Originally Posted by EnigmaPower

You misunderstood. I am saying the THREAD is pointless unless he verifies his claim. If he can't verify his claim and the thread is pointless what good will providing the quotes do?

Originally Posted by EnigmaPower

Yes. Also notice that nobody called you asinine.

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

As a rather weary participant for a significant chunk of that now-closed thread, I'll offer that I didn't see RussT write anything overtly ATM,

Originally Posted by Grant

As a rather weary participant for a significant chunk of that now-closed thread, I'll offer that I didn't see RussT write anything overtly ATM, although much that he did write was opaque to me. The material in this current ATM dissertation of his was perhaps underlying some of what he wrote in Q&A, but I didn't see it presented during my period of incarceration.Grant Hutchison

Originally Posted by KenG

But we can make your example relevant very easily, so let me ask you: in your example, how far would you say you have walked if you could walk at 99% the speed of light? How about 99.99999%? Now what if you actually were light,

Originally Posted by KenG

So it's not that light is some kind of "weird observer", it is that light actually finds a shortcut

Originally Posted by RussT

I am only going to be defending and arguing, the very first part, where I am showing how and why the Lorentz Transforms were doomed before the very first calculation was ever done!


Einstein’s Special Relativity
“Fatally Flawed”
From the very beginning


Yes, before the very first mathematical calculation was ever transcribed onto paper,There was a very simple, yet subtle and very basic oversight, or “assumption” that slipped past all referees and subsequent scientists.

Simply put, this has to do with Lorentz Transforms and two observer’s “Nows” separated by any distance.

To begin to understand this we have to start before electricity was ever discovered!!!

Before electricity, if you were separated by large distances and lived in say New York, and your relative lived in London, San Francisco Etc, your “Nows” were separated by the ‘fastest’ travel of information (mail by boat/Pony Express), or transportation to bring you together, so your “Nows” could be in the same place. There are innumerable other examples of this kind of large separation of “Nows” because of distance.

Now let’s bring that distance closer to two separated observers. Let’s use two American Indian Tribes separated by a large bluff. They could send Smoke Signals to communicate, which might make it seem as though their “Nows” were simultaneous or together, but they had no way at all to determine if they were seeing those Smoke Signals “at the same time’, and as we will see, that doesn’t even matter anyway, it is Irrelevent.

Their “Nows” are still separated by the distance between them, until they can actually be in the same place at the same time, right next to each other.

If you and I were on either side of say a five-foot thick wall that was so well insulated that no sound (we are still before electricity) could travel through that wall to communicate, even though we were that close, our “Nows” could not be together.

This is all very important so I am using enough examples so it is understood correctly!

Now, let’s say you as Observer A are up on a high bluff and see me as Observer B 1000 yards away down in the valley below, as I see you up on the bluff…The light/photons from you are coming straight at me and vice versa.

Now, if we both see a large rock, equi-distance from us, does that mean anything at all to our “Nows” being separated by 1000 yards, 3000 feet, over ½ mile? NO, it is absolutely meaningless! So, even though the light travel time is nano-seconds, our “Nows” are separated by that distance.

When we see a plane flying at night, or in daylight, we are never seeing it where it is Now, we are always seeing the light from where it was when it was emitted, nano-seconds earlier.

So, that is the set up…Here is the problem with what Einstein did setting up his initial premise with Special Relativity.

He had two observers A and B on two horizontal lines, representing observer A on the Railroad platform and observer B on the second horizontal line, with a light source halfWay between each.



_____________________________________B____________ _______________



------------------------------------------LS



_____________________________________A____________ _______________



So, here is the problem right here…A and B are both “Motionless” and he (Einstein, OR it may have been Lorentz before him) “Assumes” a full Lorentz Transform of A and B’s “Nows”, just because there is a light source halfway between them. That imaginary light source halfway between two observers is meaningless as pertaining to their “Nows”!!!

