Einstein's 1905 papers for relativity and E=mc^2

[StevenCrum]

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.

[Lurker]

Another new thread??

[Doodler]

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

[antoniseb]

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.

[Nereid]

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.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".

[hhEb09'1]

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.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 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=560794#post560794).

[Astrowannabe]

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.

[Astrowannabe]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[Nereid]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[worzel]

1) This stationary synchronizing is correct, and as described in my original post.

2) The truth is that neither set of observers sees the clocks as synchronous and my original post calculations prove the fact of this.
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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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

[worzel]

To worzel (#17)

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

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

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.
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?

[StevenCrum]

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.

[peteshimmon]

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!

[StevenCrum]

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.

[worzel]

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?

[AGN Fuel]

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.


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.

By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1 (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/#SECTION11), the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time.

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

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...

(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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[worzel]

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?

[StevenCrum]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[Thomas(believer)]

I found a more easy to understand paper here.
http://sigmapisigma.org/radiations/2005/electrodynamics_fall05.pdf

In my own words. The observers in the moving and stationary reference frames use the same method of measuring time, but get a different result while measuring the same event. If you except the fact that the speed of light is the same in every reference frame, then this is a logical and not so difficult to understand consequence.

[worzel]

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.
Which statement of his in the paper was demonstrably false? If there was more than one, please just quote the first one.

[StevenCrum]

To worzel (#24)

The following is your ship description.

"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?"

First of all, let me clarify one factor that isn't involved in this, but is still real-science related. And that is that space ships going in opposite directions can easily have a time travel situation that would cause the clocks in one ship to show different times in their viewed numbers. This is the real-science situation involved in GPS and having to constantly reset clocks in staellietes and on earth.

Other than that situation, the answer to your point about the two ships having only one with clocks synchronized is as follows.

The real situation is that let's assume that all four clocks in the ships were set to show the same exact time SETTING back in a docking bay of homeport. Then as the ships are now out in space and going in opposite directions the situation is still factually that all four of the clocks stay set to the same settings they have and this doesn't involve resetting of clocks or synchronizing changes at all. The synchronization word thrown in is only a complexity of confusion that makes it seem like a time situation is involved when it factually is NOT.

And, that is exactly what Einstein was doing in the synch description he made, in that it went from clock face settings into a false use of synchronizing that gave the wrong appearance of the clock faces changing their settings. Truth in science fact is that not one of the four clocks changed in relation to any of the others. At 2:00 they all four showed settings of 2:00. At 2:08 they all showed the same. And, at every other setting it was still the full situation that all four clocks had the same exact setting on them.

So, Einstein's confusions got it all mxied up in terms and view thinking, and in the end it is still absolute science and math fact that he was dead wrong in the conclusion he stated.

[worzel]

So, SteveCrum, you've synchronized all the clocks according to one docking bay. Far enough. But what if they instead synchronized them all to a different docking bay that was moving away from the first. Wouldn't that be equally valid?

Also, wouldn't you agree that these onboard clocks synchronized back at base would be unsynchronized according to Einstein's method according to the onboard crew?

[StevenCrum]

To Thomas (#31)

I am out of time to continue here, but in leaving I will leave the following concerning your points.

First of all, the observers in both systems are viewing clock settings and not time as discussions of this slip into. The viewers on the rod view the same two clocks that were previously set equal to the two in the stationary viewpoint, and every time any of the toatl viewers look at the clocks in their veiwpoints all of the clocks at a particular time still show the same exact times.

The error that occurs is entirely on how the viewed clock settings is then changed into time numbers. The real science situation is that the clock settings don't cahnge one single bit, and there is no synchronization involved, or changes in the previous synchronized settings of the clocks. The error is entirely in the fact of a synchronization violation in distance in one viewpoint and a velocity in the other occurs, and this then gives the illusion-thought of the rod changing length. It doesn't, and Eisntein's science error shows where his calculations were wrong.

By the way, Einstein had a strong basis for everything of his that the truth had to be shown in the math for it to then be proven. The math in the synchronization is dead wrong and it is not in accordance with math-proving-science at all.

Anway, I have to leave. I'll see you later.

[StevenCrum]

To worzel (#34)

No, none of that is true. It is fully seen in the fact that no matter how moving or not moving of bays would be that there is a factual existence situation in reality that all four clocks can be set to the same setting, and once they are all set together it doesn't matter what occurs as long as it isn't the time travel thing I described.

Einstein's synchronization is all baloney and factually wrong science, and proven by posts here to be exactly that. Gotta' go. See ya'.

