The Simultaneity postulate of SR/GR is Erroneous

In the experiments analyzed here, we use Einstein’s model described in “Relativity” pages 25 – 27. A moving observer O’ is at M, the midpoint between two lights A and B heading for B, when the lights are pulsed on.

Is the simultaneity postulate of SR and GR a correct description of physical phenomena? Do observers in different inertial frames see events that are simultaneous in one frame, but not simultaneous in another? Will the moving O’ observer see the lights come on at different times?

Einstein's model used in simultaneity consequences.

Unambiguously, the answer to these questions is no.

Using figure as a guide O’ measure the clock setting and frequency of the light pulse from B reaching a point at time t1 after passing through the midpoint at M. O’ makes the assumption that the lights were pulsed on simultaneously. This means that during time t1 the light from A arrives at -t1, as the wave fronts from both sources must be equidistant. During the time dt = t2 – t1 = 1 arbitrarily, the light from –t1 reaches t2. The total distance traveled is (dt)c = c. The distance is also measured as vt1 + vt1 +_ 1 = 2t2 + 1 for v = 1, arbitrarily. Equating c = 2t1 –1, we find t1 = (c – 1)/2. If dt were larger than 1 then A pulsed on after B as the locations of the respective wave fronts would be skewed. If dt < 1 A pulsed on before B.

When discussing the physical significance of simultaneity, the description is inextricably linked to “the observers conclusions”; This simple example stresses the rejection of the natural order of things by the definitive assumption that the observer always makes the proper assumptions about the extent of the analysis of experimental results. Here, the casual acceptance of the different arrival times at t1 and t2 equates with non-simultaneity is not supported by a rational analysis of the parameters and conditions of the experiment.


“The enemies of truth. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

{QUOTE=JAmes R.] Einstein's explanation does not concern arrival times, but emission times of the light from the two sources. The argument is sound that although the stationary observer calculates that the emission of the light was simultaneous for the two sources, the moving observer calculates that the events could not have been simultaneous.[/QUOTE]


The simultaneity postulate, James R. is false. There isn't a speck of truth to it.


What you said is just an echo of the simultaneity postulate. Look at the problem not as a pulse time coming on. but the location of the wave fronts of the two lights with respect to the moving observer. In the moving frame the light from both wave fronts are moving at the same velocity. Each closes on the point where they meet at the same velocity wrt the moving observer O' . The moving observer uses mathematic that the styationary observer uses and as his numbers will be smaller than the stationary observer and this this is not a parameter of the simultaneoty problem. O' just does not know he is moving at all, ever. When he sees two pulses of light he can make a number of assumptions. One is that the light source from A is light years removed from B which may be 100km away from the stationary midpoint of the wave fronts of the pulses. The location of the sources is irrelevant, as the question is constrained to the question of answeriing :Where were the wave fronts at the instant O' passeed through the mid point of the stationary frame. and coincidentally, the midpoint of the moving frame?.

O' at the instant in his frame was midway between the instantaneous location of the wave fronts, he was also uinatsnataneoiusly at he M of the stationary frame. wrt to the stationary frame. Assumiong O' knows he is at M but he has no instant knowledge of the pulse event, but the truth of the matter is in the moving frame he was atethe midpoint of two colliding wave fronts. O' need not concern himself with statioanary frame differences.

Now James R. you must understand that your statement was an exact and correct statement if what the simultaneity postulate is, but the postulate is on error, it is wrong, if it purports to reflect a description of physical law..

James R you must get this: When O' was at the physical location iof the midpoint of the wave fronts, each had an equal distance to travel at a cmmon velocity. Later, O' measure the light from B then the light from A and a far as I can gather from the lioerature this is where the analysis stopped as even Einstein said that the difference in recording time of the two pulses will make O' conclude the lights were turned on at different times in the moving frame. And from this we get the postuilate of simultaneity spread through the citizenry as if it were natuirla law.

James R I see you are a busy man in these posts. I truly hope you can eithe agree or disagree with what I say, but you know, the physics of the matter cares not what ever theoretuical abtractions we place upon it.

How can O' say this is a rational statement? If he knew that the lights were turned on simultaneously by two moving observers just as O' passedn through the midpoint then and assume he knows that moving light switches turned on the sources at the same time in his frame at the instant he was at the midpoint. Then when the lights are detected he expecrs the difference in arival time of the wave fronts that are measurd, not at the midpoint , but at some other point.differenct than the midpoint. One need not postulate a law of physics from this: Hey If one distance D from B is 100 units and from A is 200 units, the if the light pulse on simultaneiously, the light from B gets to the point before the light from A. Can you then say that the light fram A was turned on after the light from B?

James R. look very closely at the following. When the experiment is run as discussed and O' moves through the M midpoint at this instant the light sources are some distant front O', but in the O' frame he is instanhtaneously at the midpoint of the light sources as determined by his counters, clocks and measuring equipment..O' always measures c for the speed of light, right? Therefore the wave fronts converge on the moving frame midpoint, which coincientally is the stationary frame midpoint also. When he measure the pulses he is able to determine his velocity with respect to the light source frame his own frame, and from a blue/red doppler shift analysis of the wave front pulses, he can then determine from the arrival times of the light from A whether he was at the midpoint of the wave fronts when he passed through M. If he sees a time history of clocks coded to read at a rate consistent with the constant velocity of his moving O' frame, and the clocks are calibrated with light pulses equidistanr from A and B in a stationary rfame and compares the time histories at his leisure, he will see that indeed the light fronts were either on or were pulsed on at the same time in the O' frame. If the lights were out of sequence in both frames, O' can detect which pulse preceded the other.Even comparing the stationary clocks he concludes the simultaneeity of the pulses, even though the O data is different than the O' data both sets of clocks at A and B show they were pulsed on at the same time.

The second postulate, and SR and GR as far as I can determine is directed at the psychological state of the human ovservers and absolutely noting to do with postulate of phsyical law.

Your comment was terse and consiise and an accurate expression of an erroeous inference of the simultaneity postulate of SR and GR by the grossly incompetent analysis made by Einstein and others. The simultaneity postulate is not a defining or cnfining parameter of physical law. Read the postulate. It is all framed in words of what the various ovbservers would know and who would calculate this or that. Then SR and GR were thrust upon the public as a principle of natural law and we have mentors on this forum, in this case he turns out sane and rational, who actually discuss the impropriety, or not, of allowing contradicory arguements is the prevailing view thread. As I gather the substance of the justification of a unique "Theory Development Forum" is that most come to the "main" forum for the puspose of discussing relativity theory with those who unquestiongly accept the dogma. In another forum it is expressed openly as such. The posters have a right to the mental attitude of unquestioned stupidity.

In this same forum some mentors do not hide their disgust at those who question the absolute truth of what ever the standard model happens to be at the time. Chroot arbitrarily edited some postings of mine and without even having the decency to trell me I could not post in other than theory development I had to discover this myself. But then I am venting.

Those of us who detail the locations of little cracks in great big dikes are scorned for our outrageous "theories". I have only been scorned for questioning the dike maintenance crew, but none have pointed to any errors in logic, reason or statement of physical law. For sure there are many, most in fact, who are wrong in some respect, I used to be wrong myself from time to time, but that is all in the distant past, but ther

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

e are many more errors countable in the prevailing view forums than the hellish holes of Theory Development Forums.

For some heresy on bed rock quantum mechanical postulations see here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James R, I don't want to butt in here, but even I can see the error in your example.

 

Please excuse me if I have replied to this post. I see from the sequence I have not. So here goes.

No the light from A and B are constrained by the laws of physics to move at a constant velocity. basically, the pulses are iindifferent to observational effects. When you were moving at some velocit v < c heading toward M it took you exactly some time t to arrive there. We call this time t = 1, and v = 1, what ever this is in the moving frame. Now the wave fronts of the two pulses cannot be affected by the O' observation. Assming the pulses left their respective positions at some t = 0. At this instant both pulses must travel at c velocity for t = 1 to arrive exactly at M with the simultaneous arrival of the pulses from A and B. It cannot be argued that some time or spatial dilation affed the A-M distance and not the B-M distance. The time of flight required for M to be the midpoint between A and B is exactly the same, t = 1.

James R. consider the physical result of what was described. At the instant of simultaneous arrival of O' and the pulses at M means, becaiuse A and B must spend exactly the same amount of time in tansit between A_M and B-M, if A starts first, then the center point will have been shifted to the B side of the midpoint line. The problem defined the arrival point at M, which coinicdenmtally is the midpoint of A-M and B-M in the stationary frame also.


What is wrong with your statement is the erroneous assumption asserted in your perception of the physical reality of the moment quoted here:
.
B]The speed of light is constant from both sources, but I am moving away from A, towards B. Therefore, the light from A must have taken a longer time to reach me than the light from B.

Therfore the light from A must not have taken longer time to reach you as, like the first part of the last statement says,

"the speed of light is constant . . .", and the distance the light from A has to travel is not more than B as each has the same ground to cover to reach O' at M. The error is a misperception of the physics of moving light by O', the moving observer, who "intuits"(?) that the mere motion of O' means the light from A is travelling must be slower than the light from B in order there be a simultaneous arrival at M of both wave fronts..

You stated in your correction of my classifying "simultaneity" as a postulate of relativity theory, which I do not quarrel with as the error is inconsequential to the problem as stated. But James R. look at the simplicity of the argument, which is orders of magnitude less conceptually complex than the effect of the correction implied as necesaary. You said inthis regard that:

"The relativity of simultaneity is a derived result. It is true provided that the postulates of the theory of relativity itself are true."

I suggest that if the postulates of relativity are true that the derivation of simultaneity are false as directly contradicted by experimental results. I do not wish to unecessarily accelerate the envelope of correction factor processing, but what are the exact terms from which 'simultaneity' are derived? Which is claimed as driving the insistamce to a positive simultaneity derivation. Is the process mathematical?

How does one handle the instinctive reaction by 2inquisitive when he "butted" in with a contradiction bfore i was able to respond? If it is so obviious is there any salvation for SR/GR? Not being one of "them", I am unable to determine the answer to this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OK, I know you have something in mind to catch me with, but here goes anyway!

quote:
"Let observer O be standing on straight railway tracks, midway between two points A and B. Let observer O' be standing on a train travelling towards B and away from A. At the precise moment when O' is at the same place as O, both observers see flashes of light which were emitted some time previously from points A and B. The question we wish to answer is: which flash was emitted first?"
==========================================================

First question is, do both these observers know the precise locations of A and B?
You said observer O knew he was midway between A and B, but only that O' was
beside O when they both saw the flash. If not, O has additional information before
the example is carried out, to his advantage.
==========================================================

quote:
"Observer O reasons as follows: "I am half way between sources A and B. I received both flashes at the same time. The speed of light is constant, and the light had the same distance to travel to get to me from A and B. Therefore, both flashes were emitted simultaneously."
==============================================================

No problem here, he knew he was midway between A and B when the flashes occured.
===============================================================

quote:
Observer O' reasons as follows: "When I received the flashes, I was exactly half way between A and B. The speed of light is constant from both sources, but I am moving away from A, towards B. Therefore, the light from A must have taken a longer time to reach me than the light from B. Since I actually saw both flashes at the same time, flash A must have been emitted before flash B. Therefore, the two flashes were not emitted simultaneously."
===============================================================

"Therefore, the light from A must have taken a longer time to reach me than the light from B." I accept that information always travels at 'c', so why should I assume that
only because I am moving, light would take longer to reach me from A? All I would
expect to see is a Doppler shift, not a difference in the time I recieve that information.
If I were handicapped beforehand by not knowing the precise locations of A and B, I
not be able to determine if the light was emitted from different distances from me at
different times, or if I were midway between the points and the lights were emitted at
the same instant. But neither would observer O if he did not know the distances of
A and B beforehand. And no, just because I am moving, I do not believe my time is
dilated. Both O and O' would see the flashes at the same time. It is a circular argument
to argue relativistic effects, because this is the very basis of relativity and I cannot
see using those effects to prove themselves. OK, you can tear me down now!

 

Sorry, geistkiesel, I did not see your response before posting mine. I made a pot of
coffee while composing mine!

 

No I cannot tear you down. There is no need to compare stationary and moving platforms, or the difference in clock readings. In all frames which describe the spatial extent of moving wave fronts there is one and only one midpoint. This we know from the fact that to each frame the light moves at a constant velocity.

II understand this probelm involves the observation of light pulses meeting at M the same insatnt the observers O and O' meet there. Nobody knows anything except the simultaneous arrival of the same two wave fronts.They know nothing of the location of the sources, such that doppler shifts are insufficent also for any information pertinent to the question of simultaneity of the pulses

Oberve O' was located short of the midpoint when the when the wave fronts were located a distance ct from M. O' traveled a distance vt during t to reach the midpoint. During this time the wave fronts were also moving to the midpoint, which is invariant with respect to everbody, and at time t everybody collides at the midpoint. We do not need to know what t is. We do know that when there were two wave fronts there was one midpoint that remains invariant throughout all relevant times.

No one knows, or cares where the sources are located as they could be thoudsands of light years away. The only concern is the existence of the two wave fronts at some locations, somewhere, As we cannot assume the exact number describing t we cannot locate the exact positions of he wave fronts, except at the instant of he simulraneous arrival we may look back and place llimits on prior locations. The question does not allow us this privelge. Therefore we can only detern ine that at all time during the existence of both wave fronts their common midpoint remains invariant.

IIf measuring equipment in any two unique frames output data that is apparantly contradictory, the invariance of the location of the midpoint remains invariant and has nothing to do with anyone's measured data.

Do the experiment with two moving frames O' and O''. Reflected twins on each side of the midpoint of the wave fronts moving towards M Everybody, and the wave frobnts meet simultaneously at M. Do O' and O'' have he right to claim hatt the light pulse on his side was turned on first because he was moving away from it when it came on?

Everybody must agree that they met at the midpoint of both detected wavefronts. The ivariance of the midpoint between both wave fronts is determined because there is only one midpoint of two entities moving toward each other at the same speed. Whatever model one is using that involves light fronts moving with respect to each other, their midpoint is determined when there are two wave fronts. The location of the sources of the wavefrionts is irrelevant.

This is not a problem in relativity and any derived "simutaneity" construct concluding otherwise simply does not apply to the to the defined parametric limits of this thread.

 

If you don't jump in I would feel ignored and slighted. Please, at anytime, do your thing.

 

Thanks, geistliesel, I wasn't sure if you would welcome a layman posting in your thread. I hope I didn't confuse anyone, I was responding to James R's post "Go
ahead, 2inquisitive." I obviously have no formal education in physics, and I thought
I must be overlooking something I didn't know about when I invited James R to "tear me down." That's why I tried to think of differing circumstances in the post in an
effort to avoid looking too naive by missing something tricky.

 

Good explanation James.

Yes, that’s a given. They could verify the distances and both would find that the flashpoint is the midpoint between A and B.

If you run toward a photon approaching you then it’ll reach you sooner. If you run away from a photon chasing you then it’ll reach you later. This is no different than a material object approaching you or chasing you and is true regardless of the speed of the photon or material object.

 

zanket you are missing a vital point.

First however, I do not know the meaning of your statement, “…both would find the flashpoint is the midpoint between A and B”. Unless the flashpoint is the point of collision of the A an B wave fronts I do not understand the statement.

Also, it is not necessary that either observer know the actual location of either of the sources of the A or B wave fronts. Once thee are two wave fronts in existence there are is an invariantly defined location of the midpoint of the wave fronts.

The midpoint of the respective wave fronts is invariantly defined the instant both wave fronts exist. Sure, if you run toward B your closing rate is greater than the light coming from behind you. However, if you are running toward B and are running away from A at some point you will meet B and at some point you will meet A. Now if you meet B first, that means you are not at the midpoint of the wave fronts of A and B. Also, if you are over taken by A first you are not at the midpoint of the wave fronts.

However, read the description of the hypothetical. The moving observer meets the collision point of the two wave fronts at M. For you zanket who choreographed the experiment, you arranged the experiment so that the time it took O' to reach M was the same time it took both wave fronts to reach M.
Yes, your closing speed with B is greater than the closing speed of the A wav front. There is no law of physics that unambiguously prevents the wave fronts from A and B to meet at M simultaneously with O'. Either by chance, this occurred or by design, it matters not.

zanket please understand this:

O’ is heading toward B when the lights pulsed on at A and B and O' is on the A side of the midpoint. The light from A does not have to start before B for any reason in order that they all meet simultaneously at M. At the instant the lights are pulsed on each wave front has an identical distance to travel in the same time that t is traveling toward M during some time t. The t is the same for the wav fronts of A and B.

Your statement zanket assumes something that is contradictory to the limits of the hypothetical. Lets you and I run a foot race, I have a head start on you, but you run much faster. WE both start at the same time with out instantaneous constant velocity. You are constantly catching up to me and finally at the "wire" you catch me. We both ran the same time but different distances, but you had to run faster to catch me. If you were just a little bit faster, you would have caught me before I reached M or if a tad slower after I passed M. However, we met at M, this is a given. I forgot your Cousin racing toward us from a distance equal to that of our race. All three of us begin running at the same time. Cousin zankette and I are closing faster than you and I, but we all meet, very non-mysteriously, at M at the same time. If you are suggesting this is an impossibility let me mail you fifty cents so you can call someone who cares to hear your story.

If this isn't enough then rerun the experiment with the O' twin O'' on the B side of the midpoint heading toward M. O' and O'' are equidistant from M and at some time t the lights are pulsed on such that O' O'' and the colliding wave fronts meet simultaneously at M.

Ok, so O' gets to say that the wave fronts from A started before the wave front from B. O'' gets to say the wave front from B started before the wave front from A. Are they both right or are they both wrong?

All of you insisting the light from A pulsed first have not explored the essence of colliding wave fronts. Once there are two wave fronts wherever located there exists a unique invariant midpoint of the moving wave fronts. Any observer that comes along later, say 3 billion years and is heading in the direction of the midpoint of two wave fronts will have no affect on the location of the wave fronts, or the location of the midpoint at any time. If any model necessarily alters the time and place of the moving wave fronts in a line defined by A-M-B where M is the midpoint of the wave fronts, that model that varies any spatial orientation of the wave fronts is not a model constructed using the parameters of physical law.

 

2enquisitve I may have responded inaccuately to your post due tio an inaccurate reading.[/B]

In any event we see alike on this matter. Your claim of 'layman' is also claimed by myself having never parcticed "relativity theory".
I have been making a point that once there are two wave fronts there is an exact and invariant midpoint of the oncoming wave fronts. The location of the respective sources is irrelevant, it is the existence of two wave fronts that guide this problem to its natural conclusion.

I speculate that those insisting the light from A came on first intuitvely conclude that under no circmlstances can the wave fronts and O' meet at M simultaneously. Admittedly it would be difficult to pull off in practice, bur there is not physical barrier to pulling off the stunt.

These same analysts fail to see that closing speed of the A pulse and O' while slower that the closing speed of O' and B is not a physical barrier to simultaneous arrival at M. O' , the A and the B wave fronts all share a common time. That time is when the pulses came on O' had the time t to close on M. This t is common to the A and B wave fronts and the O' observer may not theoretically alter the midpoint of themoveing wave fronts and claim their conclusion ios based on sound physical law. Also, the distance between A and O' is always shorter than the distance between O' and the B wave front, so the argument presented about what "they must conclude" is erroneous from their own perspectives.

Sometimes I over write an answer. Your reply is as correct as any I have expressed, but then we enjoy a mutual advantage, we are both confessed relativity theory laymen. I can hardly wait for a reply from someone who will claim otherwise than we because we "don't understand the implications of relativity theury, like bona fide experts", and you know what, that would be a correct statement.

 

The flashpoint is the point of collision of the A an B wave fronts. I could have been more clear on that.

No, when I receive a flash from two sources simultaneously I have no idea whether I’m at the midpoint of the sources unless that’s a given or I measure it so. One light source could be a kilometer away and the other a meter. Your second statement is true but irrelevant; I still need to know where I'm at in relation to that midpoint.

No, it’s a given that you’re at the midpoint. Both observers are at the midpoint when both of them see both flashes simultaneously.

Consider these points and then ask again if you still don’t understand, rather than me wade through your remaining logic that is probably by now off base.

 

Geistkiesel
No problem. I try to maintain control such that one doesn't inadvertently alter the problem givens. Of course then the "flash point" is the midpoint of the sources at A and B as measured by O and O' as they meet simulaneouly with the wave fronts, do they not?

Geistkiesel responds

If you are 1 meter from one source and the other is a kilometer away, then you know that if they pulse simultaneously you may determine exactly where the midpoint is.

You say you "need to know" where you are at in relation to that midpoint. When do yo need thios informationm and for what purpose. You know you are at the midpoint when you arive with th e wave fronts, what else do you need and why?
The only event determining the midpoint is the position of the wave fronts. One there are two wave fronts the midpoint is defined. As O' moves to the M he meets the wave fronts from the A and B directions. As the arrival is simultaneous with O' and the wave fronts, that location is the midpoint of the wave fronts. It is a given of the problem that the midpoint of the sources A and B is at M. Therefore, both lights must flash together in order to reach M simultaneously. If O' thinks that the A pulse must have preceeded the B flash because O' was moving away from it, well this "thninking' is erroneous; it is not supported by the facts defining the problem and any assertion that O' is realistically entitled to conclude differently must be proved using the laws of physocs, not psychological presumptions.

Geistkiesel responds
Right it is given and my postulatng the importance of he wave fronts as I did may ahve confused some. Anyway, as everybody meets at the midpoint howw can one source start before he other and still arrive at the midpoint simultaneous with the other? There is not a relativity implcation here as the speed of both wave fronts is identical.

Geistkiesel responds I considered the points and found them lacking. You say my ". . .remaining logic that is probably by now off base". If this is probhably true then it should be a trivial task for you to point to some fatal error. Afterall, I have pointed out fatal errors in those asserting the A light must have pulsed first. I would really appreciate it if anyone would point to the fatal flaw in the tesis i have been posting here.

Afterall, this is the place to do just that, find errors in anothers thesis. It is sounding like this thread is being oposed by opinion, which certainly is within the rules, but mere iopinion without supporting physics is of no value. Come onm somebody point to a fatal error. Show the unambiguous flaw in reasoning. Now is the time, here and now.

 

Yes. We answered this already.

Yes, but in this thought experiment you do not know if they pulse simultaneously except by calculation/deduction. Whether they pulse simultaneously is not a given. The two observers deduce a different answer. And this result shows that whether they pulse simultaneously is dependent on the observer’s speed.

I didn’t say you need to know. I said, “No, when I receive light from two sources simultaneously I have no idea whether I’m at the midpoint of the sources unless that’s a given or I measure it so. One light source could be a kilometer away and the other a meter.” In this thought experiment it’s a given that you’re at the midpoint, it’s a given that you observe the flashes simultaneously, and it’s a given whether or not you’re moving in relation to the light sources (one observer does, the other does not). With those pieces of information each observer deduces whether the light sources pulsed simultaneously.

If one wave front is emitted today, and the other tomorrow, and if they’re far enough apart that the first wave front does not wash over the second light source before that source has emitted, then the wave fronts will meet at a point closer to the second emission. Not at the midpoint. Right? Except... Einstein showed in this thought experiment that time is not absolute (measured identically for all observers). He showed that an observer can be at the midpoint and see both wave fronts simultaneously even though they were emitted at different times. He showed that another observer at the midpoint who also sees both wave fronts simultaneously can deduce that they were emitted simultaneously. Thus he showed that whether the light sources emitted simultaneously is dependent upon the observer’s speed relative to the light sources.

Now you’re thinking. The answer is, as above, time is not absolute, but rather depends on the observer’s speed relative to what is being measured. In this thought experiment it’s a given that both observers are at the midpoint. That fact is undeniable. Along with the other information given, the only reasonable conclusion is that time is not absolute.

Maybe not trivial. I’m trying to be expedient because I have other stuff to do. Maybe someone else can go over your points in finer detail. But I think if you focus on what is given and undeniable in this thought experiment (look at James’ post), along with the fact that...

If you run toward a photon approaching you, it’ll reach you sooner. If you run away from a photon chasing you, it’ll reach you later.

...then you too will come to the conclusion that time is not absolute.

 

quote by zanket:

"If you run toward a photon approaching you, it’ll reach you sooner. If you run away from a photon chasing you, it’ll reach you later."

=============================================================

No, I assume I see the velocity of light as being the same in all reference frames, whether I am moving or not. Einstein says this is due to time dilation. Simultaneity
and the thought experiment is an attempt to explain this. In order to assume time
dilation, you have to accept simultaneity as fact, which is unproven. In order to
assume simultaneity, you have to accept time dilation as fact, which is unproven.
It is just a circle, you have to accept one as a fact before you can prove the other.
I do not know of a reasonable explaination as to why we record light as the same
velocity whether we are moving or not, but I do not accept Einstein's relativity as
the TRUE reason. In the above example, the only effect to be observed by O' would
be Doppler shift. O' would observe a blue shift in the light wave approaching from the
front and a red shift from the light wave comming from behind. If his clock were running slow, as stated by time dilation, he would not observe the blue shift from
the approaching wavefront, because in his FoR the wavelength would remain the same
because his timing of the waves would be reflected in his slower clock. His timing of the
waves comming from the rear would indicate even greater Doppler shift than indicated
by relativity. There is no time dilation. If there is no time dilation, there is no simultaneity. Have you ever heard a fast jet fly over your head and instintively looked
to where you heard the sound? The jet is not there, it has already passed you, ahead
of the preceived sound. I believe relativity is kind of like that, based on where we
preceive the object traveling relative to us to be, but that is not the true location.
When we observe the sun, that is not its true location we see, but where it was 8
minutes earlier. Relativity tells us that our frame of reference is a true one and the
sun also has a true FoR. I believe our frame is a distortion caused by the limited
travel time of information, just as the location of the plane by sound is a distortion
of reality, a Doppler effect. Relativity is great in letting us calculate where an object
will be observed by us, but that is not the TRUE location of the object, just our
impression of where it is. In the twin paradox, the stay-at-home twin will observe
a Doppler effect of the traveling twin. When the traveling twin comes home, it will
be discovered HIS time is true and he will have aged the same as his stay-at-home
brother. The stay-at-home brother was witnessing an illusion caused by a Doppler effect,
his FoR was not a true representation of reality. I know this is not according to
Special Relativity, but I believe it to be reality until I am shown positive proof to the
contrary.

 

“

”

”

“

”

”

“

.
”

.