Arguing Einstein

[EWright]

I'm continuing this discussion in this new thread in hopes of generating more input on this specific topic. What follows in this first post is the discussion so far as it evolved in the 'Time Dialation' post. For this reason, this initial post will appear rather long, so skip it if you're already familiar with the discussion... or read or skim through to gain an understanding of the argument at hand. I am not creating a new post to say or prove that "I am right"... the intent is to ask if others might share my "view" on this subject, or to invite more convincing explanations so that I can better understand where I am in error.

 

Past discussion (skip this if familiar with it):

 

Originally Posted by Erasmus00I think this is a very common misconception about science. There is no hard and fast rule as to when a theory becomes a law. Consider the laws of thermodynamics, and the theory of statistical mechanics are two different names for the same subject. Relativity has just as much experimental support as any of the laws of physics.-Will

[/Quote]

 

That's OK, I think SR is a very common misconception about science too.

[/Quote]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EWrightThat's OK, I think SR is a very common misconception about science too.

 

 

 

If SR is wrong, then falsify it for me. Demonstrate some conclusion it makes that experiment doesn't support, or show why one of the two postulates doesn't hold. But you keep making this claim, and you are yet to support it with anything.

-Will

[/Quote]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erasmus00If SR is wrong, then falsify it for me. Demonstrate some conclusion it makes that experiment doesn't support, or show why one of the two postulates doesn't hold. But you keep making this claim, and you are yet to support it with anything. -Will

 

 

Relativity, p. 31.

 

"...the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time."

 

FALSE.

[/Quote]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EWrightRelativity, p. 31."...the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time."FALSE.

 

 

Allow me to take the entire bit of the passage you have quoted. My edition is likely different then yours, but I found a similar quote from Section 6:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EinsteinLet us suppose our old friend the railway carriage to be travelling along the rails with a constant velocity v, and that a man traverses the length of the carriage in the direction of travel with a velocity w. How quickly, or, in other words, with what velocity W does the man advance relative to the embankment during the process? The only possible answer seems to result from the following consideration: If the man were to stand still for a second, he would advance relative to the embankment through a distance v equal numerically to the velocity of the carriage. As a consequence of his walking, however, he traverses an additional distance w relative to the carriage, and hence also relative to the embankment, in this second, the distance w being numerically equal to the velocity with which he is walking. Thus in total he covers the distance W = v + w relative to the embankment in the second considered.

 

 

So we see that in the passage you have quoted Einstein is building up Galilean relativity. At the end of this section he points out that we must abandon this consideration. Taking one small fragment out of context is a bit absurd. You haven't falsified anything.

-Will

[/Quote]

 

Hello Erasmus, I suspected I might get such a response from you

 

If you are going to take the entire passage to which I refer, then please site the correct passage.

 

We'll use your mistaken reference, however, to show why the reference I provided is a false statement. Let me first say, that I am very much open to being to being wrong about this and welcome insight into the errors in my logic. After all, I most certainly recognize that Einstein had a better understanding of these factors, which I am still struggling to grasp.

 

First of all, I conquer that the above statement that you quoted is true for the man relative to his position on the train as well as on the embakement. This is not the scenario I was taking issue with. The reference I sited is in section nine. I'll site the paragraph leading into it as well as its entire paragraph:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EinsteinNow before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute signifigance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears.We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section 6, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to thereilway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment.

 

 

The initial, section 6, scenario does NOT mean that the man traverses the distance per unit w per second equally to both the train car he is walking on and the embankment. It clearly states that W = v + w is "relative to the EMBANKMENT" in the second consideration.

 

As the mans velocity relates to the floor of the train W = w. You do not add the man's velocity to the trains velocity relative to the floor he is walking on. Thus, the velocity of the train's motion in this scenario relative to W, is (v+w)-w or just plain old v relative to the fixed embankment.

 

At no point does the man traverse the same distance per second relative to the ground AND the carraige... or "the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time"... relative to the embankment you have to add v... so per second he is covering different distances relative to each.... not the same distance per unit of time. He does PROPEL himself at the same speed relative to each, but he his propolsion is added to by the velocity of the train, relative to the embankment.