[gzhpcu]

What a silly thread. The moment you change inertial system (and you must if you are moving in respect to another observer, to move in respect to someone else you have undergone acceleration: this puts you in another inertial system), the Lorentz equations apply. This has been proven flying atomic clocks around the world on an airplane. Your statements regarding Einstein are ridiculous and disrespectful.

The only thing I can imagine is that you are having fun pulling legs around here. Firstly, you never come up with any concrete facts, you just circumlocute talking about silly, non-existant "factual science", secondly, Einstein's SR and GR has withstood a 100 years of testing successfully, and thirdly, you speak all time of "real science" (yours I assume! :) ) and "true" facts and make polemical statements concerning "blindness", "truth", etc. Actually, I compliment you on your fine sense of humor... :)

[worzel]

To worzel (#34)

No, none of that is true. It is fully seen in the fact that no matter how moving or not moving of bays would be that there is a factual existence situation in reality that all four clocks can be set to the same setting, and once they are all set together it doesn't matter what occurs as long as it isn't the time travel thing I described.
What's not true? You said that all the clocks could be syncrhonized with respect to the docking bay. I'm simply asking you what you'd say if I said "no, your docking bay isn't stationary, but mine is, so by your logic your clocks aren't synchrnoized after all".

But this is getting off the point. Please quote the first statement in Einstein's paper that you think is demonstrably false.

[Astrowannabe]

A quick question for you Steve:

Do you believe that there is an absolute state of rest in the universe? I'm asking this because a lot of your arguments seem to follow the thinking of science up until Einsteins 1905 paper.

I assume that your thinking that the speed of light is 300,000 km/s relative to some universal state of rest. So if I was moving at 200,000 km/s relative to this rest state, then I'll only see light moving at 100,000 km/s relative to me (assuming I'm moving in the same direction as light).

Is that what your thinking?

[Doodler]

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.

Don't get snarky with me, there are easier ways to get in a firefight, but not many.

As of the time that comment was made, you hadn't touched two threads in nearly a week, and the third in just over a day. In the context at the time I posted that, it stands.

Allow me to say that your responses since then have amounted to the only thing about you I find redeeming.

I still see an ark full of inane assertions in a desert begging for mathematical rain.

[captain swoop]

Its amazing how science has been wrong for all this time but by coincidence everything works!!!!


hhm!!!

[AGN Fuel]

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.

Yet, this comment differs markedly from what you said earlier....

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.


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.

But as I have already pointed out, the two sets of clocks were synchronised at the outset. However, once the rod starts moving and the same methodology is used to check that the clocks are synchronised, they no longer are.

btw - I had a look at your maths in the first post in the Einstein thread. As far as I can see, you have simply re-affirmed the asynchronicity - you have just effectively used the different distances as a substitute for Einstein's "c+v" and "c-v" terms, and claimed that this shows that Einstein's claims of synchronicity of the clocks was wrong. In doing so, you have completely missed the point - the clocks were already synchronised at the outset, but in your calculations you are just measuring the asynchronicity in the moving frame. Well, that's the point!! The moving set of clocks are now asynchronous, whereas before they were not.

It is this finding that leads to the conclusion that an event as measured by observers in different reference frames, cannot be regarded by those observers as having occured simultaneously.

[hhEb09'1]

To hhEb 09'1 (#6)

Concerning the error statement, first of all, I am not the other Steve.I know, his last name was Bryant, yours appears to be Crum.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.I assume you mean the first post in this thread: Science and math prove Einstein was factually wrong (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=47104)

I responded (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=829550#post829550) to it, and your response to mine (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=829586#post829586) was to claim that I said Einstein did not use math! ("your statement about einstein not using the math is factually wrong") I did not say that (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=831282#post831282).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.I asked a question (#6 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=835606#post835606)): "Are you just asserting that, or do you think you have found a mistake in algebra or something like that?" Apparently, from your statement above, you believe it was not just a mistake in algebra, but it did include a simple math error. You still have not pointed out where the simple math error occurred in Einstein's work.

[StevenCrum]

To worzel (#32)

Concerning your question as to which statement Einstein made that was false, the following is a quote from his first paper.

"Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.

So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, ..."

There are two false statements shown, and which is explained in the following.

First, true science is that neither viewpoint of stationary or on the rod viewed a synchronous situation.

The second sentence part that was fully wrong was the statement where he falsely assumed his synch staement was correct and then stated the false conclusion.

In getting back to the first wrong statement the following proves the falseness. The proof is a bit long, but everything written needs to be to describe the full truth of the real science involved. And, the following makes it incredibly easy to understand that truth.

In the following the speed of light is 100 ft/sec, the rod length is 200 ft, and the velocity of the rod moving to the right is 20 ft/sec.

Then a horizontal bar has end A at the left and B at the right, and each end location has a clock and observer that can read the time showing on each clock face. There is a reflecting mirror at B pointing back toward A. And, there is a light source that emits a pulse of light at A and toward the mirror at B. In this part the bar has no movement and is stationary.

For less writing here and to show the results likely better I will describe two synch situations at the same time. One is where both clocks are set to the same exact, synchronized time setting. This is then with both clocks set to precisely 1:00. The second synch situation is where the B clock is set to one second past 1:00, and therefore out-of-synch with the A clock.

With this, at precisely 1:00 a pulse of light is shot from A and toward B. The light hits the mirror at B at exactly 2 seconds past 1:00, which I will describe from this point on as 1 + 2 sec. (200 feet/100 fps) The observer at B reads the exact clock setting when the light hits the mirror as 1 + 2 sec (synch'd clock setting) and 1 + 3 sec (for the wrong synch'd situation). He notes both clock readings for later use.

In both situtaions the light hits the mirror and starts back toward A. And, the observer at A then notes that the light hits A at precisely 1 + 4 sec. (synch'd setting) and 1 + 5 (wrong synch setting).

The situation then is that in the first synch situation the observers get together and share their clock reading notes. The situation they know also is that the two distances of light travel from A to B, and also the return of B to A are EXACTLY EQUAL. They also know the light speed velocity in both directions was also exactly equal.

The synchronization situation involved is that since the two directions are precisely equal THEN it is fully known that the B clock is located exactly at the mid-point of the total light travel.

With all of that known the two observers look at the first synch'd readings and do the math. The end reading at B was 1 + 4, and since both directions were equal they know they can divide the 4 by 2 and get a one-direction light travel time of 2 seconds. Tow seconds from A to B, and another two seconds from B back to A. With this they take the original clock setting of 1:00 and add 2 seconds for which would be the calculated, true synch mid-point value, and the result is 1 + 2 sec. This reading is exactly what the B observer saw for the first synch'd situation.

But, in the second unsynch'd situation they would find that the B reading of 1 + 3 sec. does not match the 1 + 2 sec., and this would factually reveal that the B clock was out-of-synch with the A clock by being one second too fast. To then get the B clock synchronized to A they move the clock setting of B back one second.

Now, THAT is what Einstein was showing in the first non-moving synch situation in the first equation of the first paper. And, you will note taht synchronization does NOT get accomplished by just having light travel in the two directions, but instead by the analysis at the end and adjusting clock settings as needed so they then match each other.

Now, for the moving rod.

This time I am not going to do both types of synch and unsynch because it isn't needed for the following. You can do it if wanted of course.

This time I am going to use three observers in the stationary view to make it easier, and two observers on the two rod ends A and B. The ground observers are one at the left original A location, and a second 83.33 ft to the right, and where the A end of the rod will finally be in the very end of the test. And the third observer will be to the right another 166.67 ft and where the rod end B will be when the light finally catches up with the B moving rod end and hits the mirror. And all clocks are again, two in stationary view at A and B and the rod two clocks at rod ends A and B.

So with this arrangement the rod is instantly moving at full velocity to the right from the back point of the rod at A. A light pulse at A is also shot at the same instant toward the moving B rod end.

The situation is that the light traveling right will hit the B mirror at the same time the rod has moved right 50 feet, and this will have all four clocks showing 1 + 2.5 sec. (stationary calcs of (200 ft + 50 ft)/100 fps, and rod calcs of 200 ft rod length/(observed velocity of 100 - 20 = 80 fps)

If the observed velocity isn't understood, just imagine yourself standing on the rod and looking sideways as related to the rod movement. The view you can see is that the light is traveling in the same direction as the rod and at 100 fps. The rod is also going the same direction at 20 fps. The speed of light you see is slower and 80 fps. If this isn't clear, thibnk of the situation of the rod going at 100 fps, and the light also at 100. The light would never catch up to the rod because they are going at the same exact velocity. You would then see the light stationary in your rod viewpoint. So, in the test here the light speed seen on the rod is 80.

So, the B observers in the ground view and on the rod also see their B clocks showing 1 + 2.5 sec. when the light hits the B mirror.

