you are talking nonsense. If we assume that the two spaceships are connected by a rigid rod so that the length contraction of that rod reduces the distance between them (there are complications here to do with the meaning of "rigidity", time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, but they are just details at this stage). In that case, the distance of each end of the shortened rod (and therefore the two spaceships) to the planets A and B will increase. Because, of course, the distance between the planets doesn't change; therefore subtract the reduced length of the rod and the apparent distance of one or both spaceships from A and/or B increases.

I guess you can "prove" anything if you just make stuff up.

 

Let's try a diagram to clarify:

Spaceships (joined together) not moving:

A  >---------->  B

Spaceships moving:
A    >---->      B

 

[beecee]

2 hours ago, discountbrains said:

I can't answer all of u now.

Instead of "champing at the bit"  in replying to the many that have discredited your scenario, perhaps you need to take an aspro, have a good lay down, and soak up the real knowledge that these excellent replies are trying to pass on to you in showing you the error of your ways.

Quote

. I plugged what the nummbers from the ships to the planets once into the equation and found it didn't change from what it otherwise would be. I should post my work here so you'll know precisely what I'm talking about.

Yes, do that....It would be really quite interesting to see how you can discredit over 100 years of SR study and research, that has been practically verified, observed and validated many times. But one would I suggest naturally wonder if you are so sure you are correct in invalidating that which has been validated many times, why you would not take a more professional approach in publishing your potentially momentous findings, and grab this year's Nobel. 

Personally I find the  pretentious notion of invalidating over 100 years of research, testing, observation and verification of SR and/or GR, both in this thread and others, as highly exhilerating for myself, in as much as I am slowly soaking up more knowledge in the actual mechanics of these theories, as illustrated in the excellent refutation replies supplied by the likes of Strange, Mordred, Janus, Swansont, Marcus and others. 

[Janus]

7 hours ago, discountbrains said:

I can't answer all of u now. Some of u confuse what the occupants on the spaceships see with what's seen on the ground. I'm only talking about the ground observer. He is measuring both the relativistic distance contraction between the ships and the distances remaining from the ships to the planets. I plugged what the nummbers from the ships to the planets once into the equation and found it didn't change from what it otherwise would be. I should post my work here so you'll know precisely what I'm talking about. Time dialation doesn't have anything to do with it; the ground observer simply takes a snapshot of the scene and measures from there. There really is no other way he could do it. What measurement would he get the classical distance or the relativistic one? Saying many real world observations confirm  this doesn't really prove something else cause them. I believe what Einstein says appears to be mostly right. There. however, are some discrepencies here. 

Guess what, it gets even more problematic. The ground observer sees that the distance between the two planets changes due to how close to the speed of light the ships are traveling and also how far apart they are!!    

I'm interested in what the F an Arepresent in the dF=d(dA) equation above.

I did give an explanation for what the Ground observer sees in my post.

Perhaps a picture will help.

To make it more amiable for an image, we'll use the following parameters.

The relative velocity between ships and planets is 0.866c.

The distance between the ships is 30 light sec as measured by the ships.

The distance between the planets as measured by the ships is 32 light sec.  

Thus there will be a moment, according the ships, when each ship is 1 light sec from a planet like this:

The black line is the distance between the ships, the blue line the distance between the planets and the red lines the distances between ships and planets.  Here we will assume that clocks on the ships both read 0 at this moment according to the ships.

However, in the "ground" frame, the distance between the ships will be 15 light sec and the distance between the planets will be 64 light sec.   Thus in the ground frame there is no moment when the two ships are each 1 light sec from a planet. Neither do the clocks in the two ships every read the same time like it is shown in the above image.  When the trailing ship's clock reads ) the trailing clock does not and when the leading ship's clock read zero, the trailing ship's clock doesn't. 

The following two image shows the moments when the trailing clock reads 0 and the when the leading clock reads zero.

At the top we have the moment when the trailing clock reads 0. At this moment, the trailing ship is 2 light sec from planet A.  the leading ship is 47 light sec from planet B at its clock reads ~26 sec before 0.  ~52 sec later the ships the ship have moved some 45 light sec at 0.866c.  Each clock will have advanced by ~26 sec ( they tick at half speed due to time dilation), and we end up with the lead ship 2 light sec from planet B with its clock reading 0, and the trailing clock is 47 light sec from planet A with its clock reading ~26 sec.

