Experiment That Proved Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity To Be Wrong

[logicman]

A video with such title is on YouTube

 

What you think about all this?

[Vmedvil2]

6 hours ago, logicman said:

A video with such title is on YouTube

 

What you think about all this?

Not another relativity crank.

[logicman]

49 minutes ago, VictorMedvil said:

Not another relativity crank.

I see you watched the video with understanding.

[Vmedvil2]

5 hours ago, logicman said:

I see you watched the video with understanding.

There is one big reason why this video is rubbish.

The cart was not actually traveling at the speed of light or near it thus the dilation delay would have been a few nanoseconds if that, the experimental tolerance of a few nanoseconds could be seen by most people as the same time because the human brain cannot even register that amount of time, he is lacking proper instruments to test something like this.

Edited January 6, 2022 by VictorMedvil

[logicman]

12 hours ago, VictorMedvil said:

There is one big reason why this video is rubbish.

The cart was not actually traveling at the speed of light or near it thus the dilation delay would have been a few nanoseconds if that, the experimental tolerance of a few nanoseconds could be seen by most people as the same time because the human brain cannot even register that amount of time, he is lacking proper instruments to test something like this.

The train may be replaced by a rocket flying at at a speed close to the speed of light. and there is a train, because this is a reference to Einstein's thought experiment, the so-called Einstein's train, and that thought experiment presented in the video. So it's not about the vehicle and its speed, it's about illustrating the mechanism of action. And even my she-goat knows it. and you don't know. I wonder why?

[Vmedvil2]

12 hours ago, logicman said:

The train may be replaced by a rocket flying at at a speed close to the speed of light. and there is a train, because this is a reference to Einstein's thought experiment, the so-called Einstein's train, and that thought experiment presented in the video. So it's not about the vehicle and its speed, it's about illustrating the mechanism of action. And even my she-goat knows it. and you don't know. I wonder why?

Just a thought experiment proves nothing, you would actually have to do the experiment in reality to say this was evidence against relativity. There are countless experiments and observations that prove general and special relativity correct having a single thought experiment that we cannot verify the results of proves literally nothing about how the universe works and certainly won't overturn modern physics.

Experiments that prove relativity:

Link1= http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html

Link2 = https://galileoandeinstein.phys.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html

Link3 = https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Kennedy–Thorndike_experiment.html

Link4 = https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2020.0040

Link5= https://www.science.org/content/article/after-botched-launch-orbiting-atomic-clocks-confirm-einsteins-theory-relativity

And there are more that is just a few examples.

Edited January 7, 2022 by VictorMedvil

[Logicandreason]

I believe that its impossible to claim that Einstein's 1905 paper is rational. There is at least one very obvious error, that seems to be an intentional deception, (hard to conclude that its not) which disqualifies the whole paper as being a work of scientific merit, worth even consideration by intelligent reviewers.  But it was accepted, and I would like to know why they missed this error. Any takers? The usual handful of Einstein guardians of course, but anyone else? The claims that there are valid experimental evidences is irrelevant if the hypothesis is only based on errors of logic. No experiment can actually support an erroneous hypothesis. SO any experiments must be either a mistake or fraud. Again, not many other options here. This topic has to be in the "Strange Claims" section, not because its a strange claim, but because of censorship of any ideas that are not approved by the self appointed custodians of all truth.  If you are offended by my comments or manner, then I suggest to shoot me down in flames with your superior knowledge. But deleting me is an act that could be considered as not wanting to confront anything that might disprove your existing beliefs. This would not be the Scientific method, which is willing to explore ideas no matter in which direction it might lead.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Logicandreason
rephrase

[Halc]

On 1/6/2022 at 10:20 AM, logicman said:

I see you watched the video with understanding.

I know the post is 17 months old.

The video is rubbish because the clocks on the cart were never synced in the cart frame, and yet the narration seems to assume that they are.  So relative to the moving observers, the clocks read different times when the light reaches them.  Had they been synced relative to the cart frame, they'd have read the same time (by definition) relative to the cart frame.

