The following link is for the purpose of helping everyone see Einstein's papers for themselves, and the following information should help with the main points involved in the error. And again, everyone can look to see where the error exists.

The following url is a second part, and the first paper of June 30, 1905 is the starting point. You can click on "previous investigation" in the first sentence of this second paper to easily get back to the first paper, and then return to the second for the last part. This makes one url to copy and use here.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

In the first paper this is where he starts proving relativity. The second paper is where he takes the foundational "assumption" of the synchronization is true and then uses relativity to get to E=mc^2. And, everything in the first paper also builds completely on the assumed truth of that synchronizing part. So, if the synch is wrong, then everything that follows is then wrong because it all relies completely on the synch being right.

In the first paper then, in I. Kinetic Part, and section 1. Definition of simultaneity, you can find the equation tB-tA = t'A-tB in the seventh paragragh. This stationary synchronizing is correct, and as described in my original post.

In section 2 On Relativity of Lengths and Times, you can read the entire section and in the latter part you will find the second equation mentioned in my post, and as follows.

tB-tA=rAB/c-v and t'A-tB=rAB/c+v

To make a long description short here, the last sentence in the paragragh where the second equation is located is completely wrong, and the error that Einstein made. You can obviously and should look for yourselves, but in any case it is fully wrong. The truth is that neither set of observers sees the clocks as synchronous and my original post calculations prove the fact of this.

You can look through all of the calculations and assumptions that follow the error point, but it is a huge waste of time in doing so because every last bit of the following ALL depends on the synch part being correct. And, all of the calculations are nothing but doing calcs on a wrong base.

In the second paper the first sentence and paragragh also link everything there to the first paper and assumes the first paper is also correct. It is not and then all of the second paper is then totally wrong in its conclusion. That conclusion is E=mc^2. NOTE that it is important to read the information in the yellow box at end, and where it describes Einstein using L instead of E, and the comment about the wording in italics. That is needed to understand the E=mc^2 connection.

So, this is provided so anyone can see the Einstein actual words and then see for yourself. The words were in German, but the translation is accurate.

Also, you can read everything on the papers, but you will save yourself a WHOLE lot of time and energy if you figure out soon in the first paper where the synchronization is wrong, and that everything after that point is fully linked and assuming the synch as being true. With THAT as fact, the remaining parts of the papers are true folly. And yes, I read the entire wording on both papers in the beginning. THAT was a HUGE waste of time. And yes, all of the calcs did look impressive and complicated, but the fact is still fact that it doesn't matter how impressive they look IF the foundationally required synch part is dead wrong. It is, and that makes all of the following calcs nothing but spit in the wind.

Another new thread??

And not one reply yet in the Cold Fission thread, to say nothing of even touching the others.

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

I asked StevenCrum to start this thread. Assume for the moment that the others are on hold, except for the matters concerning this topic. StevenCrum will discuss the fundamental piece of the first posts, which is that he claims that Einstein made a mistake with Synchronization which impacts all other conclusions drawn from his work.

This thread is exclusively about Einstein's description of Synchronization in the 1905 paper on special relativity.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

My comment here may be quite OT (off topic); if so, please say so.

Whatever errors Einstein did, or did not, make in this 1905 paper, do you, StevenCrum, agree that it is possible to make concrete, testable predictions from the theory of Special Relativity?

For avoidance of doubt, "concrete, testable predictions" refers to stuff that anyone can (in principle) go into a lab and do (or, if you prefer, use a telescope to make observations) .... and that, if you do the experiments (or make the observations), you will get, quite unambiguously, an answer "yes, this experimental result is just as predicted" or "no, this experimental result is in contradiction to the prediction".

Are you just asserting that, or do you think you have found a mistake in algebra or something like that?

PS: The reason that I ask, is this is starting to sound like the message from another Steve, that was advertised on this board a year ago: The Relativity Challenge.

I'm kind of wondering if he honestly believes that after a century worth of every physist in the world pouring over Einsteins calculations, using them on a daily basis and building countless technologies that rely on those calculations to be correct (all of which work), that he SteveCrum is the very first person ever to find a simple algebra mistake in the first few lines of Einsteins paper. Is he really suggesting that?

Cause I garuntee you Steve that hundreds of thousands of people, all of them smarter then both me and you combined have studies Einsteins equations and never found the error you are talking about.

Now none of that proves anything. Perhapes Steve is some kind of super-genius the likes of which the world has never seen. I suppose I'll have to read the link he posted and judge for myself. I just wonder if that thought has ever occured to him.

