To hhEb09'1 (#43)

Concerning your asking about which post had the calculations, yes that was the original thread. However, post #44 in this thread is far better at describing the details of the calcluations and science.

Concerning your second part it seems we had a misunderstanding about Einstein's use of math in the logic, or not. At this point the use-of-math question seems to not be an issue anymore.

The remaining issue in the last part of your post here is then about my not pointing out the math error enough, or you not being able to understand what it is. So, I will describe the error in more detail, and quite frankly, that is likely a truly good point so every person here can see it completely.

The actual situation was not totally, or even mostly, in a math error, although since Einstein was using the equations to prove his synchronization point a major synchronization math error did exist. So, I will describe that first.

The error existed in his, first not understanding somehow that his use of synchronization in the first equation where it was all in a stationary situation occurred entirely because the two directions of light travel had all of the distances and velocities equal. The entire point of the synch use he did was to prove synchronization existed between the two clocks and the only way this could be done, as proven by my post #44, was to FULLY understand and use the point about the two paths of the light travel were EQUAL.

The point of this is when he then took the synch method into the rod-moving situation he completely forgot this critical synch point and use of the method, or he quite frankly didn't know the ttrue science and math usage of the synchronization he was describing.

In either case, and there are no other options, because synch checks are factually required to have all of the component parts EQUAL. He factually violted that equal condition by one explanation or another, but in the end, his use of the synch was completely and factually wrong. It's right there to be seen by the world to be a factual math and science logic error.

So, his math error was in not understanding the EQUAL requirement in math that needed to exist for factually true synchronization by use of math equations. If that isn't clear enough it is a fact that in using his light travel in the two directions, math required that he maintain the two path distances and velocities in equalness. It is a FACT that he violated this equal math requirement in the second rod-description. So, it wasn't a minor math error, but a gross misunderstanding of the math that killed the truth of the description.

The second part is the error in science and logic. And, there are likely a fair amount of these because it gets a little deep into the thinking. But, the following should prove the point.

First, a significant physicist should have been able to understand the view of the light as it passed by an observer on the rod. This is the point if a rod is moving to the right at 100 ft/sec and any object is also moving to the right at 101 feet/sec, the view of the observer on the rod would see the object move in front of his eyes at one foot per second. And, a world-class physicist should have been able to figure this out.

A second point is that a world-class physicist, when presenting to the world a theory that would lead to a situation among others that a SOLID rod would physically get shorter by ONLY the velocity movement of the rod, would have CHECKED the math figures like mad before he stated just a drastic description.

And no, he didn't check the math because if he had and understood the equal math situation he would have found the exact same unequal situation that I did.

A third is about how does synchronization of clocks even fit with a shortening of a rod or viewpoints in different locations in time or anything like that when synchronization is ONLY about setting clock readouts so they have the same readings on them. I am sure there can be attempts in trying to make something "fly" in this area, but a good, deep study into this one would reveal how synchronization and time views aren't even connected in real science. If needed, I will even get into this one to show the true depth of the really bad science use of synch exists here.

The last one keeps to my post #44 description and it is best if I keep to that for now, and this is simply that Einstein somehow didn't even understand that all four observers would factually see the same exact clock readouts in all times during the rod movement. It is obvious that the clocks all had the same exact reading and post #44 proves the fact. If that isn't believed, go get some cars and four clocks and drive past two observers. You don't need any light or mirrors for the test because it is a fact that the light movement didn't cause the rod clocks to be different from the ground clocks. In the end, it is an absolute fact that the clock readouts do not change. (The only exception is the time travel that I mentioned, and that is not involved in Einstein's thing.)

There are more science errors, but this is easily enough to prove the points of factually existing math and science logic errors.

To Thomas (#51)

Your point is an incredibly good one, and one that is fully right and fitting for you to ask.

The answer is that I believe real science to be exactly what the Wikipedia article described, and includes, among all other science points and procedures, observation, analysis, and others. I am not going to get into a deep description because, even though I didn't read every word of the Wikipedia article I do agree fully with the science method.

