Hijack from Speed of Time

[Logicandreason]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Light speed is invariant, constant relative to EVERYTHING. It is absolute, regardless of the characteristics of the observer. Rejecting that is like rejecting the sunrise in the morning. It’s true whether or not you accept it. 

Sorry, I'm busy conversing with Mordred. I can't divert my attention from his tutorial.

 

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

An observer can himself be at near c and still measure the velocity of a light signal as being c even if the ship with the emitter is also going near c. Regardless of the velocity of emitter or observer any measurement of the velocity will equal c. (this is the part where the length contraction and time dilation kicks in of the Lorentz transformations. ) 

 This is also the point where the deviations occur from the classical physics. LOL is typically also the hardest to get people to accept. Hence all the research and studies, this required a huge burden of proof. So far its tested as true to extremely high precision

So you are only talking about MEASUREMENT of Light speed, your first statement was wrong, because you said that measurement of Light speed WAS referenced to the Observer.

Now you have confirmed that Light speed MEASUREMENT is NOT referenced to the Observer, nor to the light source, and Ill add, not to any Absolute medium like an Aether. 

Is this now your final statement on the measurement of Light speed?

[Mordred]

Any measurement taken of the speed of light will give the value of c. A measurement is defined as an Observer. 

[Logicandreason]

What fool just gave me a reputation downgrade while I'm in the middle of a tutorial being given by Mordred?

Just now, Mordred said:

Any measurement taken of the speed of light will give the value of c. A measurement is defined as an Observer. 

So a measure IS relative to an observer. 

What observer measured light speed from his unique position and recorded 186.000 m.p.s ?  

 

[Mordred]

57 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

What fool just gave me a reputation downgrade while I'm in the middle of a tutorial being given by Mordred?

So a measure IS relative to an observer. 

What observer measured light speed from his unique position and recorded 186.000 m.p.s ?  

 

No idea on the down point..

any measure is relative to the observer in any physics. Regardless of model.

As far as the measurements taken well There is a huge list ranging from observing stellar measurements of extremely fast moving stars. The CMB etc etc. To using extremely high speed cyclotrons, Historicaly though Jupiter was used along with the sun back in 1675 done in Paris by Roemer.  He also included Jupiters 4 brightest moons. By knowing their orbit he measured different transition times over a long period of time and used that data to get the value of c. The value he got back then is pretty much the same.

186,000 miles per second. We have taken that to incredibly higher precision using extremely high precision tests. Some of which I posted earlier. Back when I mentioned error margins a few days ago. (one way speed of light/two way speed of light tests. The St Ives test etc etc all involve measuring c).

With modern telescopes there are plenty of objects emitting light travelling at near c. We still measure the speed of light from them as invariant c

edit just a side note all massless objects will have a velocity c. (mass is resistance to inertia change(or acceleration aka Newtons laws of inertia.). Knowing the definition of mass is essential to understand SR and GR or any physics theory it applies to all physics theories.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

No idea on the down point..

any measure is relative to the observer in any physics. Regardless of model.

As far as the measurements taken well There is a huge list ranging from observing stellar measurements of extremely fast moving stars. The CMB etc etc. To using extremely high speed cyclotrons, Historicaly though Jupiter was used along with the sun back in 1675 done in Paris by Roemer.  He also included Jupiters 4 brightest moons. By knowing their orbit he measured different transition times over a long period of time and used that data to get the value of c. The value he got back then is pretty much the same.

186,000 miles per second. We have taken that to incredibly higher precision using extremely high precision tests. Some of which I posted earlier. Back when I mentioned error margins a few days ago. (one way speed of light/two way speed of light tests. The St Ives test etc etc all involve measuring c).

With modern telescopes there are plenty of objects emitting light travelling at near c. We still measure the speed of light from them as invariant c

Not really interested in looking at interpreted results of measures at this point. 

You were in the middle of explaining the " relativity of simultaneity". to me in terms of the Laws of Classical Physics,, as we have not even begin to explore Einstein's new improved Physics.

I have issues with Einstein's claims assuming that  you are correctly relaying them to me, because Classical Physics is very strong on the matter of relative velocity between differently moving objects. Velocities are additive or subtractive depending on the direction.

You have just confirmed that the first subjective measure of light speed (call it 186), is relative to the observer who measured it.