The Lorentz Transform was developed because of B’s relavistic motion on his line of travel, and “Then” extended to straight away or toward observer A.

Any two observer’s, separated by any distance, even a few feet, their Nows are separated by the time it takes the light to travel from one to the other, even though that might be pico-seconds.

In the case above, where you as Obserever A are 1000 yards from me as Observer B, is there an ‘Alien in a spaceship’ traveling at “c” bringing your “Now” to mine OR my “Now” to you? No, absolutely not.

That is the “Counter-intuitive” difference to our everyday thinking…we normally think that if we are in the same room with others, or at the ballgame, etc, that we are all in the same Now. We are not. Even if we both see something ‘simultaneously’, our “Nows”, are still separated by the distance between us!

The above “Falsify’s” Special Relativity, just as it stands, with none of the additional refutations below, but enough of them need to be covered for a full understanding!

Originally Posted by RussT

So, here is the problem right here…A and B are both “Motionless” and he (Einstein, OR it may have been Lorentz before him) “Assumes” a full Lorentz Transform of A and B’s “Nows”, just because there is a light source halfway between them. That imaginary light source halfway between two observers is meaningless as pertaining to their “Nows”!!!

Originally Posted by NorthernBoy

Can you please justify this part? If we set a time t=0 according to an observer's watch, then if they see at time t=d/c (where d is the separation) that the object has not moved, they know that it was there at time t.

What I think that you are missing is that each observer can have a clock and a notebook, and that they are allowed to meet up later and say what they observed at various times. There is no need to pretend that there is a universal "now".

SR very explicitly does not assume any universal now. It only ever asks "What time will observer A see on his own clock wen the light arrives from event X". This formulation entirely avoids the concept of a universal "now", which is important, as one of the key results is that there can exist no universal "now".

Originally Posted by RussT

Can you please justify this part? If we set a time t=0 according to an observer's watch, then if they see at time t=d/c (where d is the separation) that the object has not moved, they know that it was there at time t.

How can a scientist, on their planet, in their Rest Frame, in Andromeda, sinc a T=0 time, with a scientist here on earth, in our "Earth Rest Frame"???

Originally Posted by RussT

This is what I am defending.

Actually it is these two in combination...


So, here is the problem right here…A and B are both “Motionless” and he (Einstein, OR it may have been Lorentz before him) “Assumes” a full Lorentz Transform of A and B’s “Nows”, just because there is a light source halfway between them. That imaginary light source halfway between two observers is meaningless as pertaining to their “Nows”!!!

In addition to that, since Einstein was working in an “Empty Universe”, there was “never” a distance established between A and B!!! So Relativity ends up with A and B, with the ability to be an “Infinity” away from each other

Originally Posted by NorthernBoy

Are you just saying that you did not know about these methods, or do you not think that they are valid?

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

Einstein always dealt with observers in different inertial frames of reference.
If you say that A and B are both motionless, you must specify in respect to what. In this case, they must both be in the same inertial frame of reference, and at rest in respect to it.
This being the case, the Lorentz transformation does not apply. The Lorentz transformation applies only when one observer is in uniform motion in respect to the other.
Your statement is therefore based on a false premise. Einstein's deliberations always involved one observer in non-accelerated motion to another, i.e. two different inertial frames of reference.

Originally Posted by RussT

Yes, he started with an "Empty Universe" and after the other thread rhat we have been talking about, that was a big mistake. SR>>GR is a much bigger problem than I ever realized!

Please re-read the very first parts to my OP.

I Must get some sleep now.

Originally Posted by RussT

Sure I know of them...obviously I do not think they are valid.

If a Super Nova went off in M31 right as the light bulb went off, halfway between M31 and us, how long would the SN photons take to reach us, and what would that mean to the two supposedly sinked clocks?

Actually, if that SN goes off right when the scientist is M31 gets that light signal from the light bulb, his clock will read 0 and ours will read 0 too, and then it takes 2.5 million light years to get here, so our clock would read 2.5 million years later. So, what did it accomplish to even do that?

