 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Proof that the speed of light is relative and additive to the speed of the frame of reference where it is measured. Don Edward Sprague, Copyright 2007, 2008, 2009 Every round trip measurement of the speed of light has been on a moving platform. Therefore, there hasn't ever been two identical round trip measurement of the speed of light. Nobody can dispute the statement. The reason is simple. While both points for the round trip are fixed relative to each other, they are moving relative to the center of the earth and to the sun and to the galaxy and so on. This paper has two parts. First, I show that the speed of light is relative and additive to the speed of earth. Second, I show how the issue is addressed in the theory or relativity. The speed of light has been measured thousands of times and it is consistently shown to be “c”. We also know that a square has four sides of equal lengths and we can simultaneously measure the speed of light between corners of a square and we consistent get the same results for both measurements going different directions. Now consider that our square is 10 units of length per side and moves 10 units of length in the time it takes for objects to move between A to B and between A to C. The corners of the square are labeled: “A” for the lower left, “B” for the lower right, and “C” for the upper left. Initial position of box relative to the ground. For the first half of the round trip, the platform moved 10 units of length relative to the ground while objects on the platform move 10 units of length on the surface of the platform from A to B and from A to C First half of round trip: In this case, one object moved 10 units of length in the box as it goes from A to B and it also goes from 1 to 3 relative to the ground. Location 3 is 20 units of length from 1 relative to the ground. The distance the object moved is both 10 and 20 units of length depending upon the frame of reference of the objects and the observer. The other object moved 10 units of length as it goes from A to C and it also moves 14.14 units of length relative to the ground. Second half of round trip: The platform moves another 10 units of length relative to the ground while objects on the platform move 10 units of length on the surface of the platform to make their return trip to A. In this case the object moving from B to A moves 10 units of length on the platform but remain at point 3 relative the ground. It has a ground speed of zero. The other object moved 10 units of length as it goes from C to A on the platform and it also moves 14.14 units of length relative to the ground. The results of this activity show: When observed from the platform, the objects on the platform moved 10 units of length on each half of the round trip for a total of 20 units each for their round trips between A to B and between A to C. When observed from the ground, one object moved 20 units of length for the first half of the platforms trip then remained still and didn't move for the second half of the platforms trip. The other object moved in a triangle from A to C to A for a total distance of 28.28 units of length. Although both objects moved the same speed and distance relative to the platform, their movement relative to the ground has one object that moved 8.29 units of length through space further than the other in the same time frame. This shows that one object moved further and faster than the other. This setup for our real experiment shows that the speed of objects are relative to the frame of reference where they are measured as well as where they are observed and calculated making them additive when observed from a point outside the moving frame of reference. Now we apply different albeit correct names to the platform and the moving objects. Instead of referring to the platform, we call it the surface of the earth. Instead of referring to objects, we call it light. The earth is spinning on it's axis and is going around the sun and the sun is moving through the galaxy and universe. Now consider a point in space as viewed from the surface of the sun. Suppose that point in space is our point 1-A as in the above discussion. Relative to the sun, point 1 in space corresponds to point A on the surface of the earth. At a later time, relative to the sun, point 1 in space remains at the same place in space but point A on the surface of the earth has moved just as point A on the platform moved. It is accepted that the speed of any object is relative to the frame in which it resides. If a moving object resides on train car or on a bicycle or on the surface of the earth, the speed of the moving object is relative to the frame in which it resides and is additive to the speed of the moving frame of reference. A ball thrown from a bicycle, or train or on the surface of the earth is additive to the speed of the bicycle or train or the surface of the earth. A sound generated on a bicycle or inside a train car or on the surface of the earth is relative and additive. Light is also considered to be relative thus it should be additive. So now we see that the objects in the above experiment can properly be called light pulses that moved different speeds and different distances in space while riding on the moving platform that we previously properly identified as the surface of the earth. We talk about stationary objects but nothing is stationary. That is; all objects are moving in space but are also stationary relative to other moving objects. Every experiment or measurement of the speed of light has been done relative to the surface of a moving earth. Every measurement has shown the same results regardless of the location or orientation of the measurement devices on earth, the moving frame of reference. That confirms that the speed of light is relative and additive to the speed of frame of reference aka earth, where the measurement was made. The object in the platform discussion moved in a triangle between 1 and 3 relative to a remote observation point. The same applies to every measurement of the speed of light. The round trip is always a triangle instead of a straight line. It is safe to say that it is impossible for any two measurements of the speed of light to begin at the same point in space and go the same distance in space. Any point A on the surface of the earth will never occupy the same point 1 in space at any different time. It is safe to say that at any instant in time point A and point B on earth are moving at different speeds in different direction in space. Although the distance between points A and B are constant relative to the surface of the earth or relative to a train car; the distance and speed an object moves in space is additive to the speed and distance those points moved on the earth. It is safe to say that the distance an object moves between points A and B on the earth is never the same distance in space at any two different times. Although the distance on earth between two points can remain the same, the triangle for any round trip to measure the speed of light has never been the same and will never be the same. Every measurement of the speed of light confirms that the measurement obtains the same results regardless of the size or shape of the triangle in space where the light traveled. To repeat this experiment, simply calculate the speed and direction of movement of the earth based platform being used to measure the speed of light. Then calculate the shape of the triangle the light traveled. From those calculations you can identify the speed of light through space as viewed from some remote point in space. You can observe the triangle from the sun or the moon or any planet or other remote point in space. Each will give a constant speed of light on earth but a different speed of light depending upon the remote observation point as well as the time of day or the location and orientation on earth where the test is conducted. In the above I show that the speed