In fact, after the cart is accelerated, the clocks in the cart are no longer in sync even in the platform frame.

I didn't get the logic behind the final sling-shot thingy. I don't see how anybody would see the two shots hit the wall simultaneously.

2 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

I believe that its impossible to claim that Einstein's 1905 paper is rational.

And yet another crank.

2 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Any takers? The usual handful of Einstein guardians of course, but anyone else?

You mean, you're looking for somebody who sufficiently doesn't know the theory that you can snowball him. Wonderful that you exclude the educated crowd. I will admit that there are what you call 'guardians', those who defend the theory without knowing it.

2 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

No experiment can actually support an erroneous hypothesis.

Non-sequitur. There are for instance valid theories that reject both of Einstein's premises of SR. That theory and Einstein's can't both be true, but experiments support both. They both predict the exact same observations. Therefore those experiments support at least one theory that is erroneous, even if we can't tell which one.

 

You say this: 

2 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

There is at least one very obvious error

but you never pointed any out, so there's nothing to go on. Just a rant that demonstrates your intentions, but no meat.  What's this error in special relativity? SR is pretty easy to understand, requiring maybe high-school background. GR constitutes a post-graduate course with a prerequisite of an awful lot of mathematics.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Halc

[Logicandreason]

42 minutes ago, Halc said:

And yet another crank.

You mean, you're looking for somebody who sufficiently doesn't know the theory that you can snowball him. Wonderful that you exclude the educated crowd. I will admit that there are what you call 'guardians', those who defend the theory without knowing it.

Non-sequitur. There are for instance valid theories that reject both of Einstein's premises of SR. That theory and Einstein's can't both be true, but experiments support both. They both predict the exact same observations. Therefore those experiments support at least one theory that is erroneous, even if we can't tell which one.

You say this: 

but you never pointed any out, so there's nothing to go on. Just a rant that demonstrates your intentions, but no meat.  What's this error in special relativity? SR is pretty easy to understand, requiring maybe high-school background. GR constitutes a post-graduate course with a prerequisite of an awful lot of mathematics.

Thanks Halc for trying to say something intelligent, but sorry to tell you that I will decline to discuss this with you, as I prefer to wait till someone with a clear analytical mind comes along. Someone who is able to discuss this matter intelligently. You lost your opportunity with your first Paragraph, revealing your level, which is not going to be good enough I'm afraid.

[OceanBreeze]

4 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Thanks Halc for trying to say something intelligent, but sorry to tell you that I will decline to discuss this with you, as I prefer to wait till someone with a clear analytical mind comes along. Someone who is able to discuss this matter intelligently. You lost your opportunity with your first Paragraph, revealing your level, which is not going to be good enough I'm afraid.

How can you expect to have an intelligent discussion when you have not even explicitly explained your claim that there is an error in Einstein’s 1905 paper?

Don’t worry about me “deleting” you. In fact, I insist that you stay at least long enough to explain this “obvious” error in SR that you have found.

A complete explanation, backed up by a mathematical analysis, would be much appreciated.

[Logicandreason]

4 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

How can you expect to have an intelligent discussion when you have not even explicitly explained your claim that there is an error in Einstein’s 1905 paper?

 

Don’t worry about me “deleting” you. In fact, I insist that you stay at least long enough to explain this “obvious” error in SR that you have found.

 

A complete explanation, backed up by a mathematical analysis, would be much appreciated.

 

I expect that people here will not jump to insults as their first response to my statements. Do you know on ANY scientific information that has been written in just one Paragraph?  No introduction?  No background development?  No, Einstein wrote his paper of 1905 and began with a preamble that set the scene and conditions in a way that allowed him to make his claims in context.  Please allow me the same latitude.

As far as deleting anything I say, now or later, this scientific censorship that ought to be unnecessary. If I make statements that are incorrect, they will become self evident. But even so, there is still the chance that something I say, although it may be generally wrong in your opinion, something I mention my very well trigger a line of enquiry with some other individual that may lead to a better understanding of Science.  You cant decide that here unless you are unscientific.  

