I found a more easy to understand paper here.
http://sigmapisigma.org/radiations/2...ics_fall05.pdf

In my own words. The observers in the moving and stationary reference frames use the same method of measuring time, but get a different result while measuring the same event. If you except the fact that the speed of light is the same in every reference frame, then this is a logical and not so difficult to understand consequence.

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

Which statement of his in the paper was demonstrably false? If there was more than one, please just quote the first one.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

To worzel (#24)

The following is your ship description.

"So if you were floating along in space in one directon and I in the other and we both had clocks at the fore and aft of our spaceships you're saying that at most only one of us could have our own two clocks synchronized because at least one of us must be moving, right?"

First of all, let me clarify one factor that isn't involved in this, but is still real-science related. And that is that space ships going in opposite directions can easily have a time travel situation that would cause the clocks in one ship to show different times in their viewed numbers. This is the real-science situation involved in GPS and having to constantly reset clocks in staellietes and on earth.

Other than that situation, the answer to your point about the two ships having only one with clocks synchronized is as follows.

The real situation is that let's assume that all four clocks in the ships were set to show the same exact time SETTING back in a docking bay of homeport. Then as the ships are now out in space and going in opposite directions the situation is still factually that all four of the clocks stay set to the same settings they have and this doesn't involve resetting of clocks or synchronizing changes at all. The synchronization word thrown in is only a complexity of confusion that makes it seem like a time situation is involved when it factually is NOT.

And, that is exactly what Einstein was doing in the synch description he made, in that it went from clock face settings into a false use of synchronizing that gave the wrong appearance of the clock faces changing their settings. Truth in science fact is that not one of the four clocks changed in relation to any of the others. At 2:00 they all four showed settings of 2:00. At 2:08 they all showed the same. And, at every other setting it was still the full situation that all four clocks had the same exact setting on them.

So, Einstein's confusions got it all mxied up in terms and view thinking, and in the end it is still absolute science and math fact that he was dead wrong in the conclusion he stated.

So, SteveCrum, you've synchronized all the clocks according to one docking bay. Far enough. But what if they instead synchronized them all to a different docking bay that was moving away from the first. Wouldn't that be equally valid?

Also, wouldn't you agree that these onboard clocks synchronized back at base would be unsynchronized according to Einstein's method according to the onboard crew?

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

To Thomas (#31)

I am out of time to continue here, but in leaving I will leave the following concerning your points.

First of all, the observers in both systems are viewing clock settings and not time as discussions of this slip into. The viewers on the rod view the same two clocks that were previously set equal to the two in the stationary viewpoint, and every time any of the toatl viewers look at the clocks in their veiwpoints all of the clocks at a particular time still show the same exact times.

The error that occurs is entirely on how the viewed clock settings is then changed into time numbers. The real science situation is that the clock settings don't cahnge one single bit, and there is no synchronization involved, or changes in the previous synchronized settings of the clocks. The error is entirely in the fact of a synchronization violation in distance in one viewpoint and a velocity in the other occurs, and this then gives the illusion-thought of the rod changing length. It doesn't, and Eisntein's science error shows where his calculations were wrong.

By the way, Einstein had a strong basis for everything of his that the truth had to be shown in the math for it to then be proven. The math in the synchronization is dead wrong and it is not in accordance with math-proving-science at all.

Anway, I have to leave. I'll see you later.

To worzel (#34)

No, none of that is true. It is fully seen in the fact that no matter how moving or not moving of bays would be that there is a factual existence situation in reality that all four clocks can be set to the same setting, and once they are all set together it doesn't matter what occurs as long as it isn't the time travel thing I described.

Einstein's synchronization is all baloney and factually wrong science, and proven by posts here to be exactly that. Gotta' go. See ya'.