Now should another observer come along and take a measure of light speed relative to himself, and he is moving relative to the original observer with some velocity we shall call 45, then the Laws of Physics say clearly say that the second observer can only get 141 measurement, relative to him.  This is observed in every relationship of objects in motion.

Because light speed measurement is not relative to the source or to the aether but only to the observer who is measuring. And if Obs1 and Obs2  have a relative speed of 45, then the math and logic is clear as a bell.

Or do you have some new classical Physics facts that I've not heard before?

Because its pretty clear that we have now successfully identified that the measure of light speed does have a set value, and that particular measure has a specific origin, and its that one observer. (whether or not he thought he was moving) So the origin wasn't the source, nor the aether, but is IS that specific observer, who has recorded that specific measurement from his specific location.

And this is what the Classical Physicists understood as can be seen by their use of c + or - v

So how to get from here to your statement that suddenly light speed measures have no origin?

Please explain, Logically and Rationally, Mathematically if you must, but not involving any subjective interpreted results of subsequent experiments. Because we are nowhere near looking at experiments yet. We are still trying to understand  "relativity of simultaneity".

And the experiments you mention were not available to Einstein either, as he was forced to make the idea of "light speed measure having no origin", a Postulate, meaning a statement offered as conjecture, without any evidence, with the intention of showing that it could possibly be correct as explained later in the hypothesis. (Still without evidence.)

We can examine the validity of the "we have measured light speed" claims later, much later. Maybe the interpretations of light speed experiments are  not as solid as is believed. You can not rule that out, because experiments results can not prove a theory. It only takes a few incorrect beliefs to make any interpretation and conclusion invalid. All claimed measurement results are CALCULATED , not directly measured. No one has a tape measure stretched from here to the next galaxy, (so a fixed empirically proven distance)  and they can't know the instant someone in that galaxy has fired of a light pulse, so we can then time it. And then they can't know if we are moving or not relative to that light. All of this is calculated including the distance to that other galaxy, using the same equations that we are here trying to explain. Because they already believed Einstein. Its very hard to find a single observation and conclusion in cosmology or other sciences that doesn't rely on Einstein's math.  And that's why we can't depend on the result of these experiments. Because it would amount to circular reasoning.

So you were explaining how the subjective measure of the speed of light does relate to the observer, and yet it does not.

Please proceed. 

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Mordred]

 The constant velocity of massless particles such as photons regardless of the velocity of the source or receiver is not merely a postulate or math trick. It is observed by every related experiment as highly accurate. Its a tough pill to swallow but its one of the most tested theories in Physics. It is still being tested to higher and higher precision to this day.

 Course the other pill to swallow will be an equally well tested aspect of SR (time dilation). The two are related but that gets complex and does require remembering the mass definition I provided

 For the record I will never apply any eather in any physics discussion. SR and GR do not use the Eather in its theory either.

anyways its late here Night

Edited June 13, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 The constant velocity of massless particles such as photons regardless of the velocity of the source or receiver is not merely a postulate or math trick. It is observed by every related experiment as highly accurate. Its a tough pill to swallow but its one of the most tested theories in Physics. It is still being tested to higher and higher precision to this day.

 Course the other pill to swallow will be an equally well tested aspect of SR (time dilation). The two are related but that gets complex and does require remembering the mass definition I provided

 For the record I will never apply any eather in any physics discussion. SR and GR do not use the Eather in its theory either.

anyways its late here Night

I thought I just explained why I can't be considering any claimed experimental evidence. I was pretty sure I explained that in some considerable detail.

If you wish to explain  "relativity of simultaneity",  the you need to restrict the explanation to what information the hypothesis contains.  You can't add beliefs retrospectively. That is just reinforcing a claim by applying the same claim's conclusions. A Circular argument, feeding on itself.

Are you not able to explain  "relativity of simultaneity" without addition of material and information that did not exist at the time the Hypothesis was written?  The hypothesis was approved as valid Physics in 1905, it is obviously able to stand scrutiny relying solely on the strength of its own internal logic.

So are you able to explain according to these reasonable conditions, or not?

 

[studiot]

47 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

I thought I just explained why I can't be considering any claimed experimental evidence. I was pretty sure I explained that in some considerable detail.

If you wish to explain  "relativity of simultaneity",  the you need to restrict the explanation to what information the hypothesis contains.  You can't add beliefs retrospectively. That is just reinforcing a claim by applying the same claim's conclusions. A Circular argument, feeding on itself.

