Hijack from Speed of Time

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

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?

Because relativity works, so your supposed logical objections, however clever you imagine them to be, are beside the point.

All this sound and fury about the logic behind it, faulty or not, is so much wasted breath if the theory accurately predicts what we should be able to observe. And it does. 

Many theories in science have arisen from conjectures or faulty reasoning. For instance Sadi Carnot's insights into thermodynamics, which we use to this day, were based on the supposed flow of a heat-transmitting substance called "caloric", which was later shown to be non-existent. But the laws of thermodynamics work. So we use them.

Obsessing about supposed logical defects of a theory is irrelevant compared to the true test of a theory, which is  via observation.  I asked you a while back on this thread if you had an alternative model that also accounts for these observations. There has been no response. 

Edited June 9, 2023 by exchemist

[Logicandreason]

55 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Because relativity works. Observations are consistent with it.

All this sound and fury about the logic behind it, faulty or not, is so much wasted breath if the theory accurately predicts what we should be able to observe. And it does. 

Many theories in science have arisen from conjectures or faulty reasoning. For instance Sadi Carnot's insights into thermodynamics, which we use to this day, were based on the supposed flow of a heat-transmitting substance called "caloric", which was later shown to be non-existent. But the laws of thermodynamics work. So we use them.

Obsessing about supposed logical defects of a theory is irrelevant compared to the true test of a theory, which is  via observation.  I asked you a while back on this thread if you had an alternative model that also accounts for these observations. There has been no response. 

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.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Well quite frankly if you don't understand the very basis of relativity, that it is a model that describes particle kinematics which entails addition of velocities under graph aka coordinate system. in essence the space or spacetime paths. Which is described by geodesics. Then its pointless to go any further. That is precisely what Relativity in either form is designed to do.

Did you not catch the part where I mentioned in either form of relativity? 3 forms Gallilean, SR, GR. Though geodesics certainly do apply in SR as well. Geodesics don't exist in just curved spacetime they  also exist in flat spacetime. Would you like the Christoffel connections for flat spacetime? 

Or are you not aware the the line element describes the worldline of a metric. Given by ds^2 for separation distance ? A worldline is a type of geodesic 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Did you not catch the part where I mentioned in either form of relativity? 3 forms Gallilean, SR, GR. Though geodesics certainly do apply in SR as well. Geodesics don't exist in just curved spacetime they  also exist in flat spacetime. Would you like the Christoffel connections for flat spacetime? 

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

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Mordred]

Don't believe the physics of SR stopped in 1905. Work continued on SR Long after that date. The term geodesic also existed prior to both SR and GR. For that matter 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Don't believe the physics of SR stopped in 1905. Work continued on SR Long after that date.

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? 

[Mordred]

No I grew tired of your antics. I showed mathematically what is described as the laws of physics are the same to all observers. If you cant figure out how invariant quantities apply and how the transforms apply to mathematically defining that postulate that isn't my hangup.

 Hint it also applies to conservation laws which also directly apply to invariant quantities.. 

Those details were further shown in the link I provided by the way.

Tell me something does not the fact that SR has length contraction and time dilation not mean that this doesn't describe curved spacetime ? Spacetime curvature occurs when you have both 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No I grew tired of your antics. I showed mathematically what is described as the laws of physics are the same to all observers. If you cant figure out how invariant quantities apply and how the transforms apply to mathematically defining that postulate that isn't my hangup.

 Hint it also applies to conservation laws which also directly apply to invariant quantities 

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.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Mordred]

Really I know what mathematics works  I certainly will not randomly believe your unproven claims over a well established and well tested theory.

You have done absolutely nothing to prove SR is incorrect. I'm not about to willy nilly believe you simply because you claim your ideas are correct over well established models

Edited June 9, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Really I know what mathematics works  I certainly will not randomly believe your unproven claims over a well established and well tested theory.

You have done absolutely nothing to prove SR is incorrect.

"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.

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Mordred]

You know it seems to me your only argument is to judge the posters involved in this thread. 

You certainly haven't applied a single equation showing SR as being wrong..

So far the only mathematics has been posted by myself. SR and GR are mathematical models might help if you actually focused on the math for a change.

[Logicandreason]

23 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You know it seems to me your only argument is to judge the posters involved in this thread. 

You certainly haven't applied a single equation showing SR as being wrong..

So far the only mathematics has been posted by myself. SR and GR are mathematical models might help if you actually focused on the math for a change.

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.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Logicandreason

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Well, Einstein concluded this. He said in his Second Postulate that Light speed was a universal constant measurement (c) and as such was every bit as valid as the other universal Laws mentioned in the First Postulate.

He refers to it as the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. Not measurement.

If it’s constant, though, one can measure that. But the law is the invariance, not the measurement. The latter is just you making stuff up.

 

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Thus now, we consider that the speed of light in a vacuum is one of the Laws of Physics.  Or an Axiom, either way, its applied in the exact same way as other Las of Physics and Math are applied. But it cant be only an Axiom, because its claimed to have been proved 100%.