Now as I will discuss Physics principals or rather, simply apply known accepted Principals of Physics, offering nothing new, I wont be needing to examine the application of Mathematics as I'm not trying to calculate any measured results of any experiment.  I also believe that the correct Mathematical Equations already exist and are commonly known.

As you well know, the application of Math can be done in a way to fit almost any hypothesis, which is demonstrated by the fact that many opposing hypothesizes on any specific subject, all provide Math "proofs", yet they are all making wildly different claims. So clearly Math alone is incapable of being the determining factor indicating correctness in a claim about the nature of Physics processes. Next post Ill start unpacking my reason for rejecting SR.

[Logicandreason]

What are Einstein's 2 Postulates?   1/ Kinematics Laws and other Laws of Physics, Electrical, Optical etc, are going to be applicable whether you are standing still or moving with constancy of velocity.   This hardy needed to even be a postulate because no Physicists thought otherwise at the time. (Unless you can cite a paper of one of his peers that says otherwise)

That's the sum total of the 1st postulate. An unnecessary postulate, Einstein could simply have reminded his peers that had poor memories that this was how inertial velocity works.  But he made it a "Postulate" for a reason, which I believe was to actually play word games and trick his peers into a trap of rhetoric which has nothing to do with Physics. If he did this deliberately or it was just him fooling himself is a question that I can't answer.

The problem only becomes evident well into the Paper, but first we need to unpack the 2nd Postulate.  Which is, Quote "that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."   

This is a claim about Light speed being CONSTANT, it neither accelerates or decelerates, and is moving in a straight trajectory. (if it were not then it would not be constant.) So by inference, Light also  possesses a constancy of VECTOR because velocity is speed and direction.

He also states what was already believed by many, that Light speed is not influenced by the motion of the source.  And further that light speed was not related to any medium, because none could be found. (unlike sound waves needing water or air, Light propagates in a total vacuum) 

So far so good, nothing to complain about here.   The actual sped of Light, has been given a Variable, the label "c".  Einstein doesn't claim at this point that "c" will be a "CONSTANT" , he just refers to it a "definite velocity c". Well, duh, of course it has some determinable velocity. What's the point?

So my first question is this:   Is the state of possessing "Constant VELOCITY", IDENTICAL to a specific "MEASURED VELOCITY"?  Or in other words, can I claim for instance, that "Constancy of velocity"  is interchangeable with  the words, "60 MPH"?   In Math and in Physics and logically, rationally, If my car is showing 60 on the radar, and doesn't change, I'm both moving at 60 AND I'm also moving with constant velocity. But 60mph is expresses as a algebraic term, "s", then s is not a CONSTANT, its a Variable.  Because in Physics, as noted by Einstein in his agreement with Classical Physics, measured speed of an object is relative.  In other words, the radar has me moving at 60, with constancy, BUT another vehicle also moving has a reading on his radar that show I have a CONSTANT velocity of only 30.  Because MEASURED SPEED IS ALWAYS RELATIVE.

BOTH observers see that I am moving with a CONSTANT VELOCITY, yet both have different measured values, and both are correct, BECAUSE they have motion relative to each other. This is Classical Physics, and Einstein agrees with this. If the want to compare measurements, they have to take into consideration their own relative velocities

So the only possible answer to my question must be, "Constancy of velocity" is NOT able to be equated or exchanged with a MEASURED VELOCITY.  

In other words, "c" can never be a "Constant" it can only ever be a "determined or measured velocity" a VARIABLE, dependant on the RELATIVE velocity of the object and the ORIGIN of the measurement.  

The ORIGIN of the "determined measurement of the speed of Light", is NOT the Light Source, AND its NOT any MEDIUM, as Einstein correctly pointed out. 

But it HAS to be a DETERMINED LOCATION.  It can not be "anywhere and everywhere". (any inertial frame and every inertial frame)

And that Origin can only be the location where the observer is taking his measurements from. And his origin may be moving with different velocity to any other observer, thus the subjective measure of ANY velocity of a single object, (light) "c" can only therefore be a different recorded value according to the well known equation c = V1 + or minus V2.  