 

Assuming there is something fundamentally wrong with my perception of this, please help me to understand.

[/Quote]

 

Quote:

He does PROPEL himself at the same speed relative to each, but he his propolsion is added to by the velocity of the train, relative to the embankment.Assuming there is something fundamentally wrong with my perception of this, please help me to understand.

 

 

That is what Einstein was saying. If he traverses a distance w relative to the train, he also traverses that same distance w relative to the embankment (plus the additional distance v due to the velocity of the train). Given that Einstein is simply restating the relationship he showed in section 6, if you are fine with section 6, you should be fine with the reiteration of it.

 

Also, I personally believe that Einstein is far from the best introduction to relativity out there. I suggest Taylor and Wheeler's excellent book Spacetime Physics, or the last few chapters of Kleppner and Kolenkow's book Introduction to Mechanics. Either can probably found in a good university library.

-Will

[/Quote]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erasmus00That is what Einstein was saying. If he traverses a distance w relative to the train, he also traverses that same distance w relative to the embankment (plus the additional distance v due to the velocity of the train). Given that Einstein is simply restating the relationship he showed in section 6, if you are fine with section 6, you should be fine with the reiteration of it.Also, I personally believe that Einstein is far from the best introduction to relativity out there. I suggest Taylor and Wheeler's excellent book Spacetime Physics, or the last few chapters of Kleppner and Kolenkow's book Introduction to Mechanics. Either can probably found in a good university library. -Will

 

 

No, he specifically states the relationship differently in section nine. I used quotes even! He does NOT include the velocity of the train in the description I initially sited. He specifically says "w", not v+w, is the same for distance traveled relative to the carraige and the embankment. And then his following position is based on this mistaken logic. It's right there in black and white.

 

As for your second suggestion... More books!? I've already given B&N more than $100 in books on this subject in the past month and a half! Let me get through some of these first. Einstein's doesn't seem to hard so far. I'm just getting to the Lorentz Transformation equations and trying to figure out how to rewrite them to correct for their mistakes as well :lol:

[/Quote]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erasmus00The library is your friend. You shouldn't have to purchase books. -Will

[/Quote]

 

The library seems to frown on my using highlighters. Now what about the first part of that last post? Step into the light, my friend... (At least acknowledge you think I *might* be right? )

[/Quote]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EWrightThe library seems to frown on my using highlighters. Now what about the first part of that last post? Step into the light, my friend... (At least acknowledge you think I *might* be right? )

 

No, I don't think you are. Einstein could have simply said "as was noted in section 6" but he does a tiny recap with a poor choice of words.

-Will

[/Quote]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erasmus00No, I don't think you are. Einstein could have simply said "as was noted in section 6" but he does a tiny recap with a poor choice of words.-Will

 

 

Give me a break! Either his argument is flawed or he's sloppy, and I don't believe he is sloppy in his ideas or his expressions of them. Thus, I feel his logic is flawed. I chose this point because you asked for one and it was the most blatant that came to mind. But the fact is, that one flawed argument after another got him to this point in the first place. How many times does he use the argument that *IF* you accept this, than this... or *IF* you dismissed (the perfectly acceptable) notion that this, than we have this... ? I could *IF* my way into a whole bunch of theories *IF* you chose to believe the initial premise I set up and make the results dependant on your acceptance of them.

 

Can anyone else sound off on the interpretation of this argument based on Einstein's own words please?

[/Quote]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EWrightAssuming there is something fundamentally wrong with my perception of this, please help me to understand.

 

EWright, I also think you are being unclear. You need to break down you counterargument a bit...

 

Like Erasmus00 writes, first explains the old views, then he explains relativity, then he explains the implications of relativity. The passage you quoted is about simultaneity and whether v is added to w or not has no implications on anything in that passage. The chapter simply builds up the idea that one event will not be simultaneous for an observer on the train and an observer on the embankment.