My use of the "real" term is associated with accomplkishing the real science method and finding the real science truths that exist in this universe. My usgae is the idea of describing the real science involved in reality in the universe in comparison of the wrong-science that the Einstein errors have caused. At this point taht example may still be in debate, but the real-science point still exists where ever there are wrong science descriptions and where a real-universe description is the only true science description.

And, naming people who practice real-science is easy. Any scientist taht is describing real science descriptions that obey all of the science methods AND have then found and described the truthfully real science that exist in full science reality and truth. And truth that is true and not just my or anyone else's opinion.

So, to determine which science descriptions are real science, it takes some extremely good science practices and commitment to dig in and find what is truth and not. An example of a "not" is the Einstein synch usage and the facts that exist in post #44. This then proves there is science that is factually real science and Einstein's relativity and other things of his that relied on the synch base being true are then NOT real science. And, all of those that are his are factually proven as NOT. If anyone can unprove the synch error then that would be an obvious counter. But, you will find that it is impossible to disprove the facts existing because the facts are reality and truth in this universe and therefore unprovable in the counter direction. Anyone can try all they want, but that would only be beating a dead horse attempt.

To worzel (#52)

Okay, first of all, the thinking of the speed of light being constant in all viewpoint frames is something that comes from the synch part being true first. It is a result of the synch part, and it doesn't exist unless the synch part is proven first to be true.

But, to solve the situation behind your comment, we can change the light passing by the rod to a baseball, and the same exact truths exist in the math equations as described in post #44. The only part needed to imagine is that the baseball has to bounce off the mirror and return at instant top velocity. But, that is well within the test requirements. It doesn't matter if the object is a pulse of light or any moving object because the test requirements are all about distance, velocity and time.

This then takes the constant speed of light thinking out of the test. And no, the speed of light doesn't just magically make it all work somehow. I am not suggesting you would think that, but that is absurd science thought if used.

To worzel (#52 again)

I got into the first part of your post that I missed the last part somehow.

Concerning the logic error you described, you obviously are not understanding the conclusions that are seen in all that is written in post #44. It is NOT anywhere near as simple as the logic error of my assuming something is wrong and then as you described.

Instead, the description in post #44 is the same kind of logic and use of math equations that Einstein did in his original paper. My description then goes through the same exact rod description as he used, and I have described additional description at each of his points to show what the clocks were catually reading at each point. I also added clarification to how synchronization actually works in each path of the light travel also.

In the end, I described the true results of what occurred, and also not only why Einstein was wrong, but what was the true science that was involved.

The end result of post #44 is that it completely describes all of the math, science and everything else in the logic that is needed to prove the point of Einstein's error. This has absolutely nothing to do with starting with an assumed anything, and then using the assumed part as the start in the proof.

By the way, Einstein did make a huge error when he did "assume" his synch part was correct and then used the wrongly assumed science description in his following descriptions. I didn't - he did. He also assumed his usage of synchronization was correct also, and it factually was not. And, taht "was not" is proven in post #44 calculations and description of the real science involved.

Nope. It is one of the postulates of SR, it is not derived. It is possible to use other postulates and then derive the constancy of c, but that paper starts with the premise of the constancy of the speed of light in empty space.

From the paper:

In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity

2AB/(t'_A-t_A)=c,

to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space.

Again, nope. The postulate is that the speed of light is always the same in all inertial frames, not that the speed of anything is always the same. Maybe that's where your disbelief is coming from, a basic misconception.

According to SR your example with a baseball would pretty much work as you describe for low speeds. But as you increase the speed the towards c it would get less and less accurate due to the relativistic addition of velocities.

__________________
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.

Thanks.
If I could make a guess here, I would say your work is in the field of politics.
But making guesses is of course bad science.

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

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

To worzel (#53)

First of all, the post I wrote to Astrowannabe didn't have anything to do with this thread subject, and was entirely answering her post item, and an item that I thought was truly amazing.

But, your including that post comment here was for a reason that is a bit amazing in a way also. And, that is that your first sentence about "where I was going with this" is exactly what you just got through accusing me of in post #52. And, that was "assuming". So, you are "assuming" something about the assumed direction I am going.