When Einstein set "c" as a constant, and not a variable, he did this by a trick of rhetoric, not science.  Light does have CONSTANCY if motion, but such constancy is not interchangeable directly with any MEASURED VALUE, such as 298 million meters a second. 

"All measured values must posses reference to the origin of the measurement." This is a LAW OF PHYSICS, so obvious that no one bothered to write it down.

I have no idea where you are right now, but if I say to you, "at exactly 300 meters in the north direction is a gold coin".  The 300 is constant, North is constant.  Now go find that coin.  

You can never find it because the MEASURED VALUE HAS NO REFERENCE ORIGIN.  the 300 meters is without meaning, exactly as the 300 million meters of light speed has NO MEANING because it lacks context, there is NO ORIGIN supplied for context, from which that 300 million measure was obtained.

So Einstein half way thought his paper went from rational to irrational when he swapped over from Light speed being consistent, to "light speed being consistently a fixed measured value" without any measurement origin information supplied.  This is the error right there.

I repeat, show me on a map, exactly where 300 meters north is located, when you do not possess the starting position.  ANY MEASURE DEMAND BOTH A START AND AN END CONDITION.  Where is the start for that 300 million measure of light speed?  And the instant you stipulate where you were located when you got 300 on your light speed measuring device, than that location is forever associated with that measure, and no other locations are applicable, (unless they are fixed in relation to you)

And the instant you have an origin for your measurement, you destroy Einstein's Relativity theory totally. Because with an origin, the math is obviously c = v1 + or - v2.  This math doesn't lead to paradoxes and is not complex or unintuitive.

So when you claim that Light speed is 300 million, I ask to what location is that determined value related? Because as both Physics and Math and logic show, it can't be the same value for other measures taken from differently moving locations.

 To recap;

CONSTANCY is not interchangeable with a "determined measured value".  10 scientists might get 10 different measured  values for light speed, yet all can still agree that light speed is constant. "Measurements" on the other hand are related to the measurement ORIGINS, which are all different (speeds) and not constant but relative to each other.

Any measured value MUST relate to a specific location. (as locations can have different relative velocities, then the math must take that relative motion into account, according the LAWS OF KINEMATICS. c = v1 + or - v2 depending on direction.

Where is this observation and criticism of Einstein's paper incorrect?

Please confine you replies to the hypothesis as its not time to think about claimed experimental findings. Sort out the validity of the hypothesis first.

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Logicandreason
typos and clarifications

[Halc]

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

This is a claim about Light speed being CONSTANT, it neither accelerates or decelerates, and is moving in a straight trajectory. (if it were not then it would not be constant.) So by inference, Light also  possesses a constancy of VECTOR. 

My car can move at constant speed (relative to say the road) without moving in a straight line. So that doesn't follow. Yes, in Minkowski spacetime, light in a vacuum will go straight. A geodesic in flat spacetime is a straight line. Obviously light can change direction via refraction, reflection, etc, but those are examples of non-empty space.

The velocity of light is not a constant since velocity is a vector and light can 1) move in different directions, and 2) the direction of a particular pulse of light is frame dependent. I don't think you're trying to assert that the theory claims that all light goes in the same direction.

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

So my first question is this:   Is the state of possessing "constant VELOCITY, IDENTICAL to a specific "MEASURED VELOCITY"?  Or in other words, can I claim that "Constancy of velocity"  is interchangeable with  the words, "60 MPH"?   In Math and in Physics and logically, rationally, If my car is showing 60 on the radar, and doesn't change, I'm both moving at 60 AND I'm also moving with constant velocity. But 60mph if expresses as a algebraic term, "s", then s in not a CONSTANT, its a Variable.  Because in Physics, as noted by Einstein in his agreement with Classical Physics, measured speed of an object is relative.  In other words, the radar has me moving at 60, with constancy, BUT another vehicle also moving has a reading on huis radar that show I have a CONSTAT velocity of only 30.  Because MEASURED SPEED IS ALWAYS RELATIVE.