 

He states (on p. 31) that the duration it takes for the man to traverse w relative to the carriage in one second (there is your missing addition: v+w), will appear to be different as seen from the embankment.

[/Quote]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EWrightGive me a break! Either his argument is flawed or he's sloppy, and I don't believe he is sloppy in his ideas or his expressions of them. Thus, I feel his logic is flawed. I chose this point because you asked for one and it was the most blatant that came to mind. But the fact is, that one flawed argument after another got him to this point in the first place. How many times does he use the argument that *IF* you accept this, than this... or *IF* you dismissed (the perfectly acceptable) notion that this, than we have this... ? I could *IF* my way into a whole bunch of theories *IF* you chose to believe the initial premise I set up and make the results dependant on your acceptance of them.

 

This is actually the way scientific papers are written..."Consider X. Now, if Y, then bla bla". So when Einstein wrote the "Relativity" *book*, he head learned a bit more about scientific publishing than he had when he published his original papers on special relativity 11 years before.

 

Don't forget that the book you're reading is supposed to present the theory to laypeople. It has to be simple and clear (which I admit it isn't), but the *if*'s are not something which should trouble you.

 

At any rate, what you have pointed out in your previous post does not constitute a counterargument to me. You have pointed out something you think is an inconsistency, but I fail to see that inconsistency.

[/Quote]

 

Time is way too hard a concept for us to comprehend

[/Quote]

 

Thank you for your input Tormod. I will sleep on this, as my mind is very weary from being stretched with trying to relate my ideas to these all day. The passage still feels like an inconsistancy to me, but I am tired and will examine it further tomorrow. This is not at the heart of my theory, it is simply a POV that doesn't seem to fit with my thinking, and I need to read it again to see if I see the context that you mentioned. But trying to relate the main idea of my theory to what he is saying is very mind-bending at times . Obviously I realize I have to account for any of the situations he might suggest within a working framework of my own, and that will prove challenging (if possible at all). Try to be around throughout the day tomorrow guys; I eagerly await your inputs! (ie, cancel all plans, dates, callin in sick, stay up all night if ur in Norway, etc. )

 

To be continued...

[/Quote]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EWrightAt no point does the man traverse the same distance per second relative to the ground AND the carraige

 

 

Yes he does. Because he is on the train, W=v+w, as Einstein points out. The motion of the man is actually not the important thing. What is important is that in galilean physics the velocities are added without regard to any limits. Thus, in galilean physics, If the man had been walking on the ground, his distance covered would be the same distance minus the distance covered by the train. In chapter six this is what is being covered.

Quote:

... or "the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time"... relative to the embankment you have to add v

 

 

I think you are missing the point here. Since the walker is on the train, his motion is seen differently from inside the train (which moves at v), and from the embankment.

 

So if he covers stretch A-B in one second, it will look differently from the embankment. And this is where special relativity differs from galilean relativity.

Quote:

... so per second he is covering different distances relative to each.... not the same distance per unit of time. He does PROPEL himself at the same speed relative to each, but he[re?] his propolsion is added to by the velocity of the train, relative to the embankment.

 

 

The walker's speed is never added relative to the embankment, it is added relative to the train he moves in. The sum of this is perceived similarly from inside the train and from the embankment according to galilean physics, and differently according to relativity.

Quote:

Assuming there is something fundamentally wrong with my perception of this, please help me to understand.

 

 

I think you are just hung up on the wrong issues, EWright. There is nothing wrong in Section six.

 

Keep posting as you read, though. However, be careful to falsify things without evidence, and especially when things are taken out of context! (I spent 60 minutes trying to figure out what you were talking about).

[/Quote]

[EWright]

At no point does the man traverse the same distance per second relative to the ground AND the carraige.[/Quote]

 

 

Yes he does. Because he is on the train, W=v+w, as Einstein points out. The motion of the man is actually not the important thing. What is important is that in galilean physics the velocities are added without regard to any limits. Thus, in galilean physics, If the man had been walking on the ground, his distance covered would be the same distance minus the distance covered by the train. In chapter six this is what is being covered.