What a silly thread. The moment you change inertial system (and you must if you are moving in respect to another observer, to move in respect to someone else you have undergone acceleration: this puts you in another inertial system), the Lorentz equations apply. This has been proven flying atomic clocks around the world on an airplane. Your statements regarding Einstein are ridiculous and disrespectful.

The only thing I can imagine is that you are having fun pulling legs around here. Firstly, you never come up with any concrete facts, you just circumlocute talking about silly, non-existant "factual science", secondly, Einstein's SR and GR has withstood a 100 years of testing successfully, and thirdly, you speak all time of "real science" (yours I assume! ) and "true" facts and make polemical statements concerning "blindness", "truth", etc. Actually, I compliment you on your fine sense of humor...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

What's not true? You said that all the clocks could be syncrhonized with respect to the docking bay. I'm simply asking you what you'd say if I said "no, your docking bay isn't stationary, but mine is, so by your logic your clocks aren't synchrnoized after all".

But this is getting off the point. Please quote the first statement in Einstein's paper that you think is demonstrably false.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

A quick question for you Steve:

Do you believe that there is an absolute state of rest in the universe? I'm asking this because a lot of your arguments seem to follow the thinking of science up until Einsteins 1905 paper.

I assume that your thinking that the speed of light is 300,000 km/s relative to some universal state of rest. So if I was moving at 200,000 km/s relative to this rest state, then I'll only see light moving at 100,000 km/s relative to me (assuming I'm moving in the same direction as light).

Is that what your thinking?

Don't get snarky with me, there are easier ways to get in a firefight, but not many.

As of the time that comment was made, you hadn't touched two threads in nearly a week, and the third in just over a day. In the context at the time I posted that, it stands.

Allow me to say that your responses since then have amounted to the only thing about you I find redeeming.

I still see an ark full of inane assertions in a desert begging for mathematical rain.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Its amazing how science has been wrong for all this time but by coincidence everything works!!!!


hhm!!!

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Yet, this comment differs markedly from what you said earlier....


But as I have already pointed out, the two sets of clocks were synchronised at the outset. However, once the rod starts moving and the same methodology is used to check that the clocks are synchronised, they no longer are.

btw - I had a look at your maths in the first post in the Einstein thread. As far as I can see, you have simply re-affirmed the asynchronicity - you have just effectively used the different distances as a substitute for Einstein's "c+v" and "c-v" terms, and claimed that this shows that Einstein's claims of synchronicity of the clocks was wrong. In doing so, you have completely missed the point - the clocks were already synchronised at the outset, but in your calculations you are just measuring the asynchronicity in the moving frame. Well, that's the point!! The moving set of clocks are now asynchronous, whereas before they were not.

It is this finding that leads to the conclusion that an event as measured by observers in different reference frames, cannot be regarded by those observers as having occured simultaneously.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

I know, his last name was Bryant, yours appears to be Crum.I assume you mean the first post in this thread: Science and math prove Einstein was factually wrong

I responded to it, and your response to mine was to claim that I said Einstein did not use math! ("your statement about einstein not using the math is factually wrong") I did not say that.I asked a question (#6): "Are you just asserting that, or do you think you have found a mistake in algebra or something like that?" Apparently, from your statement above, you believe it was not just a mistake in algebra, but it did include a simple math error. You still have not pointed out where the simple math error occurred in Einstein's work.

To worzel (#32)

Concerning your question as to which statement Einstein made that was false, the following is a quote from his first paper.

"Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.

So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, ..."

There are two false statements shown, and which is explained in the following.

First, true science is that neither viewpoint of stationary or on the rod viewed a synchronous situation.

The second sentence part that was fully wrong was the statement where he falsely assumed his synch staement was correct and then stated the false conclusion.

In getting back to the first wrong statement the following proves the falseness. The proof is a bit long, but everything written needs to be to describe the full truth of the real science involved. And, the following makes it incredibly easy to understand that truth.

In the following the speed of light is 100 ft/sec, the rod length is 200 ft, and the velocity of the rod moving to the right is 20 ft/sec.

Then a horizontal bar has end A at the left and B at the right, and each end location has a clock and observer that can read the time showing on each clock face. There is a reflecting mirror at B pointing back toward A. And, there is a light source that emits a pulse of light at A and toward the mirror at B. In this part the bar has no movement and is stationary.

For less writing here and to show the results likely better I will describe two synch situations at the same time. One is where both clocks are set to the same exact, synchronized time setting. This is then with both clocks set to precisely 1:00. The second synch situation is where the B clock is set to one second past 1:00, and therefore out-of-synch with the A clock.

With this, at precisely 1:00 a pulse of light is shot from A and toward B. The light hits the mirror at B at exactly 2 seconds past 1:00, which I will describe from this point on as 1 + 2 sec. (200 feet/100 fps) The observer at B reads the exact clock setting when the light hits the mirror as 1 + 2 sec (synch'd clock setting) and 1 + 3 sec (for the wrong synch'd situation). He notes both clock readings for later use.

In both situtaions the light hits the mirror and starts back toward A. And, the observer at A then notes that the light hits A at precisely 1 + 4 sec. (synch'd setting) and 1 + 5 (wrong synch setting).

The situation then is that in the first synch situation the observers get together and share their clock reading notes. The situation they know also is that the two distances of light travel from A to B, and also the return of B to A are EXACTLY EQUAL. They also know the light speed velocity in both directions was also exactly equal.

The synchronization situation involved is that since the two directions are precisely equal THEN it is fully known that the B clock is located exactly at the mid-point of the total light travel.

With all of that known the two observers look at the first synch'd readings and do the math. The end reading at B was 1 + 4, and since both directions were equal they know they can divide the 4 by 2 and get a one-direction light travel time of 2 seconds. Tow seconds from A to B, and another two seconds from B back to A. With this they take the original clock setting of 1:00 and add 2 seconds for which would be the calculated, true synch mid-point value, and the result is 1 + 2 sec. This reading is exactly what the B observer saw for the first synch'd situation.

But, in the second unsynch'd situation they would find that the B reading of 1 + 3 sec. does not match the 1 + 2 sec., and this would factually reveal that the B clock was out-of-synch with the A clock by being one second too fast. To then get the B clock synchronized to A they move the clock setting of B back one second.

Now, THAT is what Einstein was showing in the first non-moving synch situation in the first equation of the first paper. And, you will note taht synchronization does NOT get accomplished by just having light travel in the two directions, but instead by the analysis at the end and adjusting clock settings as needed so they then match each other.

Now, for the moving rod.

This time I am not going to do both types of synch and unsynch because it isn't needed for the following. You can do it if wanted of course.

This time I am going to use three observers in the stationary view to make it easier, and two observers on the two rod ends A and B. The ground observers are one at the left original A location, and a second 83.33 ft to the right, and where the A end of the rod will finally be in the very end of the test. And the third observer will be to the right another 166.67 ft and where the rod end B will be when the light finally catches up with the B moving rod end and hits the mirror. And all clocks are again, two in stationary view at A and B and the rod two clocks at rod ends A and B.

So with this arrangement the rod is instantly moving at full velocity to the right from the back point of the rod at A. A light pulse at A is also shot at the same instant toward the moving B rod end.

The situation is that the light traveling right will hit the B mirror at the same time the rod has moved right 50 feet, and this will have all four clocks showing 1 + 2.5 sec. (stationary calcs of (200 ft + 50 ft)/100 fps, and rod calcs of 200 ft rod length/(observed velocity of 100 - 20 = 80 fps)

If the observed velocity isn't understood, just imagine yourself standing on the rod and looking sideways as related to the rod movement. The view you can see is that the light is traveling in the same direction as the rod and at 100 fps. The rod is also going the same direction at 20 fps. The speed of light you see is slower and 80 fps. If this isn't clear, thibnk of the situation of the rod going at 100 fps, and the light also at 100. The light would never catch up to the rod because they are going at the same exact velocity. You would then see the light stationary in your rod viewpoint. So, in the test here the light speed seen on the rod is 80.