Ok, my bad. I misread and thought you posted a link to a website where you did some calculations on special relativity. For all of us here that might not be familar with your previous posts, could you re-explain what your objection to special relativity is? Or at the very least put a link to the post you are refering to?

Specifically I'm wondering why you believe that neither observer in Einsteins thought experiment will see the clocks as synchronous.

To Lurker (#2)

I was asked by a board moderator to provide the information posted here. And, it is better to have it located where it can easily be found instead of deep inside one thread. So, get off it, it's here, and the earth is NOT going to crack in two all because of your noted thing here. You will note also that the only thing you could find to comment about the science fact of Einstein being wrong is the ultra-important thing you pointed out.

To Doodler (#3)

Go doodle on something Doodler, I am going to reply to every single comment, so that isn't an earth splitting event either.

To Neried (#5)

Concerning your comment about making observations and concrete predictions based on Einstein's science descriptions that are wrong and proven so the answer is that it is fully doable to make all kinds of observations with the intent of finding Einstein proofs, and with creative twisting of the real science, yes spouting how outward blasts from two-way energy collisions can then be described as Einstein rings. Or, something else can be "seen", but not actually in real science, to be something else.

Another example was the MIT and NIST papers that supposedly described the three energies that they found and then proved E=mc^2 was correct. The assumption was wrong because of a science error concerning how real neutrons exist, and the real science is that only two of the energies were involved. The third one about the energy it took to change a neutron to an electron is false simply because of the fact that a neutron doesn't change to an electron or anything else, but truthfully only splits the electron and proton pair apart.

So, the answer to your question is that no, predictions based on a fully wrong science theory cannot be used in real science truths. This is very close to the same impossibility situation of trying to make a horse run to win a race when the horse is factually dead.

For information also, every single Einstein "supporting evidence claim" can be shown to truly be another real science situation. And, that is the real situation involved. I will get to the thread again and there are likley more Einstein "proofs" there by now that need the real science described.

I'm sorry to say that I don't really understand this post.

Never mind, when this thread is done, and if you are willing*, how about we have a different thread*, to explore, clarify, then challenge this claim: "[...] every single Einstein "supporting evidence claim" can be shown to truly be another real science situation. And, that is the real situation involved."?

*I see that the other ATM threads you started have now all been locked, but I also note that you have stated, unambiguously, that you are willing to defend at least some of the claims you have made; so, later.

To hhEb 09'1 (#6)

Concerning the error statement, first of all, I am not the other Steve.

Secondly, the situation is not just asserting anything, opinion, or just a mistake in algebra. Instead it is a factual science and simple math error that Einstein made in his statements in the paper. And, an error that is easily found to be truth by doing the math calculations that are in my first post in the Einstein thread.

The point of this is the simple calculations in that post and also simple science thinking come together to show the error totally existing. The end situation is that the two things of the math shown and the science pointed out show the undeniable fact that Einstein made the killing error in synchronization.

You probably didn't go through the math in the first post, and just assumed it was wrong from the beginning. The math facts are so simple and truthful that I cannot think of any other reason for your comment.

To Astrowannabe (#7)

That comment truly shows the situation here and ended with the comment about maybe you should actually read the original post. That is precisely the situation on the board , and also the other situation your posts pointed out very well also. And, that is that a whole lot of people here are ASSUMING the exact same thing you assumed, as to how could all those people reading Einstein's papers and everything for 101 years be wrong.

Well, the math and science facts show the factual error, and you can try to figure out why that occurred for 101 years, because it did.

For what it's worth, what Einstein likely did for sure was that he had his mind so deep into his new theory thought and all of the calculation methods he had thought of to get to the ultimate explanation of how everything came into existence (E=mc^2) that he missed the extremely easy first part. The second factor that the synch calcs had the ultra-high velocity of the speed of light squared also led to the situation where no one would actually do the calculations. This led to no one actually doing a simple math check.

Most scientists wouldn't have checked such a simple math error like that when it came from a significant physicist either, and just fell into the trap of the assumption of Einstein's that the synchronization in the moving system was the same as in stationary.

It obviously was not a concoction by Einstein, but there are several elements that are hidden in the science logic direction that led fully right into the total trap situation. If you look at the description you can see the elements that caused the hiding of the truth concerning synchronization.

Another huge trap part was the situation that you normally use only time to accomplish synchronizing. But, Einstein changed this and instead of time he used distance and velocity, which combined by dividing distance by velocity equals the time involved. The point of this is the repelcement for time caused another confusing element to the total trap. And, a whole lot of people fell head-first into the trap also. I think it was all because of the items described here.