Quote:

... or "the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time"... relative to the embankment you have to add v

 

 

I think you are missing the point here. Since the walker is on the train, his motion is seen differently from inside the train (which moves at v), and from the embankment.

 

So if he covers stretch A-B in one second, it will look differently from the embankment. And this is where special relativity differs from galilean relativity.

Quote:

... so per second he is covering different distances relative to each.... not the same distance per unit of time. He does PROPEL himself at the same speed relative to each, but he[re?] his propolsion is added to by the velocity of the train, relative to the embankment.

 

 

The walker's speed is never added relative to the embankment, it is added relative to the train he moves in. The sum of this is perceived similarly from inside the train and from the embankment according to galilean physics, and differently according to relativity.

Quote:

Assuming there is something fundamentally wrong with my perception of this, please help me to understand.

 

 

I think you are just hung up on the wrong issues, EWright. There is nothing wrong in Section six.

 

Keep posting as you read, though. However, be careful to falsify things without evidence, and especially when things are taken out of context! (I spent 60 minutes trying to figure out what you were talking about).

[/Quote]

 

:eek: You might need to spend another 60 minutes Tormod. :lol:

 

Einstein SPECIFICALLY applies the forumula you quoted to the EMBANKMENT and NOT the train.

 

Thus in total he covers the distance W = v+w relative to the embankment in the second consideration.[/Quote]

 

Furthermore, you and Eramus00 are contradicting each other.

 

Erasmus00 agreed with my point about the man propelling himself with the same speed relative to the ground and the train (saying Einstein chose poor wording); but you dispute it. Which is right and why?

 

Also, I have no problem with any wording or situations in section six. It is the reference I initially quoted in section nine as it relates to section six, that I take issue with.

[CraigD]

Ugh, EWright! This debate is beginning to feel un-fun to me!

 

Rather than examining the literature of Relativity for various kinds of flaws, I recommend you take the approach of designing (or finding an existing design of) an experiment that could produce results failing to match those predicted by Relativity. Proposing an alternate theory that predicts the results makes such an experiment even more interesting.

[EWright]

Ugh, EWright! This debate is beginning to feel un-fun to me!

 

Rather than examining the literature of Relativity for various kinds of flaws, I recommend you take the approach of designing (or finding an existing design of) an experiment that could produce results failing to match those predicted by Relativity. Proposing an alternate theory that predicts the results makes such an experiment even more interesting.

 

If you have a little physics/calculus application that I can patch or program into my brain, I can do this. I have the concept down; I just need to figure out how to express it correctly. I am also well aware that it may be fully incorrect, and so I'm trying to understand it better. I am also trying to understand where I might be mistaken in my interpretations of relativity, and that is where this thread comes in.

 

With all due respect, if it has become 'unfun' for you, there are many other threads to partake in. I moved this from another thread so that we can deal with this one issue at nausea, if need be. Certainly coming to an understanding of these issues is an ongoing PROCESS, not an instantaneous event. I have not heard arguments sufficient to even remotely convincing me that I am in the wrong. I am striving to prove myself wrong here, before opening up my larger theories to being disproved by others. And hopefully in the mean time, I can gain a better understanding of the factors involved and thereby express my own ideas more thoroughly.

[Erasmus00]

I have no desire to continue to argue the semantics of one particular book on relativity. There are hundreds, if you don't like that book find a better one. I stand by what I said, Einstein could simply have referenced section 6 without changing his argument in the slightest.

-Will

[EWright]

I have no desire to continue to argue the semantics of one particular book on relativity. There are hundreds, if you don't like that book find a better one. I stand by what I said, Einstein could simply have referenced section 6 without changing his argument in the slightest.

-Will

 

How very scientific of you. You invited this subject when you asked me to demonstrate an issue that I disagreed with, rather than continue to state that I disagree. Other's have suggested going to the "source", i.e. Einstein, rather than referencing popularized science texts such as those by Greene. So skip the semantics and show me what you are saying with just the variables presented through chapter 9 of this book.