Well, worzel, so you don't have to assume anything I will tell you my direction. First, this thread is factually directional in showing a true science description of a HUGE Einstein error that exists in all science fact and truth. The math and science shown in post #44 factually proves the truth of the statement. So, not only was it my direction, that directional truth is fully and factually complete in the science involved. The only part not completed is where others acknowledge the science facts of the truth.

As for your other "assumed" thinking, about how this, and tons of other science facts in true science will also prove God exists, that one also is fully right down the line in full truth and fact also. You just haven't seen the humongous amount of real science fact and truth that is still coming yet. But, you sure as beans are going to see all of that in one way or another, and I will guarantee that once all the science testing is completed concerning the science descriptions there isn't going to be even one shred of doubt in that assumed direction either.

So, the last assumed part is true, but I have a whole lot of factual science that truly needs to be described in real science truth before even getting close to that one. And, by the way, it's Jesus.

In other words, no understanding of Einstein's paper at all, right?

I wish you'd write shorter posts, SteveCrum. Now that you've exposed that you don't even understand the difference between postulates and the derivations of a theory, wading through your essays to point out the same logical error over and over is getting tiresome.

Answer this question. What are the two postulates of SR? (the ones usually used pedagogically, that is)

__________________
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 still ask where's the math?

__________________
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 ►

To Antoniseb (#54)

First of all, in part one, the description in Einstein's paper didn't have the situation you described. And, even if it had been the end result wouldn't have worked as einstein described anyway. Actually, the real situiation is that if it had been done the way you described Einstein wouldn't have made the error he did. The following is why your description is different and why it would have solved the problem.

First of all, Einstein didn't have the person at B for the purpose of synchronizing the B clock. Instead, he described the light coming from A just hitting the mirror at B and then instantly being reflected back toward A. The B observer was to only record the time that was shwoing on the B clock face when the light hit B.

And the observer then at A observed the time showing on the A clock when the light hit there. But, this stationary sequence isn't where the error occurred. One thing to note though is that Einstein didn't actually describe how any synchronization checks or adjustments would be made, and instead he just assumed that the light traveling in the two paths and being reflected in the mirror at B would accomplish a total synchronization. It doesn't, and the checking of clock B at the midpoint has to be compared with half of the total time. Einstein doesn't describe any of this synch part at all. He is just looking at the total of the test situation. The problem with this is it led into his assuming that the same total would be true for a moving rod situation. It doesn't, and is proven by post #44 because the movement of the rod throws a right-directional element into the physics that then causes an unequal synch situation. To then use it for synch in the rod movement you have to use the 40% and 60% time adjustments.

So, it's confusing, but if you look deeply and accurately into the math and what is going on you can see it doesn't work.

In the second, moving rod part, the first thing to note is that Einstein is not using the Lorenz contraction in proving the situation, because that is a result of the test described here. Einstein has to describe in this founding test what people in the two viewpoints actually see. So, we have to look at what they see factually and nothing else yet.

With that, let's see what the observers actually do see. And, the first thing to do is to slow all of the speeds of the objects down so we can correctly see the situation instead of a streaking flash of light going past. And yes, this is fully within correct science because there is nothing mystical about the speed of light that keeps the extreme high speed any different from lower speed objects. In science,velocity, distance and time equations don't have anything in them that allows an exception. There is the exception of time travel, but that isn't releted to this.

In the slow speeds then, the stationary observers, including you and me, so you and I can see it, then see the rod moving right at 100 ft per second, and after the light hits the mirror and is going left we also see it moving at 100 fps. And, since the rod is moving right at the same time as the light, we can see that the first light path had a total distance traveled of 250 feet. This distance is because the rod had moved right taht far before the light finally hit the B end. In the second light path back to the right, our view on the ground is seeing that the light actually went left a distance of 166.67 feet before it hit the right-mioving rod end.

In total our ground view saw the light speed the SAME in both paths of light, but the distance was 250 ft right and 166.67 feet left.

One thing to note is that we didn't see the rod get shorter at all, and ONLY the above observations.

As for the second rod-viewpoint we get on the rod and repeat the test.

We are then on the rod as it is moving to the right from A toward B, and we look down at the rod and we see the rod length is still 200 feet long. And, all through the testing the rod lenth in our rod-view stays at the same 200 feet rod length.

