# The Death of Relativity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Prosoothus, Jun 19, 2005.

1. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Thanks JamesR. Didn't realize you had advance to that. I'll have a look.

3. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
I see this is a recent endeavor and not yet really active. I hope to see some interest because it was well received elsewhere. I've posted some comments over in the debate forum rules, etc.

I would not attempt to debate SR under the current (4) post restriction.

5. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
simple basic disagreements

First, I thought that SRT would insist that the earth clock, A, would run faster than the two clocks launched from earth is this not basic SRT?

Great, nobody disagrees that, at least, the B and C clocks will read the same times. They were launched together and moved at the same velocity for the same period of time. Then what of the phrase that 'observers on B would "see" the C clock moving slower than his own' and similarly for the observer on C?

The question was, "why James R and Janus58 cannot simply state that the numbers on the clocks in the B and C frames indicate the same instant of time. ” or even that the numbers were the same? If two clocks, moving at the same speed and originally synchronized, measre two separate events separated by a galaxy distance, then have not the two clocks measured two events that occurred simultaeously?

No, each seeing the other clock dilate makes no sense. When each observer, say C, trained in physics, knowing that the other, say B, can consider his, C, frame as stationary and himslef, C, moving with all the measured relative frame-frame speed, as stationary. Each must know that each clocks will read identically, assuming each has the history of the simultaneous launches and identical planned speeds.

What is wrong with an absolute frame GSP uses it to perfection? I have done this -the space diagrams review- but do not agree that the diagrams represent physical reality. Have you ever read Einsteins "Relativity" published in 1916? Reasd it criticfally and see if you can find flaws. I have found many. Perhaps a formal debate retricted to that book slone is in order?

Do you mean that Einsteins thought experiments described in the book referred to above, where he takes the unmistakable position that an observer on a train can consider himself at rest (when making measurements) and the embankment moving as not stated or claimed by Einstein?
:shrug:​

7. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Let us not put words in Einstein's mouth - he said what he said.

But why substitute light for the man walking when he knows that the two are totally inconsistent? He knows the speed of light is unaffected by the train motion, that is the speed of light measured from the embankment!

James R, reading the book, Einsteins devlops SRT from scratch and the 'postulates' you refer two are the result of the development of the theory in the first few chapters.

My added comment here is that the embankment observer will also measure that the speed of light wrt the train , Vlt < c, as he should.

Except, of course you mean that while the values measured in different frames need not be the same, light speed must always be measured as c, correct?

But he still insisted, using only the equivalence of physical law (the form) being the same in all inertial frames, that the speed of light should be measured the same. He makes no reference to 'postulates' here, not to experiments, and certainly not to Michelson-Morely.

James R, Einstein, in his book "Relativity" justifies the claim that the speed of light should be measured the same in all inertial frames, not from any postulate(s), but from the equivalence of physical law being the same (in form) in all inertial frames. Read the book before you insert what Einstein meant to say.

Absolute erroneous statement as Einstein developed SRT in the book "Relativity" using only the statement that the form of physical law in all inertial frame is the same and that light speed is independent of the speed of the source of the light.

Vle - Vte = Vlt < c is an absolutely true statement as, if you notice, the left hand side are values measured from the embankment. You are such a stickler for reminding others "...from what frame are you talking . . .?" See below.

Exactly, and there is no error in the expression, all measurements are measured wrt the embankment. Vlt is not measured wrt the train, this is the result of the two measurements made from the embankment. What don't you understand about this?

Let me revise the statement. Whether the measure of the man's speed is by the man relative to the train, or from the embankment observer, the man, or the observer, assumes the train speed irelevant, or stated physically, the train speed is zero, 0, in order to obtain Vmt. All measurements are from the embankment.

When measuring the SOL, however, we must subtract out the speed of the train in order to conform to the postulate that the SOL is independent wrt the speed of the source if the light.
This is especially true as Einstein made a direct substitition of SOL for SOMan!

But the expression is not incorrect. Vle - Vte = Vlt states that the speed of light wrt to the train is Vlt < c. [/quote]

This Vlt was measured from the embankment, with respect to the embankment. In Relativity, Einstein states that the speed of light should be measured the same whether the reference is the embankment or the train (using the equivalence of physical law having the same form in all inertial frames). By his stating that Vlt < c violates some postulate he should have used an expression that developed the Vlt < c expression starting from the train as the frame of reference for the measurements, which he never does, ever - NEVER.

I understand all of it. The Vlt is a measurment made from the embankment not form the train. What don't you understand about it?

Vlt, the speed of light with respect to the train is measured from the embankment. It seems that you have the problem in understanding. :shrug:​