 

I am open to pointing out other errors in Einstein's logic, if you are interested in discussing them. I can also apply the same arguments to other physics texts. But we'll still be arguing semantics, as you say. If you are unable to communicate outside of the formulas that relativity has provided you, than just say so.

[Tormod]

Furthermore, you and Eramus00 are contradicting each other.

 

Erasmus00 agreed with my point about the man propelling himself with the same speed relative to the ground and the train (saying Einstein chose poor wording); but you dispute it. Which is right and why?

 

I don't dispute it. I simply pointed out that where you imply that Einstein does not include v, he does indeed do so in his writing. So we are all correct. I agreed with what Einstein had wrote, and what Erasmus00 wrote.

 

I wrote:

 

That is what Einstein was saying. If he traverses a distance w relative to the train, he also traverses that same distance w relative to the embankment (plus the additional distance v due to the velocity of the train).

[EWright]

He states (on p. 31) that the duration it takes for the man to traverse w relative to the carriage in one second (there is your missing addition: v+w), will appear to be different as seen from the embankment.

 

Curious, are you paraphrasing, translating, or quoting the text? I'm only *curious* (not debating the meaning) because mine is stated slightly differently as "Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travles the distace w relative to the reilway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment."

 

I do however, remain in disagreement about whether it is intended that v is included in his walking relative to the train car. When you compare the motion of something relative to something else, that something else is assumed to be stationary relative to the motion being referenced (his walking).

 

In section 6 he explicity stats that if the man stands still his motion is *equal* to v. Thus, he already *has* v relative to the embankment, and v can never be *added* relative to the carraige. Relative to the carraige he can only move with an added speed of w. So when he says "relative to the carraige" he is NOT adding velocity, he is dismissing it as it relates to the embankment.

 

Section 6 deals with the addition of velocities and does so with no conflicts that I can see. Section 9 deals with 'problems' of simultaneity. If you include the v of the car as you suggest, then there is no conflict because you can logically deduct this variable and thus you will realize that the events are simultaneous. But by allowing travel time to obscure the observation relative to the embankment (ie, by not correcting for it), you then have a conflict and Einstein has taken you one step further towards accepting measurements based on the speed of light (ie, information delay of light speed).

 

Erasmus00, get back in here and sound off because I'm going to advance this a step further.

 

Lets back this train up to the beginning of section 9 (p. 29). Einstein compares the simultaneity of a lightning strike at two points on the railway. He then builds a flawed argument that draws you, again a step closer, to accepting SR and the light speed foundations that it is built upon. He does so by convincing you that the lightning strike is not simultaneous relative to both the observer on the embankment and the passengers on the train. This is not true. The event most certainly IS simultaneous. The two strikes only happened once and by definition at the same time, they did not strike once for the observer on the embankment and then again for the passengers on the train. The FALSE statement is this:

 

Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B [in the direction of their movement] took place earlier than the lightning flash A.[/Quote] He then goes on to say, "Thus we arrive at this important result", indicating that the result will be based on this false statement. And these then add up to SR.

 

The FACT of the matter is that the events were simultaneous. Period. What he is describing is that the OBSERVATIONS vary, not the simultanaity of what took place! If the people on the train are educated, they know they are in motion. If they know the speed of light, they know how long it took the light to reach them relative to their position and motion. They will then realize they only perceive lightning flash B earlier than A because of their velocity in its direction. Knowing their velocity they can then subtract it from the equation relative to the time they saw the lightning flashes, and realize that at the time of the flashes they were situated precisely centered between the two and that they were therefore simultaneous. Einstein does NOT include this consideration in his explanation.

[UncleAl]

100 years of testing Special and General Relativity demonstrate that all predictions at all scales in all venues are exact within experimental error.

'Time Dilation'

including time dilation as in GPS and the Hafele-Keating experiment,

 

http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf

http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm

http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html

http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm

http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1

http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf

http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012

Hafele-Keating experiment

 

http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html

http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp

Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries

[Tormod]

Curious, are you paraphrasing, translating, or quoting the text?