We then look to the side as our rod is going toward B and we look at the velocity that we seem to be seeing from our rod-viewpoint. What we see is a combination of the light going right and the rod velocity going in the same right direction. In the example, we look at the light pulse going by, and we don't see a blurred flash because we have slowed everything down so we can actually see the light "object". That object is then seen as going past us at a speed of 80 feet per second. This is the math situation of 100 fps for the light speed, and the 20 fps rod speed, which then gives the appearance to us as the light object going past us at 80 fps.

And again, if this is difficult to accept, just think of the view you would see out a side window of a car if your car was moving ahead at 10 mph, and a second car was right beside you and going at 10 mph, your viewpoint would see the second car as not going any faster than you are. But, if you spped up to 20 mph, and the other car speeds up to 100 mph, then your viewpoint would actually be seeing the other car going at 80 mph faster than you.

So, that is the velocity viewpoint of the observers on the rod in the first light path right. In the second light path going back toward A our viewpoint would be a mix of two ojects going in opposite directions instead of both the same direction. Our view to the side is then the light object going right at 100 fps and the rod still going left at 20 fps. The combination in our view of the light object is (100 plus 20). And, this same view can be described for cars going in opposite directions as well.

The point of this rod-view is that our observations are as follows.

First the rod length under our feet didn't change at all. However, the two light object speed that we observed going past did have two different speeds from our viewpoint. Those we 80 and 120, and once again those calculation to a 60% and 40% difference.

Einstein's first description of synchronization had 50% and 50% for the two paths, and the end time could be easily divided by 2 to get the time from A to B. However, the same dividing by 2 doesn't work for the moving rod situation. Instead, the total time has to be adjusted to 60% and 40%. Einstein didn't do the adjustment, and just assumed wrongly that the first logic held fully for the second. It didn't.

Einstein's error was that his assumption of the two being the same synch condition was off in the midpoint where synch numbers occur was off by 10% each way. And, Lorenz figures weren't used by Einstein in the original papers, and wouldn't be appropriate anyway because they are a result of the proofs, not a part of proof. The error occurred in the method Einstein wrote in the paper, and it might be a little difficult to see a bit, but the error is right there factually and can fully be seen.

All this "true" science and "real" science business is getting tiresome, like a broken record. Get a good introductory book on Einstein's theory of relativity to dispell your misconceptions. Try, for example; "Relativity for the Layman" by James A. Coleman.

__________________
______________________________________________
“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.

HER?! I'm a guy, thank you very much

To Astrowannabe (#55)

The first error you have in your post is that the idea of time frames is only true IF Einstein's synchronization is correct. It factually is NOt, and all of the science descriptions that depend on that paper being right, which it is not, are then factually proven to be wrong. Unless of course, some other method could somehow prove the situation completely by a science other than relativity. And no, no one can use quantum mechanics if the quantum theories are based on Einstein previous science related to relativity either. And, there are no other science laws that provide the Einstein time frames anyway.

And, your second point about testing the rod-speed description isn't correct either. The test can easily be made at slow velocities that fully shwo every single thing I have written in Post #44. The situation you described about the Morley test is that they factually didn't know how to do the test. For one thing, and completely unknown to any physicist on earth, the GPS situation of a time-travel shift occurs on the surface of earth in the two different directions of whether the surface spin is toward the LMC or away from it. They didn't have a clue about this totally true science situation. There are other things about the Morley test that are also required and they didn't know about either. So again, they didn't know how to test either the rod movement or the Morley arrangement science.

And yes, I am familiar with the Morley test. The original situation was that they were thinking there was an ether in the universe that would cause a slowing affect on light in one direction. And, the Morley test was supposed to detect a slowing of light in one of the two directions in the equipment. In the end, they didn't know of the time-shift that exists on earth's surface, and how to do the test right.

Your next part about not being able to measure the different speeds of light in the universe is truly interesting though. The real situation with our galaxy is that it is speeding away from the LMC at light speed as far as our galaxy core velocity, and related to universe base speed of zero. And, our galaxy arm is spinning away from the LMC and then has earth velocity at a speed over universe light speed. This situation then makes light coming toward us from objects inside our galaxy at light speed, and seen as white, while light outside our galaxy is coming at a different velocity. Are you ready for how that can be?