To Astrowannabe (#8)

All of the information about why Einstein's statement in his paper is wrong is found in the first post I made in the tread about Einstein being proven wrong by math and science. If you go through the calculations there you can see the truth of the error. It just takes a slow check of the math and science involved.

To Neried (#12)

Concerning you last suggestion about having a separate thread describing all of the science that is actual science for the assumed Einstein proofs that is an incredibly good idea. The truth is though that before the existing threads get done here I am sure every single one of the science items will be discussed and described anyway. But, if they aren't, I would do what you suggested in a heart beat. And, just so you know, the real science involved for every single one of the Einstein "proofs" can be explained.

So, in my opinion, that was an extremely good idea.

Concerning your first comment about not understanding what my post said, if someone says that all atoms have cores that are rocks and the objects orbiting around the cores are frogs, then this description of atoms is FACTUALLY wrong. The point of this is when a science statement is proven to be wrong (dead in real science) then there is nothing good that can be gotten from the frog-atom description. Even if someone points out a universe object that looks like a Frog ring.

I am not trying to be a smart *** or anything like that, but only trying to point out the insanity of trying to use something that is dead to then use in predictions of real science. This assumes the Einstein synchronization and what was depending on that is actually dead, but that is the point of all thses posts. The math and science in the first posts proves it is wrong. So, we take it from there.

From the paper:

We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the ``time of the stationary system'' at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore ``synchronous in the stationary system.''

I.e. the clocks you refer to in 2) as being not synchronized by either the moving or stationary observer were synchronized in the way you say is correct in 1). You seem to be contradicting yourself.

__________________
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 (#17)

The situation is not my contradicting myself, but that a misunderstanding exists.

First of all, you likely didn't go through the science description and calculations that I wrote in the first post of the thread about science and math proving Einstein was wrong. People have missed seeing the Einstein error for 101 years and the true calculations and description in that first post is needed to clarify the situation so it can be easily understood to be true.

So, before getting into this deeply here, and having to rewrite here it is far better to have you do the math and other thinking about that first.

A short explanation to your point here is that the synchronization method Einstein used DID work for synchronizing clocks in the stationary system. The calculations in my first post prove the way he used the method DID NOT work for the moving system.

Okay Moderator, do you want to ask any questions on this thread? Go for it.

But in this thread you said "The truth is that neither set of observers sees the clocks as synchronous" contradicting your position that the clocks are synchronized for the stationary system. Nevermind, I take it you mean that the clocks are only synchronized in one system (the stationary one), which is what I thought you meant in the other thread.

I did, and I didn't see any error in Einstein's paper pointed out by you.

Could you be crystal clear in answering this queston. Are you saying that Einstein's error is that he concluded that the two clocks synchronized in the stationary system are also synchronized in the moving system? Or are you saying that the synchronizaton method wouldn't work in a moving system?

__________________
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 (#20)

You are mixing two different things in your point.

My point about the first equation being correct was in reference to a stationary synchronization where there is absolutely no rod movement involed at all, and this is what Einstein was describing to prove that the distance and velocity between two stationary points would accomplish synchronizing. This was BEFORE any rod movement was even involved.

THEN, after he had established that his stationary method worked he then added the rod movement in his trying to show how it worked there as well.

My statement (1) is saying that his first synch thing did accomplish synchronization, and it did.

Einstein's statement about synch being accomplished in both the stationary and the moving rod systems, wasn't that at all, and instead the moving rod situation where the "stationary" system observers there are seeing the clocks from the ground looking at the rod moive past them. The rod observers were on the rod and looking at the clocks from there.

So, my statement about the first synch thing without any rod movement at all is correct, and any observers looking at that situation can see the synch accomplished. So, that was true.

When the moving rod got thrown in then the situation changed and synch was NOT seen from either location and all because it didn't work.

If you check the Einstein first paper you can see the truth about the first stationary system, and the second situation of the added moving rod. They are two different things.

Perhaps I might suggest my thought experiment in
my thread "first glimmerings of relativity" a
year ago will help. All the synchronising is
got out of the way in the beginning in setting
up two stations at each end of a fixed line. All
you have to do is think what everyone sees from
the stations and the moving train!

To worzel (#20)

Concerning your second thing about not seeing any error in Einstein's papers, the situation required for synchronizing clocks in any system is usually accomplished by using time, and the entire point of EQUAL times so the clocks are set perfectly in their equal settings.

In Einstein's method he changed the time usage to "distance and velocity", and which can be used because distance divided by velocity is the same thing as time. The required part though, just like time, is that by using the distance and velocity it is still totally required to have all distances and velocities used being kept equal.

