I am going to include this short version about the Only way to eliminate the "Singularities" from Cosmology, so you get a sense of the importance of this, and that there IS a solution, BUT...

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!


So, below are ‘some’ additional falsifying explanations.

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, and supposedly, as long as there is an “Imaginary Light Source”, equi-distance from them, they are somehow, miraculously, in the same “Now”. Not only are they in the same “Now”, they are there “Instananeously”…

Those of course are just the definitions, that somehow were allowed to become “Real” when you get to “Light in it’s own frame”, which is division by 0, a “Singularity”!

It is even well known that light in it’s own frame is not a valid frame, and that ‘none valid frame’ is used many times to thwart certain arguments, BUT, because it is callled a Lorentz Transform, and because the ‘instantaneous from A to B, has become a Definition, it has all been ‘ignored’, as have many other things!

The reason that all the Singularities are in Relativity is because Einstein started with one!

Here is the key to understand, and KenG should get this one…I already had figured out most of this, but the "Distance Then" VS "Distance Now" thread really solidified several things for me! Thank you KenG!

If light is an ‘Invariant’, which of course it is, then there can NEVER be another speed light can travel at, in Vacua! It Must be 186, 282.4 mps…therefore by definition it can NEVER travel “Instantaneously”!

And Grey even says the exact same thing...
They became so enamored with the Maths of “Time Dilation” and never could
Figure out what to do with the ‘Singualrity”, and no one has been able to falsify it, that all everyone could do, was just keep going, and except for a lot of Hubris, which is only human, ALL Astronomers have earned great respect for their work, time and effort! So it is no ones ‘fault’, because the Universe did not reveal itself to us, until we could do Gamma searches, and not until 1997 were we able to finally detect a GRB afterglow! In fact, it is quite obvious, that without all the work and effort, I could not have found and developed what I have, including all the patient, but admittedly sometimes frustrating, explanations from so many in this excellent Forum!

Now, SMBH’s are “Real”, BUT they do not have Singularities in them, and starting from the understanding that Baryogenisis happens, with High Energy Gamma Radiation, when a SMBH is Born, to begin a new galaxies life, is the ONLY valid way to show how our Universe(s) is working.

The clues have been developed…Lisa Randals “Leaking” and Lee Smolin’s
“Constant at the ‘pit’ of a Black Hole”…SMBH that is!

The “Only” way to get rid of the Singularities, is to allow “Neutrinos” to go “Straight Through” the throats of SMBH’s.

Those Neutrinos coming straight through, into the Voids, at "c" are the "Energy Leaking"/Field, which is the CMB, and that is the Non-Baryonic Dark Matter, that is responsible for the SMBH's Magnetic field to couple with, to hold the stars in the galaxies and for the Sun/stars to hold the planets in their orbits.

And Einstein even said so himself…
When he and Rosen developed the Einstein-Rosen Bridge!

Einstein and Nathan Rosen, both at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, wanted to rid physics of singularities--points where mathematical quantities become infinite or otherwise ill-defined--such as the concept of a particle that has all its mass concentrated into an infinitely small geometrical point.



The trouble is, SMBH's were "Real" before anyone ever even considered a 'star'/planet/sphere imploding, and non-rotational ones don't exist anyway, so most of the Maths are irrelevant, BUT there must be a way to show them, because they are curved on the inside.





Time is “invariant”/Constant, and space is absolute.

There IS one definitive answer to all of this!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Three questions:

1. What is the connection between the first two sentences in your large word salad?

2. How do you reconcile your claims with the fact that relativity is (aside from QM) the most tested theory? How do you explain the fact that relativity passed all the tests?

3. How do you reconcile your second claim with the fact that Lorentz transforms render all the laws of physics covariant?

Actually time is relative. How do you explain the perfect functionality of the GPS? The GPS needs to account for the fact that time runs differently on the Earth than in the satellites. I could give you the exact formulas but I think that you owe answers to a few questions first.

It seems to me that those concerns are addressed in the first part of Einstein's original paper (translated copy).

It takes light about 3 milliseconds to travel 1000 yards.

Once you are into milliseconds, do you not think it disingenuous to refer to it taking only nanoseconds?

And, to add a substantive criticism of your argument, what do you say to the fact that we see time dilation actually happening?

in 3 milliseconds, light travels more like 1,000,000 yards.

The contrast between nanoseconds and "milliseconds" makes me wonder if NorthernBoy meant microseconds, the next SI step up from nanoseconds. Light only travels about 1 foot in 1 nanosecond, so microseconds would be a better choice at the scale of thousands of feet.

But the favored SI prefix aside...I'd like to see some of the reasoning by which that conclusion is drawn from that starting point. It seems a non sequitur...or worse, deliberate misinterpretation of language. No, simultaneity doesn't hold exactly over small distances...so what? I see some statements of the obvious, some nitpicking at irrelevancies, and a statement of victory without any logical connection to the rest of the argument. RussT, where, exactly, do you show that SR is falsified?

I would suggest you do a search on RussT and read some of the threads he's been involved in. You might understand then.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Speed of light is 1 foot per nanosecond

1 millisecond = 1 million nanoseconds

RussT, please provide links to where you pulled your (presumably) BAUT forum quotes from.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Shouldn't he provide a falsification if he claims one? Without one this thread is pretty useless.

I'm afraid I don't follow you. I just want to know exactly where the text in his quote boxes comes from, without me (and possible other readers) needing to search for it.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

He claims that he falsified special relativity. I don't see a falsification so unless he provides one to back his claim isn't this thread pointless or is there a falsification you see that I and others are missing?

So, this "new" thread, is exactly a regurgitation of this previous closed thread. Shouldn't a moderator close it right away?

I see. It confused me since you seemed to reply to my post, and I failed to see the connection. Now I see there was none. If you want to add something to the thread without replying to a certain post, you can use the "Post Reply" or "Post Quick Reply" button rather than the "Quote" button, to avoid confusion.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Yes, I of course meant microseconds, one name up from nano.

I was replying to you and that is why I quoted your post. Before he provides the quotes you asked for it would be required that he provide the falsification he claims. If he can't do that then providing your quotes and the entire thread are pointless.

See what happens when language in science is imprecise

In that case, no. I don't care whether he provides his claimed falsification in his first post or not, but I do want to know the context of his quotes. You may consider that pointless, I do not.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

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?

Not quite sure how you define "now". If you mean actual clock synchronization, then two persons in the same inertial time frame are experiencing the same "now", in the sense of clock synchronization. Their clocks are totally in synch, not only speed, but timewise. Of course, physically, due to the speed of light what their eyes see will be out of synch depending on the distance between them. Knowing this allows them to calculate the perception time lag.

__________________
______________________________________________
“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.

It was a particularly unfortunate mistake when it was part of my criticising someone else's bad units.

Yes. Also notice that nobody called you asinine.

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

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?

I also do not see what the OP's statements regarding SR have to do with singularities...

__________________
______________________________________________
“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.

It's a courtesy thing: certainly to the reader, but more importantly to the person quoted, who would probably prefer that the original context be made available. From experience, I'd say this is particularly the case when we find ourselves incorporated into one of RussT's snippets of text.

Grant Hutchison

I agree that it is a courtesy and one that should have been in the OP but is his citation of the quotes going to provide a falsification of special relativity? That is his ultimate responsibility to this thread.

Oh, I'm sure that someone, somewhere was. It would be a rare day that they did not.

As far as I can tell, that's pretty much it. Its a bit of shame really, as I had hoped for something far more substantive and worthwhile when I read the thread title.