First of all, that is why we see white light blasts coming from outside our galaxy in color frequancies and not the normal white. If you were in a sopace ship and slowed to within universe light speed you would see the colored galaxies with white stars filling them completely, and just like you see our stars inside this galaxy in white.

But, that doesn't answer the velocity situation. The point is that light speed measurements of light outside our galaxy should then be slower than light inside. And actually, with our galaxy going at light speed and the light coming toward us at universe light speed would mean that light would never catch up to us. So, this is a toughie, huh?

The answer in real science is that we are seeing light photons from all directions in locations that our galaxy is catching up to. This is a bit tough to explain but as far as seeing light coming from behind us the situation is that we cannot see any light that started in our direction after our galaxy was going at light speed away from the LMC. We can only see light that was going our direction at the same time as our original speed blast. So, we should actually be seeing that direction of outside light as having no velocity at all, or something close to that because of our above-light speed situation.

To explain the situation going on the first thing needed is to know how light waves exist, and that is that photons are shot out in straight line directions and are "flying" in close-together in a wave formation. The wave shape starts at the bottom valley-shape, and as it goes back toward the light source the curve slowly curves up, but still sloped back. It is roughly about 60% slope in the center and near the top it starts curving back more, and at the very top at small part is horizontal. Actually, neither the bottom or top are horizontal because it is all a curved lazy-S shape, but at the maximum bottom and top the final points reach the horizonatl in the wave direction.

The next part is that the valley has red, and the very top is violet. And, the four colors ornage, yellow, green and blue are equal distances along the S-curve from the bottom red to the top violet. The last situation is the photons for each color are traveling the direction of the wave and not up and down the wave shape. I don't actually know if present wave thinking has photons going up and down the curve, but if they do think that it's wrong in any case. The photons fly straight in a wave flying pattern.

The point of this is when we normally see light wave we are looking at the approaching sloped-back group of photons. And we see white if we see the entire wave together; the combination of frequencies is seen as white. In the backward view though what we actually see is the back view of photons in waves that are stationary in our viewpoint. And, whether believed or not, since our galaxy arm is swirling us in a direction that is beyond the equal-stationary viewpoint, we then see a "movement" that is like rewinding a video tape.

So, that is what is seen in the back direction and it is likely provable by blasts in the past actually being seen as imploding in a backward blast type of view of them. And, you can bet your last dollar on the fact that that situation is actually able to be detected in the backward view. I haven't even looked for this yet but I can and will to prove the point.

However, that still doesn't explain why light velocity measurements aren't detected as being incredibly slow from the backward location. My gosh, they are so slow they are standing there grinning at everyone, and in a dead-stop or rewind.

The answer to that isn't going to be liked, but even so it is true and can be tested for the truth involved. And test results will prove the truthfulness of the description here. The situation is all universe, outside light to each side, top and bottom can be measured and found to be at light speed, and all because at right angles to our direction away from the LMC universe light speed is in the same viewpoint frame as our galaxy. And, the end answer that can be tested as I described is that light from behind us and ahead will have the speed of outside universe light found to be different from our normally measured light speed.

And, "that" measuring situation will also prove the truth of the description I have written here. So, not only will testing prove varying light speeds, but also prove my description of our galaxy moving away from the LMC. Two birds, one stone thing.

And, for your last point about the 1905 paper, the situation isn't counter-intuitive at all, but the solid fact that post #44 proves the Einstein synchronization to be completely dead wrong. You need to read post#44 and understand the math and science facts stated, because they are as right as right gets. And Einstein made a huge error, whether people are in complete denail of the math and real science truths or not.

Wow. I need to check the ATM forum more often - three pages before I even saw this.

Upon browsing through it, though, maybe I wish I hadn't seen it.

Steven, you've said that the clocks at the ends of the moving rod are not synchronized in either reference frame. However, as Einstein says, those clocks are simply set such that "their indications correspond at any instant to the 'time of the stationary system' at the places where they happen to be." They are, for all intents and purposes, not "ticking" on their own - their ticking is being artificially controlled so that they are synchronized in the stationary system. By definition.