In between these two moments there is a moment when the ground observer will say that the two ships are equal distances from a planet, this will occur 26 secs after the top image by the ground observer's clock.  At this moment the trailing clock will read 13 sec, the leading clock will read -13 sec and the ships will each be ~24.5 light sec from a planet.

There are three things you need to take into account,  Length contraction, time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity, when dealing with a situation like this, where you start with what is measured in one frame, and then transform to what is measured in another frame.

 

[Markus Hanke]

12 hours ago, discountbrains said:

I'm interested in what the F an Arepresent in the dF=d(dA) equation above.

F is the Faraday 2-form - it represents the electromagnetic field.

A is the potential 1-form - the electromagnetic potential field

d is the exterior derivative operator.

[discountbrains]

The ground observer is only measuring distances; time or time dilation are not needed by him. 

I will give another problem I eluded to earlier: Consider two parallel wires with DC current flowing in the same direction in both. Einstein says because of relativistic length contraction the distance between each electron Δs’ < Δs. This would make Σ Δs’<Σ Δs and hence the protons and electrons would experience a larger density of the opposite charge in the other wire resulting in magnetic attraction.  Choosing one wire there is a 1st electron closest to the second terminal of a battery and a last electron closest to the first battery terminal and they would be certain distances that don't change due relativity. So, now if an observer was sitting at a table with these wires on top he should think the wire length had shrunk considerably. But, no one has seen this happen have they? Please note, by this I'm not saying Einstein's explanation of magnetism is wrong. But, what's wrong here? I got my brain tied behind my back; I'm just using what Einstein has provided us with.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

So, now if an observer was sitting at a table with these wires on top he should think the wire length had shrunk considerably.

Why? Show the mathematics from special relativity that predicts the wire will get shorter. (Spoiler: there isn't any.)

14 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

But, what's wrong here?

You are just making stuff up again.

14 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

I'm just using what Einstein has provided us with.

Nope. You are making stuff up and then pretending it is based on relativity. This is just silly.

[studiot]

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is just silly.

I agree. +1

 

41 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

The ground observer is only measuring distances; time or time dilation are not needed by him. 

I will give another problem I eluded to earlier: Consider two parallel wires with DC current flowing in the same direction in both. Einstein says because of relativistic length contraction the distance between each electron Δs’ < Δs. This would make Σ Δs’<Σ Δs and hence the protons and electrons would experience a larger density of the opposite charge in the other wire resulting in magnetic attraction.  Choosing one wire there is a 1st electron closest to the second terminal of a battery and a last electron closest to the first battery terminal and they would be certain distances that don't change due relativity. So, now if an observer was sitting at a table with these wires on top he should think the wire length had shrunk considerably. But, no one has seen this happen have they? Please note, by this I'm not saying Einstein's explanation of magnetism is wrong. But, what's wrong here? I got my brain tied behind my back; I'm just using what Einstein has provided us with.

 

I would be interested to hear you account of what you think the relative velocities are in this situation.

Remember there is only length contraction in the direction of relative velocity.

Then perhaps we can help you put your account right.

Edited July 2, 2018 by studiot

[Janus]

19 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

The ground observer is only measuring distances; time or time dilation are not needed by him. 

I will give another problem I eluded to earlier: Consider two parallel wires with DC current flowing in the same direction in both. Einstein says because of relativistic length contraction the distance between each electron Δs’ < Δs. This would make Σ Δs’<Σ Δs and hence the protons and electrons would experience a larger density of the opposite charge in the other wire resulting in magnetic attraction.  Choosing one wire there is a 1st electron closest to the second terminal of a battery and a last electron closest to the first battery terminal and they would be certain distances that don't change due relativity. So, now if an observer was sitting at a table with these wires on top he should think the wire length had shrunk considerably. But, no one has seen this happen have they? Please note, by this I'm not saying Einstein's explanation of magnetism is wrong. But, what's wrong here? I got my brain tied behind my back; I'm just using what Einstein has provided us with.