Are you not able to explain  "relativity of simultaneity" without addition of material and information that did not exist at the time the Hypothesis was written?  The hypothesis was approved as valid Physics in 1905, it is obviously able to stand scrutiny relying solely on the strength of its own internal logic.

So are you able to explain according to these reasonable conditions, or not?

 

3 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Sorry, I'm busy conversing with Mordred. I can't divert my attention from his tutorial.

This is a grossly unreasonable and a violation of the rules of this forum.

 

All the greater pity for yourself because you appeared to have started listening.

I offered you a Physics discussion of what is going on with Relativity, and you threw it back in my face.

There are some words you misunderstand and this misunderstanding is blocking your progress in considering Einstein's 1905 paper.

 

'Relativity' and the phrase 'relative to' are examples.

 

But you have to look further back to properly clear up these misunderstandings as your usage is so very clearly different from what Einstein meant then or Mordred or Swansont mean now.

 

For myself, these days posting involves me in some considerable effort and inconvenience so I am less inclined to try to help an unwilling audience.

 

Here is a sample of what I mean

 

In 1905 the complete nature of light was not known. 
It appeared to have some mutually conflicting properties.
The only known waves prior to this were mechanical ones and these had already been studied for about two centuries.

All such waves were known to have the following characteristic:-
 

The speed of any wave is independent of the motion of the source.
It depends upon the transmission medium alone.
 

It  is essentially Einstein's postulate 2 that light also obeys this rule.

 

There is much more to discuss in a similar vein before proceeding to the consequences, which is what the 1905 paper is all about.

I have chosen postulate 2 as it is simpler and much shorter, that the more important postulate 1.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

I thought I just explained why I can't be considering any claimed experimental evidence. I was pretty sure I explained that in some considerable detail.

If you wish to explain  "relativity of simultaneity",  the you need to restrict the explanation to what information the hypothesis contains.  You can't add beliefs retrospectively. That is just reinforcing a claim by applying the same claim's conclusions. A Circular argument, feeding on itself.

Are you not able to explain  "relativity of simultaneity" without addition of material and information that did not exist at the time the Hypothesis was written?  The hypothesis was approved as valid Physics in 1905, it is obviously able to stand scrutiny relying solely on the strength of its own internal logic.

So are you able to explain according to these reasonable conditions, or not?

 

This looks like an attempt to brush aside the inconvenient fact that SR is found to work in practice. That is not what one does in science. 

[Logicandreason]

38 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

This is a grossly unreasonable and a violation of the rules of this forum.

 

All the greater pity for yourself because you appeared to have started listening.

I offered you a Physics discussion of what is going on with Relativity, and you threw it back in my face.

There are some words you misunderstand and this misunderstanding is blocking your progress in considering Einstein's 1905 paper.

 

'Relativity' and the phrase 'relative to' are examples.

 

But you have to look further back to properly clear up these misunderstandings as your usage is so very clearly different from what Einstein meant then or Mordred or Swansont mean now.

 

For myself, these days posting involves me in some considerable effort and inconvenience so I am less inclined to try to help an unwilling audience.

 

Here is a sample of what I mean

 

In 1905 the complete nature of light was not known. 
It appeared to have some mutually conflicting properties.
The only known waves prior to this were mechanical ones and these had already been studied for about two centuries.

All such waves were known to have the following characteristic:-
 

The speed of any wave is independent of the motion of the source.
It depends upon the transmission medium alone.
 

It  is essentially Einstein's postulate 2 that light also obeys this rule.

 

There is much more to discuss in a similar vein before proceeding to the consequences, which is what the 1905 paper is all about.

I have chosen postulate 2 as it is simpler and much shorter, that the more important postulate 1.

Thanks for your interest in helping me understand.  But as I have already gotten two different members comments mixed up, I feel that I am only able to attend to one persons explanations at the one time.  So currently I have begun a tutorial offered by Mordred which I intend to see thorough to his satisfaction.

Following that, I'm happy to pick up where we left off. And allow you to present what you feel is the best way to present this matter.   

I'm retired and 70 y.o. being self taught, so I should not try to be multi tasking at this stage in my life.

So as much as I might like to respond right now, prudence tells me to take one step at a time.

 

41 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This looks like an attempt to brush aside the inconvenient fact that SR is found to work in practice. That is not what one does in science. 