It is only when viewed from the moving system (in which they are stationary) that those two clocks become unsynchronized with each other. However, since those two clocks continue to "correspond at any instant to the 'time of the stationary system' at the places where they happen to be," that means that the "time of the stationary system" itself is unsynchronized when viewed from the moving system.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

To Sean Clayden (#56)

The first link you included starts with a car moving at 30 mph and a frizbee thrown from behind and then moving at 30 mph in the same direction. And, inside the car are the driver looking at the frizbee from his moving viewpoint, and also in the backseat a kid that is also looking at the same non-moving frizbee.

The true science involved is that the driver and the kid are factually looking from the same viewpoint of the frizbee and the writer of the article tired to give the impression of two diffrenet viewpoints. The truth is the scince viewpoint is both from the same view. The reality of the viewpoint described is a psychological, thinking viewpoint of how the situation is perceived.

So, that one isn't the Einsten type of reference frame in the slightest. The described viewpoint is only an opinion viewpoint type, and not REAL.

As for the second link the description got blown out of the water right away with the completely wrong staement about the clocks A and B having different times shwoing on the clock facses. Post #44 in this thread shows factually that all four clocks will have the same exact time showing and there is no change in the READINGS seen on the clocks. At ALL times, all four observers factually see the same exact time showing on the clocks.

That is a proven fact by post #44 and the truth written, and Einstein was dead wrong in saying the clock obseravtions would show different times. That is only fantasy and wrong, while real science truth is as stated here. And, the facts and testing easily prove this test as well. Testing it is a true piece of cake.

To Fortis (#57)

Concerning your post, and as I just described in my last post here, testing what I have described in post #44 is a piece of cake, and as easy as it gets to then show the truth of the science involved.

And, no I didn't start with one of the postulates being false, but instead went through the same exact description Einstein used, with everything starting the testing from exactly no assumptions at all.

I did in fact, get all the results found in the description exactly as Einstein did his, and his weren't even correct, which my further description totally proves.

So, my description in post #44 isn't stating a fact without proof, but is factually arriving at the facts involved from the complete science truths and math taht are involved. And, I might add, in a method that is far superior to the errors in science and math that Einstein used.

I doubt that you even read and followed the true science that is described in #44, or you couldn't even possibly come to the conclusion you did.

In any case, post #44 proves Einstein's error totally and factually. And, not one shred of opinion, and completely all in full math and the true science involved.

I was not aware until now that you are rejecting Einstein's initial supposition that the speed of light is constant regadless of reference frame. As far as I can tell from the statement quoted above, you have not found an error made by Eintein, but rather, you have not read his paper in full, and are rejecting parts of it that do not agree with Newtonian Mechanics.

Am I missing something else here or is that the whole thing?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Pretty much. But I do believe Steven has broken the world record for the number of words used to say "I believe the second postulate of SR is wrong".

To Captian Swoop (#60)

That is actually a fairly good point in that obseravtions, math and testing should provide proof for theories. And, that obviously occurs, and with results in real science truths.

However, with Einstein's things that are based on the synchronization being true then the situation is different from what you described.

The first is that all of the math that Einstein provided appeared to be extremely complex and proving mathematically that his relativity and e=mc^2 were correct. What is truth in science and proven by post #44 is that false math can actually occur, and even though it appears to be correct, it is dead wrong.

And for observations tha supposedly look like they prove Einstein's descriptions, the truth is that every single one of them are misunderstandings of another real science situation. GPS, red shift and any others described can be shwon to be other real science descriptions.

By the way, I will tell you the one that isn't involved with the synch error, but does show the point of other science being right while this one is also wrong.

It is about an early description he made about the photoelectric effect. He stated that light hitting a metal surface was causing an electrical chrage to be found. That part was actually correct.

He described the situation of the incoming photons hiting the surface of the metal and causing surface electrons to be blasted from the surface atoms. And, since this occurance occurrred for even very low speed blue photons, and not any red photons at all no matter how fast they were going, his description was that the incoming photons had to be at a threshold energy level in order for the photoelectric situation to occur.

It should also be noted that even though the description was wrong in science detail, there has been development of products from the science even at the low level described.