The light then reflects back toward the B rod end, and an end that is still moving to the right at 20 fps. The light hits the B rod end afrter the rod has moved right another 33.33 feet. The time seen by the ground observer who was sitting there waiting since the beginning and he was sitting right where the hit would occur, is 1 + 4.17 sec. (2.5 + (166.67 ft/100 fps))

The rod A end observer also sees the same time of 1 + 4.17. (2.5 + (200 ft rod length in his view/120 fps velocity seen in his view)) You can get this view-point velocity by thinking of what is seen on the rod again. It is simply that the light moving one direction and the rod going in the other, and it totals 100 + 20.

The end situation is all of the observers get together to then do the math again. The end reading on clock A in both ground and rod is 1 + 4.17. The readings noted for clock B when the light hit the mirror is 1 + 2.5.

In Einstein's synch method you would divide the 4.17 by 2 and get a false synch thinking. The reason is because the same EQUAL situation in the first test is not maintained in the moving rod test here.

Synchronizing checks and adjustment for the moving rod is accomplished as follows.

The two distances, from A to B, and B to A are not the same. The first is 250 ft and 166.67 ft. The total distance is 416.67 ft. To get a percentage that is correct science for the first light travel is (250/416.67=60%) The second light travel is (166.67/416.67=40%) This is as observed by the ground observers because the distances are what they observed.

The rod observers didn't see those distance and saw both distances as only the rod length in both situations. However, the rod observers saw a different velocities in each path. There view then involves percentages in the velocity situations. (80 + 120 = 200) (80/200 = 40%) (120/200 = 60%)

To accomplish true synch check at the end the total time of light travel is 4.17 seconds. And, 4.17x.60=2.5, and 4.17x.40=1.67.

With this the calculations show that the synch calc-time for clock B is then 1 + 2.5 sec. And, it is that situation for what clock B should have been showing when the light had gone 60% of the total light travel in the situation involved. And, both observers did factually see 1 + 2.5 sec on their B clocks.

You can also note that if the B clocks were out-of-synch by being one second or any value higher then the B clocks would have been found to be wrong and adjusting to synchronization made.

This then proves Einstein's factual math and science error. And, it is factually undeniable in science and math truth.

[StevenCrum]

To gzhpcu (#37)

Concerning your silly thread comment you might want to red post #44 in this thread that describes real science that is presntly above wolrd-class physics.

What post #44 describes is factual proof that everything beyond Einstein's error in his first paper is all wrong and nothing but fantasy. The reason is because Einstein based relativity, e=mc^2 and a whole lot more on the ASSUMPTION that the first synch part was correct. It factually is NOT and is prven by real math and science to be completely wrong.

So, the science things you are describing in your post aren't real science and proven to be that. Sorry, but Einstein was dead-wrong and proven as exactly that. And, this is actually a fact above world class physics right now. we are also in the process of finding exactly how long it is going to remain in that condition also.

[StevenCrum]

To worzel (#38)

I have answered your questions in post #44. The real science for your docking bay thing is in that post. If 344 is true, and it factually is, and fully seen to be true, then the docking bay situation and all like it are also proven to be what they are - a full misunderstanding of synchronization.

[StevenCrum]

To Astrowannabe (#39)

The question in your post is one of the most incredible things I have seen anywhere on this board, and leads to a a truly good science observation.

The answer to your question is yes, there factually is a view point location in the universe that exists in an aboslute "rest" condition, and that is the universe itself. All time travel and everything else is in comparison to the base rest condition of the universe.

But, there is something that needs to also be stated about the speed of light. Light speed is actually also compared to the universe rest situation, but it is fully possible for velocities to exceed that universe speed of light. An example is the situation of a space ship or anything else traveling at or near universe light speed, and a rocket or something is shot from the moving object and in the same direction as the object movement, then the rocket is then moving at light speed + the velocity of the rocket.

So, it is fully within the universe laws of physics to have "things" moving far faster than the universe speed of light. And, light speed of objects is fully within the viewpoint of which moving systrem your are in. The base system is the universe, and since our galaxy is moving away from the LMC then light sources inside our moving system is then radiationg light at c from our velocity. That velocity in the universe viewpoint is "our galaxy speed + c" for light pointed away from the LMC, and a vector in all other directions.

[StevenCrum]

To Doodler (#40)

Just to remind you, I was attacked on virtually every single post taht was written concerning my thtreads here, and I only recall one post reply taht was actually real science discussion and civil in those times.