For one thing, the drift velocity for electrons in a wire is not anywhere near a significant fraction of the speed of light. (for a 12 gauge copper wire carrying ten amps it is ~.0002 m/s, which means it would take a single electron over an hour to travel a distance of 1 meter through the wire.)  This is different than the electromagnetic field propagation speed through the wire (which is what we normally consider the "speed of electricity"), which is ~0.951 c.  Just because you can flip a switch and have a light several meters away come on nearly instantaneously, does not mean that the electron themselves are traveling that fast through the wire.

For the other, you are not just using what Einstein provided,  You are giving us your own personal interpretation based on an incomplete understanding of his theory.  

I gave you the explanation as to what Einstein would have predicted the distance between the planets would have been measured as being in the ground frame in the last post. It is 64 light sec.   This is completely independent of any measurements made by the ships, nor any length contraction measured in the distance between the ships made from the ground frame. 

And while time dilation and the Relativity of Simultaneity are not required to make these measurements, they are required to make these measurements consistent with those made by the ships.

Why are you so resistant to the idea that your perceived "discrepancies" are due to a your own incomplete application of the theory to the problem.

[discountbrains]

Just as with my original example you just simply add the distance from the 1st electron to its respective terminal to the sum of incremental electron separations (which are all now contracted) to the distance of the last electron to the terminal it came from. This resulting sum has to be much less than with no current. Of course we are always talking about distances along the path of the current. 

Janus, I'm just using 2 explanations of Einstein's electro-magnetic theory which I assume can be sourced right back to him. Yes, I've heard electrons actually drift. I think the current must be due to quantum jumps from one atom to another. Early on one said no examples showing any inconsistances have ever showed up. Well maybe I gave some. You tell me what's wrong with my analysis. So far I don't think I see any contradictions. Maybe you can't combine classical measurements with relativistic ones. But, I'm actually only plugging in values into equations Einstein already provided. It seems a bit arbitrary to make it a rule you can't do this anyway.

[Janus]

34 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

Just as with my original example you just simply add the distance from the 1st electron to its respective terminal to the sum of incremental electron separations (which are all now contracted) to the distance of the last electron to the terminal it came from. This resulting sum has to be much less than with no current. Of course we are always talking about distances along the path of the current. 

Which you can't simply do in Relativity when you are transforming between two different inertial frames.  This is where the relativity of simultaneity comes in. It is your assumption that you can do this simple addition of distances that is the source of your error.  You keep assuming that if  electron 1 is near  terminal1 while electron 2 is near terminal 2 according to the electrons moving relative to the wire at some moment, then according the wire/lab frame, this is also true.  It is not. In the lab frame, when electron 1 is near terminal 1, at that moment, electron 2 will be somewhat short of terminal 2. How much short will depend of the relative speed between electrons and wire.

34 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

You tell me what's wrong with my analysis. So far I don't think I see any contradictions. Maybe you can't combine classical measurements with relativistic ones. But, I'm actually only plugging in values into equations Einstein already provided. It seems a bit arbitrary to make it a rule you can't do this anyway.

I've already shown you where your error is.   In essence, you are making a strawman argument.   You are arguing from an incorrect view of what the theory actually predicts. Simply plugging numbers into an equation does no good unless you are using the right equation in the correct way for the particular situation.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, discountbrains said:

Just as with my original example you just simply add the distance from the 1st electron to its respective terminal to the sum of incremental electron separations (which are all now contracted) to the distance of the last electron to the terminal it came from. This resulting sum has to be much less than with no current. Of course we are always talking about distances along the path of the current. 

Please show your calculations.

Quote

But, I'm actually only plugging in values into equations Einstein already provided.

No you are not. You are just making up conclusions based on nothing at all.

1 hour ago, discountbrains said:

 I'm just using 2 explanations of Einstein's electro-magnetic theory which I assume can be sourced right back to him.

Please provide a reference.

 

As it appears you can neither support your guesses with any mathematics, not provide any credible sources supporting what you say, I am going to suggest the mods close this thread as it is not about science.

1 hour ago, Janus said:

Why are you so resistant to the idea that your perceived "discrepancies" are due to a your own incomplete application of the theory to the problem.

Some people just don't know what they don't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Edited July 2, 2018 by Strange