In the moving rod situation the light speed (velocity aprt) is constant in both paths the light takes, both going from A to B, and the second reflected path backward. However, as my first [post calculations prove factually the distances in each of those two paths is NOT equal. This science fact situation then proves undeniably that the required equal componenets in each path wre violated completely, and synchronization was NOT accomplished in the moving rod situation.

In answering your last question, I am saying that it is impossible and proven to be so, for the synchronization method to work in the moving rod system.

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?

__________________
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.

This might be the source of confusion. The stationary observers are not looking at the clocks on the moving rod. The have their own, 'stationary' clocks that they are using to measure the length of the rod.

The two sets of clocks are synchronised in advance...

(My emphasis throughout)

...but when the time taken for the light to travel from Clock A to Clock B (and back) is measured in the moving frame of reference, the synchronicity is lost - so the sets of clocks are no longer synchronised.

__________________
"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

To peteshimmon (#22)

The situation doesn't involve a thought experiment or any way of thinking in a method that will help to "see" how relativity works or anything like that.

The real science situation is instead that Einstein made a truly bad mistake, and that mistake is obvious in the math calculations and science description that I have written. The real science is Einstein's calculations are factually wrong, and the false-science is therefore proven to be totally and factually wrong. This truth is right there for anyone to see the facts of it, and the end situation is this truth is undeniable fact now.

Because of this truth, there is no thought experiment needed that will help anyone understand something that isn't true. It isn't then me that needs to think of relativity differently so I understand it, but everyone else looking at the true science and math that shows it to be totally and factually wrong. And, that wrongness isn't going to change into right no matter how many ways we try to look at it differently in order to make it right. It's impossible to make it right.

To worzel (#24)

The type of thing you described about clocks fore and aft in a space ship keeps going in the endless direction of confusion that has led to people not seeing the error for 101 years.

Instead of continuing the blindness the situation requires lookking at the undeniable true facts of the math calculations and the easy-to-see method I did in the first post that shows the true math and science involved.

It is impossible to use any description like the space ship fore and aft to change the facts of the synchronization being wrong. It cannot be done, and there is no way pssible for any description to accomplish that, except for the complete situation of leaving truth and relality and going completely into fantasy. And, I don't mean to be insulting or anything like that, but the space ship and others like that are only fantasy, and they are not real science at all.

I am only following the logical conclusion of your assertion that Einstein's synchronization method cannot work in a moving system. You could equally use two rods moving on earth if you find the word "spaceship" unsettling. If you veto all such logical analysis of your claim then what is the point of you posting it for discussion?

__________________
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 AGN Fuel (#25)

Your first point is a good point, but it doesn't change the end truth in science. The actual situation described in Einstein's first paper is that there are four clocks involved, with two in the stationary viewpoint and one at each end of the moving rod. And, all four clocks are synchronized in the beginning.

The situation though is that the mirror on the rod end B is still involved in the non-equal light travel distance on the rod system and therefore still factually the non-synchronous situation. And, as described in my first post the rod viewers are seeing a slower velocity in the light travel from A to B, and a slower light velocity in the light going back. This is the view of those on the rod. The viewed velocities are another non-synchronization violation if thought of from the rod view.

The full truth of science is that the observers in the stationary viewpoint and those on the rod were not seeing the situations that were needed for comparing synchronous situations.

What Einstein was actually trying to do was to prove that the rod changed length. It didn't and doesn't, and is only a mistaken use of synchronization and viewpoint confusion.

Your last sentence about synchronization is lost is missing one huge fact. The clock synchronization in the beginning was setting the hands on the clocks to show the same clock setting. At the end of the rod moving test it is a fact that all four clocks that had been set to show the same setting for time, were also all four showing the same later setting that occurred later. The clock settings didn't change one single bit. You are confusing clock settings with time.

With that, the true situation is that the rod movement had absolutely no affect on the clock settings at all, and the real situation is that the rod movement and the changing location of the mirror at B then gave a false synchronization appearance. And, as I have described the false synchronization and non-equal situation occurred when the distance charged in the stationary viewpoint and the velocities changed in the moving rod viewpoint. Truth in science is that in BOTH view points a critically required equal component changed.

So, Einstein is still factually proven to be completely and fully wrong by real science and math.

To worzel (#28)

I am not trying to veto logical analysis at all, but am stating instead that you are ignoring the undeniable truth in science and math that show the synchronization didn't exist as it was required to be for his statements.

But, if you want to ignore the math and science truths then I will show where your space ship analysis is wrong also. I will go back and do that. I'll be back with that soon.