60 MPH is a constant speed. Any other speed isn't 60 MPH. It isn't a constant velocity since 60 MPH isn't a vector. If it was specified as a vector, then it would also be a constant. Einstein posits more than this. 60 MPH is an abstract speed, not something attributed to any object. A real object (a car say) only has speed 60 MPH relative to certain frames of reference. Relative to other frames, the car is not going 60 MPH. But light speed is frame independent. Per the postulate, unlike the car, light goes at that speed in a vacuum relative to any inertial frame.

If the speed of the car is expressed as a variable, that's fine, but if the variable happens to be assigned a different value than 60, then that's also fine. You can assign a different value to c as well in an expression, and it simply would no longer represent the constant value usually assigned to that symbol.

Yes, measured speed is relative, but one cannot put a radar gun on an incoming pulse of light and measure that, especially since the radar gun uses light in the first place. It's using Newtonian physics to measure the Doppler effect of the object in question. It doesn't take relativity into account at all.

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

In other words, "c" can never be a "Constant" it can only ever be a "determined velocity" a VARIABLE, dependant on the RELATIVE velocity of the object and the ORIGIN of the measurement.  

But the postulate says that in the case of light, the speed is independent of the origin of the measurement. This is unlike the car whose speed is frame dependent. It's a postulate that it is a frame independent constant. No proof is offered. There are valid theories which reject this postulate. If you're going to dispute this, then you need to provide an experiment that demonstrates the postulate to be false.

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

And that Origin can only be the location where the observer is taking his measurements from. And his origin may be moving with different velocity to any other observer, thus the subjective measure of ANY velocity of a single object, (light) "c" can only therefore be a different recorded value according to the well known equation c = V1 + or minus V2.  

There can be multiple observers moving relative to each other, yes. They'll all measure c as per the postulates. Again, come up with an experiment that contradicts it if you diagree. The "well known equation c = V1 + or minus V2" presumes a Newtonian postulate that relativity theory does not accept. Use of this is a straw man. Velocities do not add that way under relativity theory.

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

ight does have CONSTANCY if motion, but such constancy is not interchangeable directly with any MEASURED VALUE, such as 298 million meters a second. 

This as well contradicts Einstein's postulates. If you wish to discredit the theory, you can't add postulates of your own. You have to drive the existing ones to contradiction. All you're doing is committing a straw man fallacy.

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

So Einstein half way thought his paper went for rational to irrational when he swapped over from Light speed being consistent, to "light speed being consistently a fixed measured value" without any measurement origin information supplied. 

The postulate is not from a specific reference. It say it holds relative to any valid inertial frame. So per your 300m gold coin analogy, the postulate would be that there is a gold coin 300 meters north of any point anywhere. No specific origin is needed to make a statement like that. It's only needed if there are some locations that don't have a gold coin 300 meters north of them.

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

Because as both Physics and Math and logic show, it cant be the same value for other measures taken from differently moving locations.

Physics and math say no such thing. The entire paper derives what must follow from such postulates, and no inconsistency is reached. Yet again, light speed (in a vacuum and relative to inertial frames) as measured from differently moving locations has never been demonstrated to be a value other than c. Your incredulity at that holds no weight if the resulting mathematics are self-consistent. Your argument seems to be loosely based on your intuitions about how velocities add the Newtonian way, which they don't under relativity.

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

Where is this observation and criticism of Einstein's paper incorrect?

You are assuming several additional premises that relativity theory does not. That seems to be the primary source of your criticism.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Halc

[Logicandreason]

Halc... sorry mate, your just not very good at this type of thinking.  You show this with your very first response, "My car can move at constant speed (relative to say the road) without moving in a straight line. So that doesn't follow. Yes, in Minkowski spacetime"   Well, we are obviously really discussing Light, not cars even though I use a slow easy to visualize car as a metaphor for Light.  And Light is what Einstein is discussing, and all of Einstein's statements and Math about light rely on light having a speed in a direction, a velocity.  Minkowski is not part of Einstein's 1905 paper so why mention it?  I recall requesting to limit the discussion to Einstein's paper.