The real science situation, which is now proven by electron dot science, is that the incoming photons didn't break any electrons free at all. Instead, the incoming photons collide with the nuclei of the surface electrons and the added energy that goes into the nuclei causes those electrons that are locked into the surface position of the crystal state of the metal to then radiate their charged energy photons outward. This outward radiating from the surface electrons is the electric energy that was detected. It was NOT freed electrons flying off the surface. By the way, this is exactly also how all molecules have light hit their surfcae electrons and the unique molecular locked location of surface electrons then radiate the particular light frequency that gives them the color they are seen as. Green l;eaves are sen as green because sunlight hits the electrons in the surface and the plant structure molecules causes only the green frequency to be radiated. All colored paint is the same thing; the electrons point in different directions that are for the color seen.

As far as the blue and red light, the situation is that electrons radiate in the visible light frequencies, and atoms radiate in infrared. The situation in Einstein's error again is that the blue is in the electron frequency range. The red he used is infrared and not absorbable by electrons. It absorbs into atom nuclei, but is generated and absorbed only by atoms. So, Einstein didn't know the real science and made another theory guess. A guess that was wrong.

So, once again, false science can be thought to be proven by math and observations, but wrong descriptions can and are done at times. And Einstein certainly had his share of the wrong ones.

By the way, give me any "proof" that has been supposedly seen for Einstein's things and I will describe the real science involved. I have already done some, but we might as well get them all finished.

This is an incredibly good point here. The theory today has been shown to be extraordinarily accurate. StevenCrum, can your correction or improvement upon the theory 1) Predict all the cases for which SR and GR has been put to the test to date? and 2) Predict other things that the current theory does not?

The attitudes of the members on this board will change as soon as you can prove 1) & 2) above, I can guarantee that. The average scientist is very pragmatic. As soon as you given him something that works as well as the current something and works better, he will drop the old way of thinking. So, just show that your idea can do everything up to GR and more, and I think you'll find people will be a lot nicer. At the moment, though, you've pretty much shown nothing whatsoever.

I guess what I am really trying to say here is, OK, so the basis of your ideas Einstein's are incompatible. Build up your basis and show us what predictions your theory can make that Einstein's cannot. Once you start making these predictions, then more people will listen to you as to why your basis should be chosen and not Einstein's.

To worzel (#65)

First of all, the equation 2AB/(t'A-tA)=c, is not a postulate that is uniquely stuck to relativity at all. Instead, it is merely a different form of the basic elementary physics equation of velocity = distance/time. And, in Einstein's use in the paper it is merely the situation that his two tests were using the velocity, time and distance equation type of arrangement. His actual point in the section you pasted is to show that light was going to be used in the test to refelct in the mirror at B, and that the light velocity would obviously be at c. So, this isn't any great postulate revelation here, and the idea of light being constant in different reference frames isn't even in his intedned purpose in this locations at all.

So, what you described isn't true. His c is only referring to the veleocity of the light object in the description. Nothing about it being constant, EXCEPT for the true fact of c being constant in the travel from A to B, and then backward then to A. THAT is the point of the light speed being equal. It is factually the EQUAL thing and not actually needing to be right at the value of c anyway.

And, your nopes in the last part are also wrong because your assumption of the sped of light being constant in all later frames doesn't exist if the synch part fails. It does fail completely and the assumption you and Einstein made is factually wrong. You don't get to use a RESULT of the test IN the test that says yes, or no to the results.

So, you can state the postulate stuff all you want, but truth in real science says NO.

To hhEb09'1 (#68)

I am not understanding which party is supposedly not understanding Einstein's papers. I understand Einstein's paper better than Einstein even understood his own paper since I found his error and he didn't.

So, who are you referring to as the one not understadning his papers? By the way, before you answer that you might note the solid fact that my post #44 factually proves the real science and math involved in the synchronization part. With that truth existing in undeniable fact it is then only an embassing situation involved in denying the truth of the situation involved. You might want to think about that one a bit before sticking any foot in a palce where you will be biting it.

To worzel (#69)

Postulates are assumed truths, and the first situation is that any postulates going into the synch testing are only related to the velocity, distance, and length of the rod. Time frame references are not allowed assumptions because they don't even exist before the test and can only be derived by the testing.

