To Tassel (#79)

From Wikipedia - The second postulate of SR

"Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

This assumption is a RESULT of the synchronization part of Einstein's first paper, and with the fact that post #44 here proves the synch part of Einstein's paper is factually wrong THEN the concluding postulate is factually also dead wrong as far as factual science truth.

You might want to read post #44 in this thread because it totally proves the second so-called postulate is nothing more than fantasy. It sure as beans is NOT real science at all.

You can't use relativity to prove relativity wrong. (If you assume simultaneity is absolute, then you can't be talking about relativity) All you can do is do it experimentally.

The thing is, they have taken clocks that were synchronized, and got them moving, and found that they weren't synchronized anymore. gzhpcu mentioned this back in post #37 with the description of the Hafele-Keating experiment; it also happens with GPS satellites, as the frequency of the satellite synthesizer has to be adjusted from the value it had on the ground, if it was synched to ground clocks. It's been tested. The discrepancy accumulates to ~38 microseconds per day, irrespective of the direction of motion with respect to the LMC.

Game, set, match. For most, anyway.


Where are the experiments that support your hypothesis, StevenCrum?

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

This error must be very subtle, because I've looked at Einstein's June 1905 paper, and your post #44 in this thread quite a few times, and I am not seeing Einstein's error. All I can see is that Einstein, based on observations by others, and the work of Maxwell starts with the premise that the speed of light is constant in all frames, and then works out that without time and space transformations that the clocks in this experiment cannot by synchronized in both the stationary frame of reference and a moving frame of reference.

You, on the other hand are saying he has no right to assume the speed of light is constant, and therefore whether or not the speed of light actually is constant for all frames, he must be wrong. You seem to be assuming that Einstein is trying to prove that the speed of light is constant in all frames, but the paper clearly indicates that this is a starting point, not the thing he's attempted to prove.

So, the error you are claiming doesn't seem to exist.

Perhaps you can point to the formalism of proof you are trying to say he should be following, and show step by step where he did and didn't follow that formalism.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

StevenCrum, you never answered the question. What are the two postulates of SR (the two normally used). Please don't write another essay about REAL SCEIENCE, etc. ad nauseum. Just answer the question directly so that we can see that you at least understand what the components of a theory are.

Agument by word count is not convincing.

__________________
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 Bignose (#81)

I can and will provide real science descriptions for any and all so-called science situations that are said to prove relativity in any way. So, anyone wanting to provide what they believe to be science proof as you described are fully welcome to do that.

As far as your latter comment about people listening to science truth and then responding according to good science truth, I am having an extremely difficult time in buying that statement anymore here. The reason is because I have ENDLESSLY told posters here repeatedly that post #44 in this thread proves every single thing about Einstein's foundational description for relativity as being factually wrong.

And, post #44 does that totally and without any opinion at all. It factually proves the Einstein error. And a foundational error taht factually then makes the conclusions Einstein used as being fully and factually wrong as well.

Now, for all of these scientists who are so dedicated to truth in science and are so willing to listen to science fact, just where are they? The facts are there. The truth in math is there. The science truths are factually there, and for every single one of these facts are right there in #44 for the pragmatically dedicated to do their thing with here.

Now, you answer that one.

Oops. I didn't see this.

That's one of them, what's the other?

That is not true. The synchronization is justified for any inertial observer precisely because the speed of light is assumed to be constant for all such observers.

Your post #44 did nothing of the sort. You tacitly assumed that distance and time are absolute. Einstein showed that that can't be true if the two postulates of SR are true.

__________________
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.

Well, just because I'm a nice guy, I went back and read post #44.

First of all, you should go back and edit it, because I'm pretty sure you say "A" when you mean "B" and vice-versa several times. You also say in describing the initial synch setup that the observer at A sees the final signal arriving at 1+4 in the synched version and 1+5 in the unsynched version. That's wrong, too - the A clock starts at 1:00 in both versions, so the A observer would see 1+4 as the final arrival time in both versions.

That being said, your problem is here:

The speed of light is a constant for all observers; that's the starting point of Einstein's paper. I know I'm not the first person to point this out to you - and I'm equally sure I won't be the last - but this is your mistake.

Einstein assumes the speed of light is constant, and reaches certain conclusions from that assumption.

You are assuming the speed of light is not constant, and you reach certain conclusions from that assumption.

Clearly, your conclusions are going to be different than Einstein's - your starting assumptions are different.

But that doesn't make Einstein wrong. Sorry.

__________________
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 Swanset (#92)

Concerning your GPS situation I have already shown the real science that causes the affect you described. That is not relativity at all and only a fasle theory for another true science fact.

And, I am not using relativity at all in the proof of post #44. That post scienec stands in full scienece and math fact all alone, and exists in the foundational location of Einstein's first paper that totally kills relativity entirely.

That is Fact no amtter if anyone on this planet has the science integrity or understanding of science invoved or not.

So, you didn't game, set, match anything, and it's only false science description for another true science instead. Your lose, not mine. I know the true science and facts involved.

To SeanF (#97)

Your comments show the fact that you didn't even look at the description of post #44, but were only looking for dirt. The 1 +4 and 1+5 were for a specific test feature that your quick fling through didn't even come close to picking up. your comments then are nothing other than farcical.

But, they do show the true situation on this board, and that is the lot of you are just asssuming Einstein is right asn not even looking at the science facts presented. They just so happen to be UNDENIABLE fact in real science truth, but not one of you has even looked enough to find that factual truth situation.

So, I am outa' here, and the entire lot of science hypocrites can believe all of the Einstein false science all you want.

What a total buch of hypocrites.

So, can you define for us "real science", "false science", "factual truth" and "true science"? I've seen those words used a lot by you, and I'd like to know what they actually mean, because I've never heard them before.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

Mr. Crum's renewed name-calling indicates that he has no real interest in engaging in a discussion here. He's already said once that he wasn't coming back. To ensure that he keeps his promise this second time, I've banned him permanently.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I'm closing the thread. No need to allow people to think they can still try and get him to answer questions.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak