So you don't think that relativity suggests that "percieved at time X happened at time X"? So, when you look through your Walmart telescope at the clock which I (in my flowery pants) carried away to a distance of one light hour, and see the time it reads, you'll agree that (according to relativity), this is the time the clock read one hour ago... and quickly deduce that the clock and your Rolex both read the same time. So where's the problem, again?
Pete: I not only don't think, but I am certain, that I wrote nothing resembling your absurd quote that you have knowingly wrongly attributed to me, "percieved....". The immediately prior conversations between us concerned your (mis)comprehensions regarding Relativity, not mine. You are still claiming that Relativity, as explained by Einstein himself, and little Einsteins beyond number, DOES NOT SAY that the observation is the valid basis for defining reality? An absolute space enthusiast like myself would say that reckoning should be made for the light flight time of an observation. However, from the Lorentz transforms on through Minkowski 4 space and through Special Relativity, the raw observation is repeatedly and exclusively claimed to be the valid definition of Relativistic reality.
Good. Just so long as we understand each other now, and that there is no problem with seeing a clock a light-hour away reading the time it was one hour ago.
You should have more than ample clues for understanding me in this matter. However, I do not not understand whether you hold the standard Relativity party line on taking raw observation to be the definition of reality, or the logical view of analyzing the observation. Do you uphold Relativity as it is normally taught or not? So there is no question about it, I have a number of serious doubts.
CANGAS: I agree that relativity states that no information can travel from one place to another faster than the speed of light. However, I'm not sure if that is what you're saying here, or whether you are incorrectly reading other things in which aren't there. I don't know. What do you think is important to know about light as the "crucial information carrier"?
I think you're confusing "an observation" with "an event in spacetime". When and where an observer sees a distant event can be quite different from where and when the event happened. I would have thought that such a point would be uncontroversial.
JamesR failed to directly address the first issue. And he played dumb on the second issue. Well, he said he doesn't know, so maybe he is not playing. If he does not know much about the most important basics of Relativity, why is he so touchy when somebody says it might be a wrong theory? How does he know if it is right if he doesn't know what it is?
And now he is playing bait and switch. It is true that the issue of when and where an event happens should be uncontroversial. However, for 101 years, we have been taught to rely only on raw observation, as in the examples of the relativity of simultaineity, from Einstein's own hand. Now it is my turn to play dumb. Please tell me how Einstein told me to analyze his train gedankin concerning simultaneity.
CANGAS: If you have a point to make, make it. Don't allude to some mysterious knowledge that you alone supposedly possess but refuse to publish. Insinuations don't hold much water in science.
JamesR: Perhaps you missed the part, or more likely forgot it, where you were told that I will present my analysis of the Michelson interferometer and the derivation of gamma when I am satisfied with my work. You are certainly confused now about who schedules my work, you or me. I have repeatedly made it clear that you and others could properly analyze these matters if you wished to do so. I have never implied anything mysterious or unusual about my work or results; anything of that sort is all in your head, not mine.
Well, it is certainly implied that you've discerned something. Since everyone who has studied relativity even passingly discovers a multitude of "paradoxes" and you refuse to divulge what it is you think is wrong, it is hardly surprising that nobody gives your insinuation that everybody else is wrong much credit. I predict that your beef with relativity will turn out to be just another of those classic problems, and easily resolved.
Yes I do. You seem to have had poor teachers. The logical view of analyzing the observation is the "standard relativity party line". The view that raw observation is the definition of reality is a strawman, not part of relativity.
Have it your way. I agree with you that the thing that you call "Relativity" is not a good model of reality. On the other hand, the thing that I thought was "Relativity" is a good model of reality. I'm glad you've educated me that it's not actually relativity at all. That means I can publish it and get all the credit, right? My model is well defined and gives hard, testable, predictions. Would you like to hear more about it? We can work together on showing the relativity-crowd where they're wrong!
Hooray, we agree! That damned Einstein. If only he wasn't so worshipped, people would see the truth! That Einstein... he thought that if an observer saw the strikes at a particular time, that meant that they happened at that time! DUMB! But we know that the strikes happened at some time in the past. How far in the past? Each observer can find out after the fact, by measuring the distance to each strike from their observation post, and dividing by the speed of light (working on the postulate that the speed of light is determined solely by the permittivity and permeability of the vaccuum, right?) Tag - CANGAS, you're it! Take it from there!
Funkstar: Your rapid fire misquotes and misunderstandings make it impossible to carry on an intelligent conversation. Find a discussion partner with your own mental level at your Zoo monkey exhibit.
Pete: In case I didn't already tell you; you have me confused with somebody else. I am not your drill instructor or Relativity professor. If you want to argue about Relativity, do all of us a favor and figure out what you believe before a discussion, not in the middle of it. You must have never read a text from anyone's hand in your entire life, about Relativity, for you to say that you are not aware that the perception of light by the observer is the fundamental principle of Relativity. Einstein said it, Bergmann said it, Bertrand Russel said it, Antoon Lorentz said it, and the author of any Relativity text I have ever read said it. However, I truly do not give a squat about what you know or understand about Relativity. And the issue of the raw observation of light by the observer defining reality is not the worst fatal flaw of Relativity, to my own thinking; although it is a nettling thing to hear and read it so frequently when it is parroted by people who have memorized it but never carefully thought about whether it made sense or not. Highly regarded professional scientists have seriously proposed time machines based on exactly the same absurd mis thinking that I expressed in my infamous clock and mirror post (by the way, the characters have enjoyed name changes; your 15 minutes expired). For me to argue about which variation of Special Relativity is best, Pete's or whoever's, is the same as me arguing about which is best in your tea, arsenic or cyanide. No thanks.
And if you want to argue about relativity, start posting some content, rather than simply making empty claims.
JamesR: Where in my posts have I said that I want to argue about Relativity? Relativity is over. It is gone. It is not anything I want to argue about. I just want the garbage truck to carry it away. Perhaps it is only in the alternate parallel universe that you call home. Is your alias Pete, to whom your quoted post was directed? Perhaps you want to share a lot of things with Pete? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please quit bothering me unless you have some science thing that is important. I have to try to work on my Relativity killer.
If relativity is over and gone and not something you want to argue about, why work on a "Relativity killer"? You are a strange person, CANGAS.