As I said to Mordred, understanding this theory must begin with understanding the actual hypothesis that gave birth to the theory. And that will be found within  the 1905 document, where Einstein spells it all out in full.

I'm not "doing science" I'm trying to understand how Einstein came to his conclusion, by working through his actual argument, line by line. Right now, we are up to the part where he has just announced that Classical Physics has a terrible problem, which he intends to fix.

He has yet to explain how he intends to fix the problem.

However, I've read this section, many times, and just cant see how he comes to the conclusion that classical physics will have the two observers disagreeing on anything.  So far it seems that their different measurements are fully to be expected according to the application of those Laws of classical Physics.

So right now, Mordred is about to show me why Einstein said that the two observers clocks would become un synchronized.  Something to do with  "relativity of simultaneity".

I have to now wait for his next lesson. I had questions about his previous lesson, which I'm sure he will have a rational explanation.

[studiot]

21 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Thanks for your interest in helping me understand.  But as I have already gotten two different members comments mixed up, I feel that I am only able to attend to one persons explanations at the one time.  So currently I have begun a tutorial offered by Mordred which I intend to see thorough to his satisfaction.

Following that, I'm happy to pick up where we left off. And allow you to present what you feel is the best way to present this matter.   

I'm retired and 70 y.o. being self taught, so I should not try to be multi tasking at this stage in my life.

So as much as I might like to respond right now, prudence tells me to take one step at a time.

 

As I said to Mordred, understanding this theory must begin with understanding the actual hypothesis that gave birth to the theory. And that will be found within  the 1905 document, where Einstein spells it all out in full.

I'm not "doing science" I'm trying to understand how Einstein came to his conclusion, by working through his actual argument, line by line. Right now, we are up to the part where he has just announced that Classical Physics has a terrible problem, which he intends to fix.

He has yet to explain how he intends to fix the problem.

However, I've read this section, many times, and just cant see how he comes to the conclusion that classical physics will have the two observers disagreeing on anything.  So far it seems that their different measurements are fully to be expected according to the application of those Laws of classical Physics.

So right now, Mordred is about to show me why Einstein said that the two observers clocks would become un synchronized.  Something to do with  "relativity of simultaneity".

I have to now wait for his next lesson. I had questions about his previous lesson, which I'm sure he will have a rational explanation.

+1 for an honest answer.

 

In the words of Thomas Malory

God hep Mordred!

 

I think that neither you nor Mordred has English as a first language.

Please Correct me if I am wrong.

[Logicandreason]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

+1 for an honest answer.

 

In the words of Thomas Malory

God hep Mordred!

 

I think that neither you nor Mordred has English as a first language.

Please Correct me if I am wrong.

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

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

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

You mentioned China.

Are you perhaps staying up late in HK ?

[exchemist]

45 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Thanks for your interest in helping me understand.  But as I have already gotten two different members comments mixed up, I feel that I am only able to attend to one persons explanations at the one time.  So currently I have begun a tutorial offered by Mordred which I intend to see thorough to his satisfaction.

Following that, I'm happy to pick up where we left off. And allow you to present what you feel is the best way to present this matter.   

I'm retired and 70 y.o. being self taught, so I should not try to be multi tasking at this stage in my life.

So as much as I might like to respond right now, prudence tells me to take one step at a time.

 

As I said to Mordred, understanding this theory must begin with understanding the actual hypothesis that gave birth to the theory. And that will be found within  the 1905 document, where Einstein spells it all out in full.

I'm not "doing science" I'm trying to understand how Einstein came to his conclusion, by working through his actual argument, line by line. Right now, we are up to the part where he has just announced that Classical Physics has a terrible problem, which he intends to fix.

He has yet to explain how he intends to fix the problem.

However, I've read this section, many times, and just cant see how he comes to the conclusion that classical physics will have the two observers disagreeing on anything.  So far it seems that their different measurements are fully to be expected according to the application of those Laws of classical Physics.

So right now, Mordred is about to show me why Einstein said that the two observers clocks would become un synchronized.  Something to do with  "relativity of simultaneity".

I have to now wait for his next lesson. I had questions about his previous lesson, which I'm sure he will have a rational explanation.

That's perhaps a useful clarification on your part.

Do I take it, then, that you accept that in practice SR accurately accords with observations?

