Hijack from Speed of Time

[studiot]

9 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

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?

etc

In my humble opinion the time has come to put an end to this charade so I am formally reporting this direct refusal to engage in good faith discussion when I have offered exactly what you made such a strident and offensive extravaganza of demanding.

[Logicandreason]

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

[Ghideon]

9 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Did you guys all have a meeting privately and decide on a attack strategy?

No private meetings needed. The robustness of scientific methods enables independent researchers to reach the same conclusions. 

[Logicandreason]

4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

No private meetings needed. The robustness of scientific methods enables independent researchers to reach the same conclusions. 

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?

 

34 minutes ago, studiot said:

In my humble opinion the time has come to put an end to this charade so I am formally reporting this direct refusal to engage in good faith discussion when I have offered exactly what you made such a strident and offensive extravaganza of demanding.

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.

 

[Mordred]

Your examination of SR is wrong because you are not correctly applying the transforms of SR. 

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Your examination of SR is wrong because you are not correctly applying the transforms of SR. 

 

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?

[Mordred]

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

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.

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

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, 

 

 

 

You mention SR being wrong numerous tunes here but you didn't correctly applying SR. You didn't properly do its transforms so naturally you were not getting the correct answers. Instead you provided judgments and claims of it being in error by making errors in your examination.

Secondly you specifically asked a question.

"What is the function of c-v and c+v which I specifically answered.

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

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.

[Mordred]

If you stop to listen for a change you might get the answer. ThoughI have had to ignore your insulting behavior far too many times in this thread that I really don't know why I even bother.

 After I eat and have my morning coffee I will show how SR does the electrodynamics of moving objects which is the essence of the examination your applying here. 

 

8 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

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.

Of course he applies classical physics but you chose to ignore where he deviates from Galiliean relativity transforms.

[Logicandreason]

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

If you stop to listen for a change you might get the answer. ThoughI have had to ignore your insulting behavior far too many times in this thread that I really don't know why I even bother.

 After I eat and have my morning coffee I will show how SR does the electrodynamics of moving objects which is the essence of the examination your applying here. 

 

Of course he applies classical physics but you chose to ignore where he deviates from Galiliean relativity transforms.

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.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Mordred]

no it is not misguided to use the mathematics of a theory correctly when examining that theory. You don't make judgements on a theory without correctly applying its mathematics. Anyway I will first enjoy my morning coffee before showing how this is examined correctly under SR.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

no it is not misguided to use the mathematics of a theory correctly when examining that theory. You don't make judgements on a theory without correctly applying its mathematics. Anyway I will first enjoy my morning coffee before showing how this is examined correctly under SR.

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.

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Logicandreason

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

But do remember that you can not depart for 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.

That’s not what he showed in section 2. He showed that the observers would disagree on the time it took for the light to travel the length of the rod and back, and conclude that clocks on the rod ends are not synchronous.

I don’t see how your example rebuts this.

[Logicandreason]

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s not what he showed in section 2. He showed that the observers would disagree on the time it took for the light to travel the length of the rod and back, and conclude that clocks on the rod ends are not synchronous.

I don’t see how your example rebuts this.

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.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Mordred]

Oh boy so you didn't consider the interval length  ct .That's obviously why you didn't understand what v-c and c+v were being used for. It is the interval length being applied not just the length of the train.

Perhaps we should examine that first under Galilean relativity. 

take your train lets place Alice (A) at the rear Bob at the front (B) and have observer at mid point M. The train is moving at V relative to observer M. As both observers agree on the velocity of c then they will disagree on the Relative length given by the interval. Hence

\(T_{A}= c-v_A\) and \(T_{B}=c+v_B\) This is directly applied using Galilean relativity and not SR, where v is much less than c. When v approaches c then the relativity effects of SR come into play. 

I'm going to stop here to make sure you can at least agree on this under Galilean relativity.

as the interval is \(ct\) it has dimensionality of length hence using the interval time in replacement of length. There is no point going further if your not clear on Galilean relativity itself.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Mordred

[studiot]

4 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

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.

Actually you have completely ignored the material I offered you, whilst loudly shouting about people trying to disprove your case or simply just dismissing it.

Please quote anywhere I actually said you were wrong.

In point of fact I stated a comment of yours I agreed with.

 

In your last few posts you have also correctly identified the  very tricky part of Einstein's reasoning, but be careful you

find out exactly what is being referred to by any symbols he uses on pages 2,3,4 & 5. It is very easy to mix them up.

 

37 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

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.

Both Observers?

Einstein has only mentioned one observer in the singular, by the stage of the paper reached in your quote.

 

He further goes on to to introduce multiple observers at a later stage for different purposes and also make further predictions to be proved (he uses the phrase "we shall find"). There are several  such instances of why sorting out the order of steps in his chain is reasoning is important as I have already told you.

I intended to start right at the beginning with the two postulates.

Their order is vital do you know why this is ?

In fact both postulates were not necessarily new so do you know what the revolutionary step Einstein took in writing his paper?

 

 

 

 

[Mordred]

25 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Oh boy so you didn't consider the interval length  ct .That's obviously why you didn't understand what v-c and c+v were being used for. It is the interval length being applied not just the length of the train.

Perhaps we should examine that first under Galilean relativity. 

take your train lets place Alice (A) at the rear Bob at the front (B) and have observer at mid point M. The train is moving at V relative to observer M. As both observers agree on the velocity of c then they will disagree on the Relative length given by the interval. Hence

TA=c−vA and TB=c+vB This is directly applied using Galilean relativity and not SR, where v is much less than c. When v approaches c then the relativity effects of SR come into play. 