Trying to make M31's time "now" equal our time "now" is meaningless.

Originally Posted by stutefish

Can somebody please tell me if I understand the gist of the OP correctly?

That is, RussT is claiming that up until now, nobody has accounted for information travel time, when comparing observations made by observers arbitrarily far apart from each other. And that if anybody had accounted for information travel time, they would have rejected Special Relativity at its inception.

Is that correct?

Originally Posted by RussT

So, here is the problem right here…A and B are both “Motionless” and he (Einstein, OR it may have been Lorentz before him) “Assumes” a full Lorentz Transform of A and B’s “Nows”, just because there is a light source halfway between them. That imaginary light source halfway between two observers is meaningless as pertaining to their “Nows”!!!

Originally Posted by korjik

That seems to be what he is saying. It is too bad that SR is all about information travel time between two moving frames, and that RussT just dosent understand that.

Originally Posted by NorthernBoy

Now, you have just stated that we have an event at observer 1 when his clock reads zero. Observer two sees this when his clock reads 2.5 million years, but what of it? He notes this, notes that observer 1 is 2.5 million light years away, and concludes that observer one would have seen it when observer 1's clock read zero.

Given that he knows that the clocks are synchronised, he can go further, and say that, for obserer 2, the supernova happened at T=0 also.

Both observers agree that the supernova happened at T=0, on both of their clocks. How on earth does this invalidate any synchronisation?

Originally Posted by DGavin

Russ,

I think I see where you are going with this. If I am not missreading all this you are trying to seperate Space and Time into two different mathmatical entities.

Originally Posted by RussT

Okay.......here is the set up...

You and I are in the Utah Salt Flats, dead of night, no moonlight.

We are 5000 feet (Nearly a mile) apart.

Halfway between us is a light source.

When the beam is switched on and both beams hit our belt, our clocks both register 0

Now, because our clocks are both saying 0 'simultaneously'...

do you now believe that both of our "Nows" are together/simultaneous???

Just give a Yes or No answer!!!!!!!!!

Don't switch anything....no explanations!!!

Originally Posted by Fortis

If I read this correctly, then yes, in the rest frame of the light the two clocks read 0 at the same time.

Originally Posted by RussT

You know as well as I do that Light does NOT have a rest frame.

What kind of "Game" is this??????????????????????

Originally Posted by RussT

You know as well as I do that Light does NOT have a rest frame.

What kind of "Game" is this??????????????????????

Originally Posted by Fortis

If I read this correctly, then yes, in the rest frame of the light the two clocks read 0 at the same time.

Originally Posted by NorthernBoy

Now, you have just stated that we have an event at observer 1 when his clock reads zero. Observer two sees this when his clock reads 2.5 million years, but what of it? He notes this, notes that observer 1 is 2.5 million light years away, and concludes that observer one would have seen it when observer 1's clock read zero.

Given that he knows that the clocks are synchronised, he can go further, and say that, for obserer 2, the supernova happened at T=0 also.Both observers agree that the supernova happened at T=0, on both of their clocks. How on earth does this invalidate any synchronisation?

Originally Posted by NorthernBoy

I am starting to suspect that RussT is not using "synchronise" to mean what everyone else means. sing words in a nonstandard way, and not defining the new meaning is all too common among proponents of ATM theories, and causes much confusion.

RussT, do you understand that having synchronised clocks does not mean that all observers will see the same time on their clocks when they observe an event?

The fact that observer 1 sees event x at time t=Y1, and observer 2 sees the event at t=Y2, where Y1=/=Y2 does not mean that the clocks are unsynchronised.

It seems very likely now, I think, that you don't understand what physicists mean when they say synchronised, and that you are arguing against your own misunderstanding.

Do you have a physics degree? This question is not relative to your arguments, but probably is relative to your understanding of the mainstream view, so I think it is acceptable when we are examining whether you have mixed up the meaning of terms.