If so then your issue, presumably, is with Einstein's reasoning when he set out the theory, rather than arguing that SR does not work. Do I have that right?  

Edited June 13, 2023 by exchemist

[Logicandreason]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

You mentioned China.

Are you perhaps staying up late in HK ?

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

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

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

Thanks, I'm sure Australia is a great place and it's very useful to take note of the time difference.

We have quite a few members in Australia, some are also retired.

[Logicandreason]

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

That's perhaps a useful clarification on your part.

Do I take it, then, that you accept SR accurately accords with observations? If so then your issue, presumably, is with Einstein's reasoning when he set out the theory, rather than arguing that SR does not work. Do I have that right?  

Not so simple.

My reasoning is that its very highly unlikely that SR can be correct, as the consequences are so unbelievably bizarre. 

In almost every University lecture on SR that I watched from the USA's top universities and best Professors, they invariably mention something like, "Now this is going to seem really weird", "Unintuitive" is a popular word, followed by the disclaimer that "you have no right to expect that Nature ought to conform to your idea of what rational is". 

So I'm immediately on the defensive, expecting that there might be an error somewhere, and its going to take a lot of solid rational, logical explaining as to how Einstein came up with his conclusions. 

I have the right, and its also advisable to be critical of a claim especially if its opposite to the beliefs of classical physics, none of which make weird claims as does SR.

So, Mordred is going to explain how Einstein got to the point of being able to state that classical Physics has this very massive problem.  

Right now, I don't see the Problem. I see what Einstein is saying, but I don't see how he made the conclusion that a problem exists.

He jumped from the equations (that I first thought was wrong) where the equations had different results about time, all the way to "the stationary and the moving clocks will now be out of synchronization".

So, now I will wait for Mordred's reply.

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Thanks, I'm sure Australia is a great place and it's very useful to take note of the time difference.

We have quite a few members in Australia, some are also retired.

Geographically, its a worn down very old island. No real mountains, no amazing gorges, if we have a pile of dirt more than 10 feet high, we name it a mountain. This is relative to what I saw in Europe and China. If you like sand on the beach and sand in the backyard, then Australia is fine. (there are some great forests, but we are working on turning them into paper as fast as we can.)  I also exaggerate somewhat, and generalise, did I mention generalise? However to compensate, I'm grumpy.

[exchemist]

13 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Not so simple.

My reasoning is that its very highly unlikely that SR can be correct, as the consequences are so unbelievably bizarre. 

In almost every University lecture on SR that I watched from the USA's top universities and best Professors, they invariably mention something like, "Now this is going to seem really weird", "Unintuitive" is a popular word, followed by the disclaimer that "you have no right to expect that Nature ought to conform to your idea of what rational is". 

So I'm immediately on the defensive, expecting that there might be an error somewhere, and its going to take a lot of solid rational, logical explaining as to how Einstein came up with his conclusions. 

I have the right, and its also advisable to be critical of a claim especially if its opposite to the beliefs of classical physics, none of which make weird claims as does SR.

So, Mordred is going to explain how Einstein got to the point of being able to state that classical Physics has this very massive problem.  

Right now, I don't see the Problem. I see what Einstein is saying, but I don't see how he made the conclusion that a problem exists.

He jumped from the equations (that I first thought was wrong) where the equations had different results about time, all the way to "the stationary and the moving clocks will now be out of synchronization".

So, now I will wait for Mordred's reply.

Well the observational facts are that the predictions of SR are correct, so you have a big problem there. I gave you some examples earlier in the thread. 

And it all derives from the observational fact that the observed peed of light is found not to depend on relative motion between source and receiver, or between observers. It contradicts classical physics, sure, but it seems to be the case. Just as in quantum theory the behaviour of atomic scale entities does not confirm to classical physics either.

One of the big insights of c.20th physics was that nature does not have to conform, at all scales and in all circumstances, to what looks to us like common sense. 

But I'll observe your discussion with @Mordred with interest.

Edited June 13, 2023 by exchemist

[Eise]

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

Time was until then considered absolute.  However studies started to show that this wasn't accurate. It wasn't even Einstein that first noticed this. Poincare also made note of it prior to SR. Anyways without going into the history per se. (lol we have numerous forum members far more familiar with the history than I )

Right. I don't know if I exactly can say I know more about science history than you, but at least, it greatly interests me.