I'm going to stop here to make sure you can at least agree on this under Galilean relativity.

as the interval is ct it has dimensionality of length hence using the interval time in replacement of length. There is no point going further if your not clear on Galilean relativity itself.

This directly applies to 

\[t_b-t_a=\frac{r_{AB}}{v-c},,,\acute{t_a}-t_b\frac{r_{AB}}{v+c}\] given in section2 of the article were discussing.

https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys606/spring_2011/einstein_electrodynamics_of_moving_bodies.pdf

though in my case I added a stationary observer M

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Mordred

[swansont]

 

 

59 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

The premise is that classical Physics observers would think that the Rods LENGTH was the same in either frame. Its clear from this extract.

Yes

59 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

They were NOT measuring TIME. *but it doesn't matter anyway, the equation he gave is clear in meaning.

The measurement of time comes at the end of section 2. He starts with definitions.

59 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Unfortunately its not  a classical Physics equation, its not anything.

The only equations I see are where he defines velocity and where he gives the time difference for light travel with and against the direction of motion.

Do you see another equation in section 2?

59 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

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.

The whole point of this example is that you don’t get a ”sensible” result! The contemporary physics say the times should be equal, and with a constant c they won’t be.

 

59 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

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.

Or you’re just measuring time, which is not surprising, as he talks of clocks not being synchronous. Which means he’s comparing times.

You can convert that to a length because d = ct

59 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

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. 

Sure he does. “r_AB denotes the length of the moving rod”

It immediately follows the time difference equation 

59 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

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.

You’re wrong in claiming that this is a flaw.

Einstein says the times will disagree, and you confirmed it. Congratulations!

59 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

The equation Einstein supplied is not a valid equation

Why not? What is the valid equation? Please derive it

 

[StringJunky]

5 hours ago, Ghideon said:

No private meetings needed. The robustness of scientific methods enables independent researchers to reach the same conclusions. 

QFT. This is the essence of why the scientific method works; independent rebuttal or verification.

[Logicandreason]

9 hours ago, Mordred said:

Oh boy so you didn't consider the interval length  ct .That's obviously why you didn't understand what v-c and c+v were being used for. It is the interval length being applied not just the length of the train.

Perhaps we should examine that first under Galilean relativity. 

take your train lets place Alice (A) at the rear Bob at the front (B) and have observer at mid point M. The train is moving at V relative to observer M. As both observers agree on the velocity of c then they will disagree on the Relative length given by the interval. Hence

TA=c−vA and TB=c+vB This is directly applied using Galilean relativity and not SR, where v is much less than c. When v approaches c then the relativity effects of SR come into play. 

I'm going to stop here to make sure you can at least agree on this under Galilean relativity.

as the interval is ct it has dimensionality of length hence using the interval time in replacement of length. There is no point going further if your not clear on Galilean relativity itself.

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.

 

 

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Actually you have completely ignored the material I offered you, whilst loudly shouting about people trying to disprove your case or simply just dismissing it.

Please quote anywhere I actually said you were wrong.

In point of fact I stated a comment of yours I agreed with.

 

In your last few posts you have also correctly identified the  very tricky part of Einstein's reasoning, but be careful you

find out exactly what is being referred to by any symbols he uses on pages 2,3,4 & 5. It is very easy to mix them up.

 

Both Observers?

Einstein has only mentioned one observer in the singular, by the stage of the paper reached in your quote.

 

He further goes on to to introduce multiple observers at a later stage for different purposes and also make further predictions to be proved (he uses the phrase "we shall find"). There are several  such instances of why sorting out the order of steps in his chain is reasoning is important as I have already told you.

I intended to start right at the beginning with the two postulates.

Their order is vital do you know why this is ?

In fact both postulates were not necessarily new so do you know what the revolutionary step Einstein took in writing his paper?

 

 

 

 

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.

[Mordred]

And that's just about enough attitude from one person I will tolerate. If you can't understand how the interval length is applied in Einstein's paper which myself and others have pointed out there is no point going further. You really should have studied Galilean relativity. You will not accept or understand what is contained in section 2 of the article. There is no strawman about it. The strawman argument is in your denials and attitude which I have had enough of

Galilean transformations 101...

\[\acute{t}=t\]

\[\acute{x}=x-vt\]

y=y

z=z

perhaps you should familiarize yourself with that while your at it study Galilean invariance

 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

And that's just about enough attitude from one person I will tolerate. If you can't understand how the interval length is applied in Einstein's paper which myself and others have pointed out there is no point going further.

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.

[Mordred]

its not the rod length that's important in relativity of simultaneity. It is the interval length. For someone who claimed to understand SR better than I do I would have expected you to know and understood that as the interval length is involved in nearly every transformation of SR as well as Galilean relativity. for the record it also directly applies to normal everyday Doppler shift.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Mordred

[swansont]

31 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

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.

 

Constancy of the speed of light is not part of what you are calling “classical physics”

It was assumed that the light speed would be added to the speed of the source. 

[Logicandreason]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

 

The whole point of this example is that you don’t get a ”sensible” result! The contemporary physics say the times should be equal, and with a constant c they won’t be.

 

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!

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Or you’re just measuring time, which is not surprising, as he talks of clocks not being synchronous. Which means he’s comparing times.

You can convert that to a length because d = ct

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.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Sure he does. “r_AB denotes the length of the moving rod”

But its  not what we are measuring. We are supposed to be measuring how long light will take to traverse the length "r_{AB" WHEN} r_AB 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.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

 

You’re wrong in claiming that this is a flaw.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

its not the rod length that's important in relativity of simultaneity. It is the interval length. For someone who claimed to understand SR better than I do I would have expected you to know and understood that as the interval length is involved in nearly every transformation of SR as well as Galilean relativity. for the record it also directly applies to normal everyday Doppler shift.

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.