Who claims it’s been “proved 100%”? Are you making this up, too?

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

If it's not a Law, then I can say that the speed of light varies, right?   And everyone here is claiming and in agreement that when Einstein said, constant determined speed of light (c" he was talking about the known measured speed of light. These are all the actual claims of Einstein believing experts.

It’s not “Einstein believing”

The invariance of c is rooted in electrodynamics and pops out of Maxwell’s equations. But it’s not “Maxwell-believing” (or Heaviside, or Faraday, or Lorentz, etc.). The “belief” is in the science - because it agrees with experiment - not the name attached to it.

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

So where is the strawman exactly? 

The stuff you’re making up, in order to discredit it. “measurement is not law” Nobody claimed it is.

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

You do not KNOW that the math works, you BELIEVE that it works. But I can show you that its all an illusion.

The participants here (other than you, possibly) can follow the math. We/they know it works.

And I think everyone is tired of your tap-dancing about what you say you can show. Show it, already.

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

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.

You’re right. You haven’t presented any science to do this. Until you do, we can’t show your analysis to be wrong.

(though you’ve been wrong about a number of things, which have been pointed out to you. Not that you’ve acknowledged this)

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

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.

Why wait ? It's very common to show what a model states with the relevant equations. Then apply the corrections or improvements.  If you want to show you truly know what you talking about you might want to get the real meat of your analysis.

Lol you have no idea how often we hear grandiose claims that A poster cannot mathematically support  it would be a nice change to hear a good solid mathematical argument.

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Mordred

[studiot]

On 6/8/2023 at 5:14 AM, Logicandreason said:

Another  way of looking at what I'm saying, is to examine the First Postulate.  Its affirming the Laws of Motion, of Kinematics, etc.  But please tell me one example of any Law of Kinematics, of Mechanics, that is claiming that a MEASURED result, IS A LAW.    Never.  So Einstein's statement that "the Laws of Physics", (Kinematics in this case) are identical in all inertial frames, is totally correct.  The Laws ARE equally applicable.  BUT,  a MEASUREMENT is NOT A LAW!

 

I agree measurement is not a Law.
Measurement can refute or support (but not confirm) a Law and can sometimes lead to a new Law being formulated.

I am using your terminology here, although personally I don't like the term Law, it is very short and therefore convenient.

Mathematics has Axioms, Physics has Principles. Although serving a similar purpose they are different, leading to different meanings for 'true' in these disciplines.

13 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

On 6/8/2023 at 11:53 AM, studiot said:

I look forward to honest discussion but I fear this threads is degenerating into irrelevant personalisation.

Well I hope you can be more reasonable that the other guy here, who seems to be calling white, black.

So really? You are willing to honestly discuss this, and concede valid points one by one if I should make any? Then APPLY those valid points to the hypothesis?

Ill start by asking "Is Physics ONLY interested in comparing predictions of Equations to observations, and any explanations of why or how the equation was derived is simply irreverent?

Swansnot seems to be saying that Einstein may as well written, "Donald Duck doesn't wear trousers, and e=mc^2, go check it out. (the textural explanation is not required because of peoples opinions.) Math alone is what Physics is all about.  Funny, I thought Physics is what  Physics is about, and Math is about Mathematics.

But Swansnot is then more than  willing to believe certain peoples opinions over others opinions regarding the meaning and interpretation of experiments. (which we know can not be proof of a theory)

 

Only a couple of lines in response to my comments, plus a load of unconnected nonsense.

Strange, most folks ask "What is in the box?" , when offered a closed box of something.

You did not ask a single thing about what I was offering.

Further, for your information.

The name Swanson has been proudly held by several eminent Physicists, over the centuries, on both sides of the Atlantic.

13 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

On 6/8/2023 at 11:53 AM, studiot said:

However teasing out his chain of reasoning is very subtle and needs to be done in the light of the knowledge of the turn of the twentieth century.

It also needs to be realised that the chain of reasoning, postulates and derivation we use today in modern theoretical physics is different from that of Einstein.

At the very least you need to study and correlate carefully the hints he throws out on pages 1,4,5 and 8 of his paper as collectively they identify his chain of reasoning.

 

Expand  

About Einstein’s thought process in the1905 Paper.

Einstein made two comments which he then elevated to the status of Postulates.

First is:

"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate,"

Second is:

"and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

I want to stop here and examine the logic of so far.

Please consider the words “which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former,”.

So in what way is the simple statement that light has a constant determinable velocity, irreconcilable with the Laws of Physics, of the Laws of Kinematics specifically, as the study of Motion is called Kinematics and Einstein's moves on to “the Kinematic Part” of his Paper immediately after the introduction.

So what is “apparently irreconcilable” about Light having a constant determinable speed with the Laws of Kinematics? (Newtons Laws of Motion to be precise)

Pause for your consideration and reply. But Einstein actually spelled out exactly why he believed there was a conflict. 