So, no mater how much you like or don't concerning these facts, it is full truth that the HUGE majority of posters were doing nothing more than looking for dirt and attacking. And, if you don't want to believ the facts of this - don't, it is still dead-on right truth. It was also FULL TRUTH that my original statement, while under endless attack, about my first post in the Einstein error proving the science and math totally, is and was fully true and describing science fact that is real and right. That was all ignored endlessly while as I didn't have time to answer all of your excuses for the wrong science about Einstein.

So, you don't have a whole lot of anything to stand on as you spout your accusations there. And, I will get into a firefight with you every single time you continue the slop of the totally-unscientific methods of attacking that you are fully and factually doing. And, if you aren't getting the facts involved here yet, it won't be me who loses and is laying in the dirt in defeat in the end if you choose to go in the direction of attacking.

Take your pick.

[StevenCrum]

I have to leave for the day, my available time is ended.

[hhEb09'1]

O no, I have number 43! I was hoping we'd get to 42

[Thomas(believer)]

Just curious.
How would you define real-science e.g. in contrast with normal science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)? Can you name some people besides yourself how are practizing real-science?

[worzel]

In the following the speed of light is 100 ft/sec
.
.
.
Now, for the moving rod.
.
.
.
The speed of light you see [ if you are moving with the rod ] is slower and 80 fps....So, in the test here the light speed seen on the rod is 80.
That is simply a denial of the SR postulate that the speed of light is constant for all inertial observers. So your calculations prove nothing whatsoever about Einstein's math in his SR paper of 1905.

Never mind science and math, you have made an elementary logical error. You cannot show that a postulate is not true by assuming it is not true and then showing how your assumption results in a contradiction with the oringal assumption that it is true. That would be possible for virtually any assumption whatsoever, whether actually true or not, and proves absolutely nothing.

Hey look, if 1+1!=2 then 1+1!=2 - see I've proved arithmetic wrong factually, and easily seen to be factual, and according to real science and real math!

[worzel]

To Astrowannabe (#39)

The question in your post is one of the most incredible things I have seen anywhere on this board, and leads to a a truly good science observation.

The answer to your question is yes, there factually is a view point location in the universe that exists in an aboslute "rest" condition, and that is the universe itself. All time travel and everything else is in comparison to the base rest condition of the universe.
Do you really think that we didn't know exactly where you were going with your argument? Why do you think I was questioning you on the validity of synchronizing the clocks with respect to your docking bay and not mine? Why was I not suprised when you vetoed the question? Jeez!:rolleyes:

[antoniseb]

I'm not certain I understand your complaint about Einstein's math in the first two sections of the June 1905 paper. Let me put it into your situation and tell it back to you as best I can, and you please point out where you think I'm missing your point.

Situation 1: Stationary synchronization.
There is a rod 200 feet long (rAB), we mark the left end "A" and the right end "B". The speed of light is 100 feet per second. There is a clock at each end, and a mirror at end B. Obeservers at A&B agree to synchronize their clocks. A sends light to the mirror at B, and reports the time he sent the light pulse, and the time he received it back (which should be 4 seconds after he sent it). B sets his clock so the time he observed the light is two seconds after the time A sent it. If the only thing moving is the light, this is clear. The clocks can be synchronized. However,

Situation 2: Moving rod & synchronization.
There is the same rod moving along its axis at 20% the speed of light (20 feet per second) with respect to a long line of obeservers who all have synchronized clocks. Now, Einstein is careful to point out that these observers will see Lorentz contraction on the rod. He doesn't in those first two sections of the paper spell it out as to how large this contraction will be, but he does mention it. In your example, the 200 foot (when stationary) rod would look just under 196 feet long to these observers.

Now the stationary observer at 0 feet sees the flash of light at A. The observer at 250 feet sees the light hit the mirror at B 2.5 seconds after the observer at zero saw the initial flash (It would be the observer at 245 feet if we take Lorentz contraction into account). The light moves back along the rod toward the end we called A. The observer at 83 feet 4 inches sees the light hit mirror A again. (81 feet 7 inches if we take Lorentz contraction into account) at 4.167 seconds (4.08 taking Lorentz into account).

So, regardless of whether we take Lorentz contraction of the rod into account, the two observers on the rod believe that to synchronize their clocks, they need to adjust the second one to be showing 2.0 seconds when the light is received at B and 0.0 when it left A. Whereas the observers in the frame that the rod is moving at 0.2 c think that the clock at B should be set to 2.5 seconds (2.45 taking Lorentz contraction into account) when the light gets to it, but perhaps understand that the observers on the rod will take the mean of rAB/c-v and rAB/c+v (2.08 or 2.04 seconds depending again on Lorentz transformation). In either case the observers on the side, and the observers on the rod cannot agree as to how to synchronize the clocks, unless the observers on the side also read the third section of Einstein's June 1905 paper, and allow for the slowing of time in the moving reference frame.