The remainder of your comments such as , "You can assign a different value to c as well in an expression, and it simply would no longer represent the constant value usually assigned to that symbol."   are nonsensical.  Why or how can you justify that the label "c" representing the CONSTANCY of LIGHTS SPEED, means actually a subjective measurement of that constancy?  You are not making sense. Not making sense is like... non sense.

And again, I first said:"  (Light does have CONSTANCY if motion, but such constancy is not interchangeable directly with any MEASURED VALUE, such as 298 million meters a second.) 

And you replied: "This as well contradicts Einstein's postulates. If you wish to discredit the theory, you can't add postulates of your own. You have to drive the existing ones to contradiction. All you're doing is committing a straw man fallacy."

 

How does my analysis of exactly what Einstein wrote, "making up my own postulates".??  

The simple question is:-  Is "constancy of motion", interchangeable with "a measurement of speed  of that motion"?

The ONLY answer possible that is truthful, is NO.

"Original Einstein's postulate:-  'light speed is constant".     Einstein's later revised postulate:- "a specific MEASURED VALUE and its algebraic label "c" is Constant"

and as I've pointed out, he failed to supply the origin from which this measure was taken. Because to do so, would destroy his theory totally.

Its clear to see in the original text that there are in fact these two distinct postulates. (although the word "constant" appears thorough-out the document. to muddy the waters)

The first version of the Second postulate can never lead to the theory if Special Relativity. Only by discarding the original version, and substituting iot with the new version of the Second Postulate, can the hypothesis be further developed, but now it has become irrational, usually described as "un intuitive".

So Halc, once again, you are not up to the task of criticising my claims. I have only pointed out that there are in fact two fundamentally different 2nd postulates, and only the first is scientifically correct. The second version, breaks "the Laws of Kinematics that hold good in any inertial frame of reference" (a phrase that Einstein himself relied on his paper.)

I clearly have not made up any new postulates.

I said:   "Because as both Physics and Math and logic show, it cant be the same value for other measures taken from differently moving locations."

You replied:

"Physics and math say no such thing."

Well where did you go to school?  Maybe you are a Scientologist. ?  ALL Physics and the associated Math we use daily, say that measurements of an objects speed is exclusively related to the origin of the measurement. And every measurement origin that has relative motion to other origins MUST get a different result, according to the LAWS of KINEMATICS and the related Math. You are apparently very ignorant about Physics and Math to make such statements.

So thanks for the effort Halc, but again, I have to wait for another persons reply who I trust will be able to offer rational comments.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Logicandreason]

Another thought came to me about Halc's reply.  He said:  but light speed is frame independent. Light goes at that speed in a vacuum relative to any inertial frame. It is frame independent, unlike the 60 MPH speed of the car."

Well, where did Einstein get that belief about Light from? Light speed is certainly independent of any "frame" or "observers origin" if you prefer.  But what EXACTLY is it about light SPEED that has this property? (of being independent of the frame of reference)  Well, it can ONLY BE ONE PROPERTY AND NO OTHER.

It is ONLY the Property of light's CONSTANCY of MOTION .   Light doesn't change its motion state because someone looks at it. But its exactly the same with my car or anything that has constancy of motion, looking at it from anywhere wont change the fact.

So its ONLY lights constancy of Motion that we can agree is an acceptable 2nd postulate.

It's actually an irrational statement to make: "Regardless of the speed of the measurer, or even the direction, he will always get 300 million as his measured result for the speed of light. "   This is not a rational statement, and if Einstein had said it that way at the start of his paper as his original 2nd postulate, then no one would have bothered to read any further.