 

Paraphrasing. I still don't see the issue. I read it like this: Relative to the carriage implies that regardless of v, w will be seen as the same from inside the train and from the embankment (according to classical physics).

 

This IS becoming a boring semantic issue, EW. Let's just forget that part. It is not important at all.

 

The FACT of the matter is that the events were simultaneous. Period. What he is describing is that the OBSERVATIONS vary, not the simultanaity of what took place!

 

Be careful with what you state as FACT (and it would help to be a bit more humble here, EW. You are coming forth as a bit arrogant, which I am 100% sure is not your intention).

 

What Einstein says is that relativity predicts that there is no way to prove that those lightning strikes happened at the same time. The observer at M (ie, the exact mid-point between the flashes for those who are not reading the book) sees the two flashes and say they were simultaneous, while the observer moving towards one of the flashes sees that first, then the second.

 

Einstein's point, if I am reading this correctly, is that this proves that light does not have infinite speed, and that this limit means that information about simultaneity will never be the same for observers in different frames of motion. That's all.

[EWright]

100 years of testing Special and General Relativity demonstrate that all predictions at all scales in all venues are exact within experimental error.

 

including time dilation as in GPS and the Hafele-Keating experiment,

 

I'm sorry Uncle Al, I haven't gotten to full anti-relativity argument yet. We're still focusing on the mistaken perceptions that lead to it's "logical" (if you accept the perceptions as not correct) conclusion. I believe I read a post by you encouraging a newcomer to the subject to question what they are being taught. There's more to science than hyperlinks and Tinkerbell's butt, Unc.

 

EW

[EWright]

Paraphrasing. I still don't see the issue. I read it like this: Relative to the carriage implies that regardless of v, w will be seen as the same from inside the train and from the embankment (according to classical physics).

 

This IS becoming a boring semantic issue, EW. Let's just forget that part. It is not important at all.

[/Quote]

Sorry to bore you. If you don't want to open your mind, then so be it. I do not see how any perception would make w the same in regards to the carraige and the embankment. Even in section six (ie, classical POV) he indicates the difference by adding the velocity of the train and the man walking to get W.

 

I honestly feel there is a close-minded refusal to even attempt to look beyond the implications as stated by Einstein.

 

Be careful with what you state as FACT (and it would help to be a bit more humble here, EW. You are coming forth as a bit arrogant, which I am 100% sure is not your intention).

[/Quote]

My frustration is likely what you are perceiving.

 

What Einstein says is that relativity predicts that there is no way to prove that those lightning strikes happened at the same time. The observer at M (ie, the exact mid-point between the flashes for those who are not reading the book) sees the two flashes and say they were simultaneous, while the observer moving towards one of the flashes sees that first, then the second.

 

Einstein's point, if I am reading this correctly, is that this proves that light does not have infinite speed, and that this limit means that information about simultaneity will never be the same for observers in different frames of motion. That's all.

 

Physically, it can not be proved because you can not move between two points intantaneously to conduct the measurements 'in person' at all points. However, what I said can be seen simply or expressed in a formula simply by deducting the velocity of the train from the equation. This seems factual to me. Section 9 has nothing to do with proving that light does not have infinite speed, as the speed has previously been determined and thus was not in question. It has to do with whether the events are simultaneous... and with leading you to believe that they can not be, which in turn gives added strength to the argument for SR.

 

As for a boring semantic issue, I am at a loss as to how to then defend (or further, or dismiss) my position as it relates to these issues, when I don't feel that you are directly addressing the situation that I am presenting you with.

[Tormod]

If you don't want to open your mind, then so be it.

 

Have a good one. My mind is closed and I have no further thoughts. I'll go sing a song instead. This website is now officially my braindead child. :lol:

[EWright]

They ask and then they won't discuss it with any degree of depth. So be it. No point in expanding on concepts when minds are already made up.