So, the B observers in the ground view and on the rod also see their B clocks showing 1 + 2.5 sec. when the light hits the B mirror.

The light then reflects back toward the B rod end, and an end that is still moving to the right at 20 fps. The light hits the B rod end afrter the rod has moved right another 33.33 feet. The time seen by the ground observer who was sitting there waiting since the beginning and he was sitting right where the hit would occur, is 1 + 4.17 sec. (2.5 + (166.67 ft/100 fps))

The rod A end observer also sees the same time of 1 + 4.17. (2.5 + (200 ft rod length in his view/120 fps velocity seen in his view)) You can get this view-point velocity by thinking of what is seen on the rod again. It is simply that the light moving one direction and the rod going in the other, and it totals 100 + 20.

The end situation is all of the observers get together to then do the math again. The end reading on clock A in both ground and rod is 1 + 4.17. The readings noted for clock B when the light hit the mirror is 1 + 2.5.

In Einstein's synch method you would divide the 4.17 by 2 and get a false synch thinking. The reason is because the same EQUAL situation in the first test is not maintained in the moving rod test here.

Synchronizing checks and adjustment for the moving rod is accomplished as follows.

The two distances, from A to B, and B to A are not the same. The first is 250 ft and 166.67 ft. The total distance is 416.67 ft. To get a percentage that is correct science for the first light travel is (250/416.67=60%) The second light travel is (166.67/416.67=40%) This is as observed by the ground observers because the distances are what they observed.

The rod observers didn't see those distance and saw both distances as only the rod length in both situations. However, the rod observers saw a different velocities in each path. There view then involves percentages in the velocity situations. (80 + 120 = 200) (80/200 = 40%) (120/200 = 60%)

To accomplish true synch check at the end the total time of light travel is 4.17 seconds. And, 4.17x.60=2.5, and 4.17x.40=1.67.

With this the calculations show that the synch calc-time for clock B is then 1 + 2.5 sec. And, it is that situation for what clock B should have been showing when the light had gone 60% of the total light travel in the situation involved. And, both observers did factually see 1 + 2.5 sec on their B clocks.

You can also note that if the B clocks were out-of-synch by being one second or any value higher then the B clocks would have been found to be wrong and adjusting to synchronization made.

This then proves Einstein's factual math and science error. And, it is factually undeniable in science and math truth.

To gzhpcu (#37)

Concerning your silly thread comment you might want to red post #44 in this thread that describes real science that is presntly above wolrd-class physics.

What post #44 describes is factual proof that everything beyond Einstein's error in his first paper is all wrong and nothing but fantasy. The reason is because Einstein based relativity, e=mc^2 and a whole lot more on the ASSUMPTION that the first synch part was correct. It factually is NOT and is prven by real math and science to be completely wrong.

So, the science things you are describing in your post aren't real science and proven to be that. Sorry, but Einstein was dead-wrong and proven as exactly that. And, this is actually a fact above world class physics right now. we are also in the process of finding exactly how long it is going to remain in that condition also.

To worzel (#38)

I have answered your questions in post #44. The real science for your docking bay thing is in that post. If 344 is true, and it factually is, and fully seen to be true, then the docking bay situation and all like it are also proven to be what they are - a full misunderstanding of synchronization.

To Astrowannabe (#39)

The question in your post is one of the most incredible things I have seen anywhere on this board, and leads to a a truly good science observation.

The answer to your question is yes, there factually is a view point location in the universe that exists in an aboslute "rest" condition, and that is the universe itself. All time travel and everything else is in comparison to the base rest condition of the universe.