The car is going at 60 from my measure, and its speed, its motion remains identical and unchanged no matter who looks at that car irrespective of his own Frame and its speed. He will still see that car moving with the same constant velocity as I do, but if he measurers it, he wont get 60. (assume that each frame has a different state of motion)

So the "constant speed" of the car is frame INDEPENDANT, exactly like Light. But the MEASUREMENT of that "constant speed" will not be identical from frame to frame.

"Constant speed" doesn't mean 60 mph at a specific direction. "Constant speed" actually only means "constant uniform motion", otherwise known as "Inertial motion".

But contrasting this, we have "MEASUREMENTS of an object that has an inertial motion".  And it impossible for MEASUREMENTS to be CONSTANT of themselves, because all measurements demand the declaration of the ORIGIN of the measurement, sometimes called "origin of the Frame of Reference".

Try to do the math of SR if we remove all references to the Origins of the Frames of Reference, see how far you get.

So simply put, again for the benefit of the particularly slow, " What is the required necessarily SUBJECTIVE Origin for the Measurement value known as the "speed of Light" If you cant specify the origin then you can't claim a measured speed.  The response, "anywhere and everywhere" is nonsensical gibberish. 

How tall is the "Eifel Tower"  .  Well it is always the same height, so its a "constant height tower", and the answer is 6meters.  Eifel tower is always 6 meters for everyone, because the tower is of constant height. Don't bother measuring the tower because you will always get 6 regardless of if you are in a hole in the ground, or in a balloon, your tape measure must read 6meters because the tower is always constant.

This is Einstein's genius logic in action, applied to the Eifel tower.

Now is there anyone other than Halc that has a better grasp of rational thinking that can respond?

 

[Logicandreason]

As I have some free time, I'll put my argument another way. 

I can make two postulates and than PROVE that Time and Distances become zero if you move at light speed, because light speed in my postulate is actually INSTANT.

The first postulate is the same as Einstein's.

My second Postulate is the same as Einstein's  second version of his second postulate, but instead of 300 million meters per second (c)  I'll claim that the measured speed of light is instant, and measured as instant in any inertial frame.

To make the Math equations balance all I have to do is force the normally fixed fundamental units of Time and Distance to shrink to zero when light speed is instant, and it all works out perfectly.  I can easily do this with a suitably derived Equation.  Maths perfection, thus I'm right.   If light is instant speed, then if t=0 and distance = 0 we see that light can cover zero distance in zero time elapsed. "c" is not 300 million, its really Instant.

This is exactly what Einstein does. Destroy the essential to Science, fundamental concepts of a stable distance, lengths Universe, with one that is like silly putty, able to shrink and expand willy-nilly. And only because some one was looking at something that moved past him very fast. Of course that's perfectly reasonable, why did not I see it before? And the essential foundational standard of the concept of constancy of the passing of Time, well that's also tossed out  the door. Same with the traditional concept of Physics that a Brick is the same brick for all of us, no, now it can change Mass and dimensions simply be flying past the window and do it in some alternative Time universe. I ought to be more careful when driving to the shop, Don't want to shrink, (but only in one direction) or grow more massive or end up doing it tomorrow when my wife needed the butter today. (I have a fast car, so this is the certain outcome, not speculation, according to Einstein and accepted by faith by you. .  And you guys have the gall to call me a crank?

[Halc]

11 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

"Original Einstein's postulate:-  'light speed is constant".     Einstein's later revised postulate:- "a specific MEASURED VALUE and its algebraic label "c" is Constant"

The former is more of a metaphysical statement, and is the wording in the 1905 paper. The latter is an empirical wording, a more scientific statement. You can't 'disprove' one without disproving the other, so they're effectively the same thing from a scientific standpoint.

 

11 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

and as I've pointed out, he failed to supply the origin from which this measure was taken.

and as I've pointed out, such an origin isn't necessary if the statement is that the measurement can be taken from anywhere. You seem to find this very important, but there are plenty of references without specification of an origin, such as '370 km/sec relative to the frame in which the CMB appears isotropic', which references the CMB, but the CMB is literally everywhere, so that's hardly an origin.