[UncleAl]

I haven't gotten to full anti-relativity argument yet

You are empirically wrong. That is as wrong as anything can be wrong. The universe is not Galilean, Newtonian, or linear. Get over it. At least squawk about quantum mechanics that is not rigorously derived from fundamental mathematics. General Relativity is unassailable unless you can counterdemonstrate a founding postulate. Special Relativity is a subset witth G=0. It is pure geometry. It contains no errors.

 

Ignorance is educable. If you will not read the refereed technical literature then you are ineducably stupid. Further discussion would then be administering medicine to the dead. Listen up git - it works. It works without exception. It works without exception to the extreme limits of experimental uncertainity from particle phsyics to cosmology. Unless you can furnish different theory that is at least equally powerful, you are a crackpot.

 

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/articles/newsci1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_dragging

 

Uncle Al's money is on Gravity Probe B's results being perfectly consistent with General Relativity's predictions, geodetic effect and Lens-Thirring frame dragging.

[EWright]

You are empirically wrong. That is as wrong as anything can be wrong. The universe is not Galilean, Newtonian, or linear. Get over it. At least squawk about quantum mechanics that is not rigorously derived from fundamental mathematics. General Relativity is unassailable unless you can counterdemonstrate a founding postulate. Special Relativity is a subset witth G=0. It is pure geometry. It contains no errors.

 

Ignorance is educable. If you will not read the refereed technical literature then you are ineducably stupid. Further discussion would then be administering medicine to the dead. Listen up git - it works. It works without exception. It works without exception to the extreme limits of experimental uncertainity from particle phsyics to cosmology. Unless you can furnish different theory that is at least equally powerful, you are a crackpot.

 

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/articles/newsci1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_dragging

 

Uncle Al's money is on Gravity Probe B's results being perfectly consistent with General Relativity's predictions, geodetic effect and Lens-Thirring frame dragging.

 

I have stated more than once that relativity is an exact measuring device. Pull your head out of your butt and read my posts before expressing something to the contrary. My position is that there is another way of looking at the same phenomena that is equally as accurate. Perhaps (though I do not exactly conceive of how) it will help to bridge some gaps between relativity and theories such as quantum mechanics. Until you have conceived a GUT you are as ignorant as the rest of us relative to the grand workings of the universe.

 

I have my postulate, UA. I have conceived the idea that will shed new light on several aspects of physics. Once they have been refereed and published, I will be happy to spoon feed them to you, or provide a hyperlink to the publication for your collection.

 

The issues I presented in regards to Einsteins book are a separate issue. If you believe in relativity as strongly as you profess, then discuss them with me. I have opened myself up to scrutiny, debate and falsification by laying my views out there for all to see, accept or ridicule. You, however, provide me with links to things others have said. Set aside your links and discuss the issues at hand with me. I am reading more than I can consume at the moment, so the links are of little relevance to me. I'd like to get away from reading here and have an ongoing DISCUSSION with people who can play devil's advacate.... who could be better suited for that than you, UA?

[Tormod]

I have stated more than once that relativity is an exact measuring device. Pull your head out of your butt and read my posts before expressing something to the contrary.

 

*sigh* I had hoped for better from you, EW. You are in violation of our rules with this kind of comments. Please watch it. You can't force people to discuss, least of all by your own rules.

 

My position is that there is another way of looking at the same phenomena that is equally as accurate.

 

Then publish it, or, as I have said before, stop wasting our time by pestering us with your arrogant posts. I thought you wanted to discuss interesting things - but you only want to argue and nitpick about words and phrases.

 

Until you have conceived a GUT you are as ignorant as the rest of us relative to the grand workings of the universe.

 

1) You have no basis to judge the level of UA's or my ignorance

2) This is like saying "until you have built a car you can't possibly understand it".

 

I have opened myself up to scrutiny, debate and falsification by laying my views out there for all to see, accept or ridicule.

 

No you have not. You have come forth with an argument about one of Einstein's books, in which you claim to have found an inconsistency (which the others who have participated are not seeing). Find something more interesting than that and you may find that people are interested in discussing with you.