So where's the mistake?

You've said Einstein made a mistake. I don't see it.

[Astrowannabe]

Steve:

Your confusion is understanding. Virtually all of physics made that exact same mistake for several centuries until Einstein came along. The idea of a special speed in the universe which is zero seems to make logical sense, and virtually every scientist in the world assumed that same thing for a long time.

The problem is that once we developed the technology to investigate that idea, we could never find that universal "rest speed". Every attempt we ever made to detect the effects you described in your rod experiment failed.

The classic example is the Michelson Morley experiment, which I would suggest you read up on if you haven't already. They essentially did exactly your rod experiment to try to find the speed that the Earth moves through the universe. Assuming for a moment that the speed of light is 300,000 km/s relative to the universe, then if we move through the universe we should be able to measure light moving at speeds different from 300,000 km/s. Since the Earth rotates, revolves around the sun, and the sun revolves around the galaxy ect, we should be able to detect these variations and those variations should change as the Earth moves first in one direction and then the other as it revolves around the sun.

The problem is that we can't. Regardless of how the Earth moves, we always measure the speed of light to be exactly the same. I'm not telling you this because this is what I believe, or because it makes some other calcualtion make sense. This is experimental fact. We tried to measure how the speed of light changes as we move, and yet we can't. The speed of light is always 300,000 km/s as seen by us regardless of how fast or slow we move.

It was because of this that Einstein came up with his 1905 paper. It is difficult to accept at first because it's so counter-intuitive. But that's because our intuition is based on our experience, and we have no experience with traveling at anywhere close to the speed of light.

[Sean Clayden]

http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/relativity.html


http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-clock-dilation-doppler_943.html

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

[Fortis]

Steve, as a number of people here have said, you have started from the position that one of the postulates is false. That could be correct, but then you would have to demonstrate that experimentally. You can't just state it as fact.

If we have two people moving relative to each other, you appear to believe that there is a way to tell if one of them is static, and which one of them is moving. Is that the case?

[StevenCrum]

To Captain Swoop (#41)

The situation of how everything so-called "works" isn't about whether the Einstein science and others work, but instead that Einstein was looking for science descriptions that would explain the observed situations. This also occurs with other science areas. With that, situation is there have been descriptions of those science items that have had theories written about how they occur, etc.

So, the situation is that the theories might be written, but that doesn't mean they truly describe the actual science involved. And, this board is proving some of those.

[Atraveller]

O no, I have number 43! I was hoping we'd get to 42

And then you would have the answer!!! (But then this universe would shift...)

These kinds of pointless threads are always the most entertaining... But then everything I know about science I learned from Bill Bryson.

[captain swoop]

To Captain Swoop (#41)

The situation of how everything so-called "works" isn't about whether the Einstein science and others work, but instead that Einstein was looking for science descriptions that would explain the observed situations. This also occurs with other science areas. With that, situation is there have been descriptions of those science items that have had theories written about how they occur, etc.

So, the situation is that the theories might be written, but that doesn't mean they truly describe the actual science involved. And, this board is proving some of those.


But if the theory fits the observations and the maths back it up how are they not describing what is observed? Science as it is can describe gravity with enough accuracy to put a probe into orbit around distant planets or even land on a Comet!! what more do you want?

[StevenCrum]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[worzel]

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.
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-tA)=c,

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

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.
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.

[Thomas(believer)]

To Thomas (#51)

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


Thanks. :o
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.;)

[StevenCrum]

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.

[hhEb09'1]

To hhEb09'1 (#43)

::snip::

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

[worzel]

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)

[captain swoop]

I still ask where's the math?

[StevenCrum]

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.

[gzhpcu]

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.

[Astrowannabe]

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.


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

[StevenCrum]

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.

[SeanF]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[StevenCrum]

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.

[antoniseb]

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.

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?

[Tassel]

Am I missing something else here or is that the whole thing?
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". :p

[StevenCrum]

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.

[Bignose]

But if the theory fits the observations and the maths back it up how are they not describing what is observed? Science as it is can describe gravity with enough accuracy to put a probe into orbit around distant planets or even land on a Comet!! what more do you want?

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.

[StevenCrum]

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