So why is this important anyway? What prediction does relativity fail to make due to the lack of specification of a specific reference in that postulate? How does this result in a falsification?

11 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

The first version of the Second postulate can never lead to the theory if Special Relativity.

You've not justified that statement. The first version is pretty much how it appears in the SR paper, and the theory leads directly from it. Everything in it is derived from those postulates.

11 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

I said:   "Because as both Physics and Math and logic show, it cant be the same value for other measures taken from differently moving locations."

Then you have to demonstrate this with mathematics from the paper, and not mathematics irrelevant to the paper. Where's the contradiction in it being the same value in any frame? Just asserting this without demonstration is just an admission that you cannot follow the mathematics. Pony up an example.

12 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

I have to wait for another persons reply who I trust will be able to offer rational comments.

You mean somebody who agrees with you. If there's a flaw in the theory, you need a specific example to falsify it. Failing to do so is you not being rational.

11 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Well, where did Einstein get that belief about Light from?

Experiment of course. Michelson/Morley is the obvious famous experiment. It was a measurement of course, not any kind of proof of the metaphysical frame independence of light speed.

11 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

But what EXACTLY is it about light SPEED that has this property?

c is a constant derived from Maxwell's equations which were already frame independent. It is a fundamental constant of our universe. Light (and any energy lacking proper mass) happens to move at that speed. Light speed is defined by c, not c being defined by light.

11 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Light doesn't change its motion state because someone looks at it.

Looking at it destroys the light, which is arguably a change in motion. Light does not 'survive' a measurement. This is fairly off-topic for a discussion of relativity.

11 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

It's actually an irrational statement to make: "Regardless of the speed of the measurer, or even the direction ...

That is indeed irrational since the velocity of the measurer is undefined without a reference to something relative to which that velocity has meaning. The measurer is by definition stationary relative to itself and relative to the frame in which it is stationary.

11 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

So the "constant speed" of the car is frame INDEPENDANT, exactly like Light. But the MEASUREMENT of that "constant speed" will not be identical from frame to frame.

It isn't exactly like light. You're using the word 'constant' to mean something like inertial motion, that a rock's speed relative to some inertial frame is constant (not changing over time) in absence of a force acting on it. That's not how the word is used in SR. By 'constant', it means that it is the same always, regardless of frame, regardless of change in direction (by mirror say).

The speed of the car relative to a given frame will be different than its speed relative to a different frame. That's what you seem to call 'measurement'. Per the postulate of SR, this is not true of light. The speed of light relative to any inertial frame is c. The speed value isn't different from frame to frame. The direction, energy, wavelength, etc. is, but the postulate doesn't specify frame independence for those things.

.

11 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

If you cant specify the origin then you can't claim a measured speed.

Seems reasonable, but per SR, you can choose any inertial frame (or origin if you insist that is necessary), and light will move at c relative to it. Now you can claim what you call a 'measured speed'. You can disagree with it, but yet again, you've described no experiment that shows this to be untrue, and so the claim of the 'obvious error' in the theory falls flat.

11 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Don't bother measuring the tower because you will always get 6 regardless of if you are in a hole in the ground, or in a balloon, your tape measure must read 6meters because the tower is always constant.

The tallness of the tower isn't a distance from a specified point. That would be, well, distance away. It's tallness, or at least its proper tallness is 300 meters. That's frame independent.  The tallest mountain in the world is Mauna Kei. No origin needed to get an answer. There's another that's the highest. There's yet another that is the point furthest from the center of Earth, but that one admittedly specifies an origin.

11 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

My second Postulate is the same as Einstein's  second version of his second postulate, but instead of 300 million meters per second (c)  I'll claim that the measured speed of light is instant, and measured as instant in any inertial frame.

'Instant' is a time duration of size zero. It isn't a speed. Different units. Perhaps you postulate that light speed is infinite, but no, a quick experiment would demonstrate that to be false. So maybe you need to work on your example. If you simply declare all measurements to be zero, I suppose that works in an empty-theory sort of way, empty because it makes no predictions.