After the Michelson-Morley experiment, there were several ad-hoc explanations of the negative result: it is no accident that length contraction often goes by the name of 'Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction'. Supposing that the aether exhorted some force on objects moving through it, the length contraction 'explained' the null result of the MM experiment. Woldemar Voigt also went into that direction.

To Lorentz, it was also very clear, that classical physics and Maxwell's electromagnetism were inconsistent: applying the Galilean principle of relativity, the Maxwell equations do not keep their form. Lorentz was able to derive the correct transformations that left the Maxwell equations intact. Poincaré named them 'Lorentz transformations', and Einstein just took over this name. However, Lorentz still believed in a dynamic influence of the aether as the explanations of his transformations. AFAIK, Poincaré himself was also very aware of this consistency problem, but thought that would be one preferred reference frame, but due to the Lorentz transformation it is indeterminable.

@Logicandreason: from this it should be clear, that Einstein was not working on an original problem when he published his 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. Even the title was not original, I think Poincaré wrote an article with the same title (but then in French, of course). Einstein succeeded in deriving the Lorentz transformations from only two postulates: the principle of relativity, which is the same as the Galilean, but extended to electromagnetism, or better, all laws of physics; and the invariance of the speed of light. Einstein himself said that the time for SR was ripe those days, and I would say it would soon have been discovered by somebody else.

Just a few comments on this thread. (I am not well-versed in mathematics either, so I leave that to our experts). But I would like to point out that SR lies at the root of many working technologies (particle accelerators, GPS (which needs general relativity too); of physics itself (e.g. the magnetic field so to speak rolls out the existence of the electric field seen by moving observers; it explains the colour of gold and the liquidness of mercury), E = mc² of course also rolls out of SR; and spin and antimatter were predicted by making the Schrödinger equation conform to SR (by Dirac)).

And then of course there are an awfully lot of tests thrown at it. Wikipedia has a long list here.

So the default position of anybody doubting SR should be that (s)he does not understand it, because the tests and usage of SR speak a clear language. To think that there would be an error in Einstein's original article would not change anything in the modern understanding of SR. 

[Logicandreason]

4 minutes ago, Eise said:

Right. I don't know if I exactly can say I know more about science history than you, but at least, it greatly interests me.

After the Michelson-Morley experiment, there were several ad-hoc explanations of the negative result: it is no accident that length contraction often goes by the name of 'Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction'. Supposing that the aether exhorted some force on objects moving through it, the length contraction 'explained' the null result of the MM experiment. Woldemar Voigt also went into that direction.

To Lorentz, it was also very clear, that classical physics and Maxwell's electromagnetism were inconsistent: applying the Galilean principle of relativity, the Maxwell equations do not keep their form. Lorentz was able to derive the correct transformations that left the Maxwell equations intact. Poincaré named them 'Lorentz transformations', and Einstein just took over this name. However, Lorentz still believed in a dynamic influence of the aether as the explanations of his transformations. AFAIK, Poincaré himself was also very aware of this consistency problem, but thought that would be one preferred reference frame, but due to the Lorentz transformation it is indeterminable.

@Logicandreason: from this it should be clear, that Einstein was not working on an original problem when he published his 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. Even the title was not original, I think Poincaré wrote an article with the same title (but then in French, of course). Einstein succeeded in deriving the Lorentz transformations from only two postulates: the principle of relativity, which is the same as the Galilean, but extended to electromagnetism, or better, all laws of physics; and the invariance of the speed of light. Einstein himself said that the time for SR was ripe those days, and I would say it would soon have been discovered by somebody else.

Just a few comments on this thread. (I am not well-versed in mathematics either, so I leave that to our experts). But I would like to point out that SR lies at the root of many working technologies (particle accelerators, GPS (which needs general relativity too); of physics itself (e.g. the magnetic field so to speak rolls out the existence of the electric field seen by moving observers; it explains the colour of gold and the liquidness of mercury), E = mc² of course also rolls out of SR; and spin and antimatter were predicted by making the Schrödinger equation conform to SR (by Dirac)).

And then of course there are an awfully lot of tests thrown at it. Wikipedia has a long list here.

So the default position of anybody doubting SR should be that (s)he does not understand it, because the tests and usage of SR speak a clear language. To think that there would be an error in Einstein's original article would not change anything in the modern understanding of SR. 

Follow my discussions with Mordred, and we will see how he unpacks this one stumbling block I have, about how Einstein concludes that classical Physics makes clocks get out of sync.