Because the Purpose of the whole paper is to SOLVE this conflict, thus opening the door to new explanations for other related "problems" such as  Maxwell's work and Observations such as M&M interferometer.

So what is the answer?

 

The answers you seek are contained in the box I offered you so I will start with the first one.

 

The Principle of Relativity is another way of presenting the homogenity and isotropy of empty space.

The idea that if something works in a certain way at point A in empty space it will work the same in any other points B, C, D etc.

Note that condition of empty.

This simple statement can be much expanded and explained.

 

I look forward to your honest response.

[MigL]

tap ... tap - tap-tap ...tap ...tap-tap-tap ...

Do you hear that, Mr Anderson ?
That is the sound of Logicandreason tap dancing as fast as he can, to avoid answering questions. There is no 'teaching moment' here.
Stop giving his arguments air, and he'll go away and bother others.

[exchemist]

7 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

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.

Time dilation? The observed increase in half life of unstable particles, at velocities relative to the observer that are a significant fraction of the speed of light. Atmospheric muons are one well-known instance. 

Regarding mass, the best example is probably the observed mass defect in nuclear fission, which is  accounted for by E=mc². "Mass increase" is, so I understand, not a concept used that much nowadays, since mass is generally taken nowadays to mean rest mass, which does not increase. One tends instead to use the full formula, E² = (mc²)² + (pc)²,  in which there is a momentum term (p).

Length contraction is harder, admittedly. I struggle to think of a good example, save in the sense that, when time dilation is observed, one must have a corresponding length contraction from the viewpoint of the other reference frame. Perhaps one of the physicists here can come up with a more direct example. 

None of this is a matter of "faith". The observations are the observations. If you consider SR is wrong, it is up to you to show what better, i.e. correct in your view, explanation can successfully account for the observations.

Edited June 9, 2023 by exchemist

[Bufofrog]

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

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.

That would be a miracle or at least a helluva coincidence if your statement was accurate.

So lets explore this:

We know for a fact that relativity does make accurate predictions, as a matter of fact every test we have done shows relativity gives the correct prediction.  Since miracles are probably not at play here the only logical and reasonable explanation is that your beliefs about the errors must be incorrect.

[Mordred]

5 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

That would be a miracle or at least a helluva coincidence if your statement was accurate.

So lets explore this:

We know for a fact that relativity does make accurate predictions, as a matter of fact every test we have done shows relativity gives the correct prediction.  Since miracles are probably not at play here the only logical and reasonable explanation is that your beliefs about the errors must be incorrect.

Well said...+1

[Logicandreason]

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?

Edited June 9, 2023 by Logicandreason

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

So are we ready to continue or not?

!

Moderator Note

We’ve been ready for some time. You keep promising to present your case, and have had ample opportunity to do so, but have squandered this opportunity in favor of delay and distraction. 

If your next post doesn’t contain the “evidence” you’ve promised, we’re done here. 

 

[Mordred]

14 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

 

Mordred, as gang leader, you decide, is this unreasonable?

Oh now I'm a gang leader, did it never occur to you that everyone posting in this thread literally has their own opinion ?

  Anyways I would advise you to take into consideration the mod note in the post prior to this one. Quit wasting time with fruitless accusations 

 

[Logicandreason]

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.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Mordred]

Your analysis for starters is missing a key ingredient with the Lorentz transforms.

Where is the length contraction ? There are no rigid rods in SR  Its late atm so I will look at this further tomorrow but I will answer one of your questions now. t

The functions v-c and v+c applies to the observer on the embankment and directly to gaining relativity of simultaneaty.

take two flashes of light emitted from A and B the relativity of simultaneity to an observer on the embankment can be preserved using the Doppler shift relation you posted though this may be a better form to see that if you contract ct (part of the Lorentz transform being the length contraction)by the factor v-c the ct interval length is also dilated to the other emitter via v+c to the observer midway between emitters A and B to the observer at M on the embankment.

If you ignore the length contraction aspects you will of course get the wrong answers. I will have more time to go over this in more detail tomorrow

 

 

 

[Logicandreason]

51 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Your analysis for starters is missing a key ingredient with the Lorentz transforms.

Where is the length contraction ? There are no rigid rods in SR  Its late atm so I will look at this further tomorrow but I will answer one of your questions now. t

The functions v-c and v+c applies to the observer on the embankment and directly to gaining relativity of simultaneaty.

take two flashes of light emitted from A and B the relativity of simultaneity to an observer on the embankment can be preserved using the Doppler shift relation you posted though this may be a better form to see that if you contract ct (part of the Lorentz transform being the length contraction)by the factor v-c the ct interval length is also dilated to the other emitter via v+c to the observer midway between emitters A and B to the observer at M on the embankment.

If you ignore the length contraction aspects you will of course get the wrong answers. I will have more time to go over this in more detail tomorrow

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Logicandreason