But, there is something that needs to also be stated about the speed of light. Light speed is actually also compared to the universe rest situation, but it is fully possible for velocities to exceed that universe speed of light. An example is the situation of a space ship or anything else traveling at or near universe light speed, and a rocket or something is shot from the moving object and in the same direction as the object movement, then the rocket is then moving at light speed + the velocity of the rocket.

So, it is fully within the universe laws of physics to have "things" moving far faster than the universe speed of light. And, light speed of objects is fully within the viewpoint of which moving systrem your are in. The base system is the universe, and since our galaxy is moving away from the LMC then light sources inside our moving system is then radiationg light at c from our velocity. That velocity in the universe viewpoint is "our galaxy speed + c" for light pointed away from the LMC, and a vector in all other directions.

To Doodler (#40)

Just to remind you, I was attacked on virtually every single post taht was written concerning my thtreads here, and I only recall one post reply taht was actually real science discussion and civil in those times.

So, no mater how much you like or don't concerning these facts, it is full truth that the HUGE majority of posters were doing nothing more than looking for dirt and attacking. And, if you don't want to believ the facts of this - don't, it is still dead-on right truth. It was also FULL TRUTH that my original statement, while under endless attack, about my first post in the Einstein error proving the science and math totally, is and was fully true and describing science fact that is real and right. That was all ignored endlessly while as I didn't have time to answer all of your excuses for the wrong science about Einstein.

So, you don't have a whole lot of anything to stand on as you spout your accusations there. And, I will get into a firefight with you every single time you continue the slop of the totally-unscientific methods of attacking that you are fully and factually doing. And, if you aren't getting the facts involved here yet, it won't be me who loses and is laying in the dirt in defeat in the end if you choose to go in the direction of attacking.

Take your pick.

I have to leave for the day, my available time is ended.

O no, I have number 43! I was hoping we'd get to 42

Just curious.
How would you define real-science e.g. in contrast with normal science? Can you name some people besides yourself how are practizing real-science?

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

That is simply a denial of the SR postulate that the speed of light is constant for all inertial observers. So your calculations prove nothing whatsoever about Einstein's math in his SR paper of 1905.

Never mind science and math, you have made an elementary logical error. You cannot show that a postulate is not true by assuming it is not true and then showing how your assumption results in a contradiction with the oringal assumption that it is true. That would be possible for virtually any assumption whatsoever, whether actually true or not, and proves absolutely nothing.

Hey look, if 1+1!=2 then 1+1!=2 - see I've proved arithmetic wrong factually, and easily seen to be factual, and according to real science and real math!

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Do you really think that we didn't know exactly where you were going with your argument? Why do you think I was questioning you on the validity of synchronizing the clocks with respect to your docking bay and not mine? Why was I not suprised when you vetoed the question? Jeez!

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

I'm not certain I understand your complaint about Einstein's math in the first two sections of the June 1905 paper. Let me put it into your situation and tell it back to you as best I can, and you please point out where you think I'm missing your point.

Situation 1: Stationary synchronization.
There is a rod 200 feet long (r_AB), we mark the left end "A" and the right end "B". The speed of light is 100 feet per second. There is a clock at each end, and a mirror at end B. Obeservers at A&B agree to synchronize their clocks. A sends light to the mirror at B, and reports the time he sent the light pulse, and the time he received it back (which should be 4 seconds after he sent it). B sets his clock so the time he observed the light is two seconds after the time A sent it. If the only thing moving is the light, this is clear. The clocks can be synchronized. However,

Situation 2: Moving rod & synchronization.
There is the same rod moving along its axis at 20% the speed of light (20 feet per second) with respect to a long line of obeservers who all have synchronized clocks. Now, Einstein is careful to point out that these observers will see Lorentz contraction on the rod. He doesn't in those first two sections of the paper spell it out as to how large this contraction will be, but he does mention it. In your example, the 200 foot (when stationary) rod would look just under 196 feet long to these observers.