As for the exact answer to your question as to waht are the postulates fro special relativity, the answer is absolutely none because relativity is proven to be wrong by #44 and the real science and math no matter how much you try to twist it otherwise, and then any and all so-called postulates are nothing but fantasy.

Concerning your use of the word "pedagogically", it is also good to note that teaching something that has been proven scientifically wrong isn't exactly high on the totem pole of real truth either. You might want to chew on that fact a bit also.

To Captain Swoop (#70)

As far as where is the math, complete the following super-advanced math.

(10 x 4) + (2^2)

Now, go read it. That's where the math is for anyone who has eyesight on the seeing side of a bat.

To gzhpcu (#72)

Yes, I am truly getting tired of endlessly describing the point of real and true science to people who should be able to understand the concept of getting to science that is right and real. So, I understand your point far better than even you do. The truly unique part of all this is that there are an amazing number here who do the very bad science situation of just assuming and then don't even read posts like #44 that prove the truth involved. So, that is a truly interesting situation. It says something too.

As far as books that give insight to relativity that isn't even real, and has been now proven factually to not be real, I will let you read the baloney and you can bow down in homage to it every dawn in full reverence to the junk. I, for one, will stick to truth and real science fact.

To Astrowannabe (#73)

Sorry about the "her" thing. That was back when your comments were a bit on the positive side and I had the thought of higher thinking existing maybe. So, the "her". However, since we are back to reality again, nice to see ya' bro.

To SeanF (#75)

Before I even go into replying to what you wrote I think it would be extremely good for you to read post #44 in this thread. In doing so you will factually see that what you described has absolutely no truth to it at all.

The fcatual real situation, as described in #44, is that all four of the clocks in the test all have the same exact time showing on them during the entire test involved. NONE of them get out of synchronization during the test at all, and post #44 proves this without any doubt at all.

So, I'm sorry, but it is a huge waste of time even discussing the situation unless you read reality and science truth in #44 first.

Steve, this is getting pointless. I had been giving you the benifit of the doubt up until your last response to me (post #74).

Your basically refusing to accept some basic facts, facts which were discovered by actually doing experiments! That's the key there. You blatantly refused to believe that scientists have done your rod experiment, despite the fact that we have. Countless times over.

The Michelson Morley experiment was the first test, but it certainly was not the only test. Countless experiments have been done testing whether or not we can see any variation in the speed of light, and we never can.

So please, for the love of god explain to me how your theories work in a universe where every person always sees the exact same speed for the speed of light. This is a scientific fact that has been found through experimentation in which we actually measured the speed of light. So please stop trying to refute that.

In order for us to continue this conversation, you will first have to accept this one fact:

The speed of light never changes regardless of how fast the observer is moving relative to the light source.

Using your own words: that is real, factual science.

To Antoniseb (#78)

What I am saying is two things.

First, that it is a fact fact that the speed of light being constant in a frame, or not, is not within the required synchronization first part of the paper. That comes as a result later, and after the synch part is determined to be true or not first.

The calculations in the equations have absolutely nothing at all to do with the equations and use of the equations during the synch logic part. This isn't opinion or anything like that, but solid math and science fact.

This is like adding the numbers 1+2+3+4+5 together and getting 15, but then going back to the beginning and saying logic like 1+2+3+4+5 has to be 15 because 15 is the answer. The real math is you find the answer by adding the numbers and then you know the answer of 15. You cannot use the answer as a proof to get the answer.

In any case the speed of light being constant or not in any frame is not a part that can be used in the synchronization first part. And, the constancy in frames isn't even involved in the synch part math and science. It is an assumed conclusion of the synch part and is proven by post #44 to not even be right.

So, the constancy within frames is completely outside of the foundational issue involved in the truth of the synch part. The ruth in science is that IF the synch part is mathematically and scientifixcally proven wrong, then the constancy is also then proven wrong because that is a result of the synch part Einstein was trying to prove. If it's proven wrong then constancy doesn't exist in real science fact and truth. And #44 proves the synch part factually wrong. So, constancy is impossible to then be right.

And yes, I have factually found the error in Einstein's synch part. It is also proven by #44 to be an undeniable truth in science and math as shown.