But I take you point, that practically all of modern physics uses SR and GR in some way. So I must be in error. That is also a rational assessment. 

 

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Follow my discussions with Mordred, and we will see how he unpacks this one stumbling block I have, about how Einstein concludes that classical Physics makes clocks get out of sync.

But I take you point, that practically all of modern physics uses SR and GR in some way. So I must be in error. That is also a rational assessment. 

 

LOL

There are two professional Physicists helping you with your Mathematics

and here am I a (retired) professional Applied Mathematician trying to help with some basic Physics that they have even acknowledged  modern physicists take for granted so never mention.

 

I would also like to point out that the 1905 SR paper is not like a computer program. 

You cannot parse it line by line.

It has to be taken as a whole.

In particular it is customary today to state that one postulate is that 

"The speed of light is constant for all observers" or words to this effect.

Einstein did not write this.

He postulates for the source only.

Quote

page 8

We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with velocity c, if as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system.......

 

Compare this with the actual postulate 2 as it appears on page 1

 

Not only does he acknowledge that the onus of proof is on himself, but he also acknowledge another important issue that I have not yet raised.

There are two postulates involved, so are they compatible with each other ?

If so under what conditions ?

It is such deeper considerations that make Einstein's chain of reasoning some much longer and more complex than the modern slick versions.

 

 

[Logicandreason]

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

LOL

There are two professional Physicists helping you with your Mathematics

and here am I a (retired) professional Applied Mathematician trying to help with some basic Physics that they have even acknowledged  modern physicists take for granted so never mention.

 

I would also like to point out that the 1905 SR paper is not like a computer program. 

You cannot parse it line by line.

It has to be taken as a whole.

In particular it is customary today to state that one postulate is that 

"The speed of light is constant for all observers" or words to this effect.

Einstein did not write this.

He postulates for the source only.

 

Compare this with the actual postulate 2 as it appears on page 1

 

Not only does he acknowledge that the onus of proof is on himself, but he also acknowledge another important issue that I have not yet raised.

There are two postulates involved, so are they compatible with each other ?

If so under what conditions ?

It is such deeper considerations that make Einstein's chain of reasoning some much longer and more complex than the modern slick versions.

 

 

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

Other wise, Ill get back to you. 

 

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Referencing your first paragraph:

Well of course they are going to be different, they are measuring different events. Not a problem for classical physics.

Different events? No. They are both tracking the light traveling from A to B and back to A.

 

13 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

About your second Paragraph. 

A tick is a second. So one second in the rest frame, is supposed to equal a different number of seconds in a moving frame? How so? Only if the distances covered by light are identical can you come to this conclusion. (Meaning that there is an error in classical Physics)

Yes, there is error in “classical” physics, in assuming that everyone measures the same time interval. That’s one of the points of the paper!

It happens because of the constancy of c.

If light acquired the speed of the source, as with other phenomena, the times woul be the same.

13 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

In reality, the distances assessed by the stationary observer is not referring to the same distance that the moving Observer is interested in.

Also true, owing to relativity, but in “classical” physics they would be the same.

13 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Because you already said that as far as the Stationary observer is concerned, the rod is in motion, but as far as the moving Observer is concerned he believes that the Rod moved nowhere, so he never had that as a variable in his equations. He is only measuring how long it takes light to span the Rod length. Whereas the stationary observer is accounting for Rod length as well as Rod change in location, relative to the Light.

But this is all based on the constancy of the speed of light, which is a postulate of relativity.

13 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

One observers account of distance traversed by light, is different that the other observers account of how far light traversed, simply because they each were using different goal posts. Different distances covered by light at a constant speed must give different answers, and that's what Classical Physics repots,

It is not what “classical” physics reports. We have not analyzed that case.

 

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Sorry, I'm busy conversing with Mordred. I can't divert my attention from his tutorial.

!

Moderator Note

This is NOT a tutorial, it's a science discussion, on a science discussion forum.

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, studiot said:

In particular it is customary today to state that one postulate is that 

"The speed of light is constant for all observers" or words to this effect.

Einstein did not write this.

He postulates for the source only.

But, when combined with the first postulate, “Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body” the result is that speed of light must be the same for all (inertial) observers, since any frame can be considered a stationary frame.

But Logicandreason isn’t challenging the postulates as being in error.