Now the stationary observer at 0 feet sees the flash of light at A. The observer at 250 feet sees the light hit the mirror at B 2.5 seconds after the observer at zero saw the initial flash (It would be the observer at 245 feet if we take Lorentz contraction into account). The light moves back along the rod toward the end we called A. The observer at 83 feet 4 inches sees the light hit mirror A again. (81 feet 7 inches if we take Lorentz contraction into account) at 4.167 seconds (4.08 taking Lorentz into account).

So, regardless of whether we take Lorentz contraction of the rod into account, the two observers on the rod believe that to synchronize their clocks, they need to adjust the second one to be showing 2.0 seconds when the light is received at B and 0.0 when it left A. Whereas the observers in the frame that the rod is moving at 0.2 c think that the clock at B should be set to 2.5 seconds (2.45 taking Lorentz contraction into account) when the light gets to it, but perhaps understand that the observers on the rod will take the mean of r_AB/c-v and r_AB/c+v (2.08 or 2.04 seconds depending again on Lorentz transformation). In either case the observers on the side, and the observers on the rod cannot agree as to how to synchronize the clocks, unless the observers on the side also read the third section of Einstein's June 1905 paper, and allow for the slowing of time in the moving reference frame.

So where's the mistake?

You've said Einstein made a mistake. I don't see it.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Steve:

Your confusion is understanding. Virtually all of physics made that exact same mistake for several centuries until Einstein came along. The idea of a special speed in the universe which is zero seems to make logical sense, and virtually every scientist in the world assumed that same thing for a long time.

The problem is that once we developed the technology to investigate that idea, we could never find that universal "rest speed". Every attempt we ever made to detect the effects you described in your rod experiment failed.

The classic example is the Michelson Morley experiment, which I would suggest you read up on if you haven't already. They essentially did exactly your rod experiment to try to find the speed that the Earth moves through the universe. Assuming for a moment that the speed of light is 300,000 km/s relative to the universe, then if we move through the universe we should be able to measure light moving at speeds different from 300,000 km/s. Since the Earth rotates, revolves around the sun, and the sun revolves around the galaxy ect, we should be able to detect these variations and those variations should change as the Earth moves first in one direction and then the other as it revolves around the sun.

The problem is that we can't. Regardless of how the Earth moves, we always measure the speed of light to be exactly the same. I'm not telling you this because this is what I believe, or because it makes some other calcualtion make sense. This is experimental fact. We tried to measure how the speed of light changes as we move, and yet we can't. The speed of light is always 300,000 km/s as seen by us regardless of how fast or slow we move.

It was because of this that Einstein came up with his 1905 paper. It is difficult to accept at first because it's so counter-intuitive. But that's because our intuition is based on our experience, and we have no experience with traveling at anywhere close to the speed of light.

http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ke...elativity.html


http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-clo...ppler_943.html

__________________
Thank God for magnetism.

Steve, as a number of people here have said, you have started from the position that one of the postulates is false. That could be correct, but then you would have to demonstrate that experimentally. You can't just state it as fact.

If we have two people moving relative to each other, you appear to believe that there is a way to tell if one of them is static, and which one of them is moving. Is that the case?

To Captain Swoop (#41)

The situation of how everything so-called "works" isn't about whether the Einstein science and others work, but instead that Einstein was looking for science descriptions that would explain the observed situations. This also occurs with other science areas. With that, situation is there have been descriptions of those science items that have had theories written about how they occur, etc.

So, the situation is that the theories might be written, but that doesn't mean they truly describe the actual science involved. And, this board is proving some of those.

And then you would have the answer!!! (But then this universe would shift...)

These kinds of pointless threads are always the most entertaining... But then everything I know about science I learned from Bill Bryson.

__________________
Gone Sailing

But if the theory fits the observations and the maths back it up how are they not describing what is observed? Science as it is can describe gravity with enough accuracy to put a probe into orbit around distant planets or even land on a Comet!! what more do you want?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►