of light is relative and additive to the speed of the earth frame of reference where it resides. I showed that objects move in space over time. In the following I address the assumption that simultaneous events aren't simultaneous because time and space are variable. Einstein’s dilemma with the relativity of simultaneity The purpose of chapter IX of Einstein’s paper was specifically to eliminate the meaning of time because of the problem that Einstein himself described in an earlier chapter where he wrote w=c-v which means that the speed of light is relative and additive if time does have meaning. Einstein clearly states that the person on the train will move from the mid point of the lightning strikes and will proceed toward one strike and away from the other. As a result, the moving observer will think the simultaneous events aren't simultaneous. As a result of the false perception of the person who isn't at the mid point, the simultaneous events don’t seem to be simultaneous. From that elimination of a simple fact that the person can’t observe the events as simultaneous, Einstein claims that time has no meaning. It took over 10 years for Einstein’s theory to be accepted. For over 100 years, many people have pondered the issue of simultaneous relativity. Search the web and you will find papers by many experts in the world of physics. One example is Paul Marmet. Ph. D. (Physics). In his paper: The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Illusion/index.html, and his paper: Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus classical Mechanics http://www. newtonphysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN/index.html, he provides detail description and formula that address simultaneous events and problems with the theory of relativity. He and many others made the same mistake of arguing the wrong issue. I even lapsed into the depths of the problem since my original paper where I pointed out Einstein’s laps in logic. Einstein didn't eliminate the meaning of time by pointing out that a person who isn't at the mid point between the simultaneous lightning strikes won’t observe them as simultaneous. He simply replaced reality with illusion. The detail discussion, experiments and formula are nice but not necessary. It all goes back to Einstein’s failure to eliminate the meaning of time. There is nothing in Einstein’s paper or any other paper that eliminates the meaning of time. Science doesn't or shouldn't accept illusion as reality because it is convenient. Einstein goes on to claim that space has no meaning. Although I addressed Einstein’s mistakes in my essay, let’s suppose that Einstein was correct. Suppose that space and time are variable and any method of measuring them are variable as Einstein says. Suppose the speed of light is constant because it travels some variable distance for some variable time. How can you claim to have a constant speed of light my multiplying a variable distance in space by a variable duration of time. Fortunately; we can accurately measure the movement of things as they move in space and time because space and time are constant. Until someone proves they aren't constant, they remain constant and the speed of light remains additive as Einstein understood when he wrote w=c-v. That is: he understood that the speed of light is additive as long as time has meaning. This discussion is reminiscent of wrong dinosaur head being accepted by the scientific community for over 100 years. Although many people in the scientific community knew of the problem, they didn't want to be the ones who pushed to correct the mistake. It is past time to correct the problem of the theory of relativity. Perhaps the problem has been prolonged because the theory or relativity isn't required study. It is simply accepted as a basis for discussion of science and education. As a result, science and study are based on an illusion instead of reality. It could be that until now, nobody has properly addressed the problem and properly explained the illusion Einstein employed to resolve his dilemma. This short paper goes to the heart of the issue in a simple concise way. My essay goes through all of Einstein’s paper addressing how he understood his problems and how he used illusion to replace reality. If you can understand this short paper, you don’t need to read my original essay or any of my other papers. If you are interested in learning more about the problems in Einstein’s paper, go ahead and read my essay and the other papers. Relativity is compound or complex. There is an explanation that addresses things like planet orbit ellipse. You may find the conclusion of most value because it is concise Click here to read the conclusion: The meaning of time is what it's all about. The false illusion doesn't eliminate the meaning of time. Copyright Don E. Sprague 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 All rights reserved. |
| What is the true history of the Internet? We know the government gave us IP and the Internet name. What about the larger, older commercial networking business history? What about the commercial providers who existed before IP and just adopted IP? Internet History, the true story. |
The Fundamental Flaw
in the theory of relativity
in the theory of relativity
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
The Fundamental Flaw in the theory of relativity
Don Edward Sprague, 08 February, 2010 Copyright
Here is a simple representation of the most important experiment addressing
simultaneous events.
A---------------------------M----------------------------B
--------------------------------------m'-------------------
M is a person at the midpoint between A and B so he observes simultaneous arrival of
light that simultaneously originated at A and B.
m' moved away from the midpoint between A and B so he observes different arrival
times for the same light that simultaneously originated at A and B.
To most people, it is obvious that the person who isn't at the midpoint will see different
arrival times of the light. To Physicists, it means time has no meaning.
In section 9 of the Theory of Relativity, the focus is placed on arrival time instead of
origination time of past events. Everyone knows the origination time isn't based just on
arrival time. The theory converts different arrival times to a representation of the
origination times of the past events. We all know the light traveled different distances.
Thus the indications must arrive at different times.
HOWEVER: The theory says the opposite. According to the theory, since the light
travels different distances, it will arrive at different times which means the earlier
simultaneous events didn't seem to originate simultaneously to anybody who isn't at the
mid point.
This is a thought experiment described in section 9 of the theory of relativity. The false
perception is used to change the definition of simultaneous and eliminate the meaning of
time. The person's movement is specified to get the person away from the mid point.
Then the person's movement is discarded. His known false perception is converted to
fact. That means, section 9 of the theory of relativity says, you don't need to actually be
correct to be correct. You only need to think you are correct to be correct.
I found that nobody disputes the pivotal importance of section IX The Relativity of
Simultaneity in the Theory of Relativity. Section 9 is a very short easy to read section of
Albert’s paper and it basically fits on one 8 by 10 page using normal print and spacing.
Section 9 is the linchpin section. Without section 9, the theory of relativity is
meaningless. Shortly I will provide two links to two different places showing section 9 of
Albert’s work.
From here on, it is just commentary.
Regardless of your field of interest or skills, you can easily read and understand section
9 of Albert’s paper if you actually passed the 8th grade. It is very important to have an
open mind when reading section 9 of Albert’s paper. Please don’t go in thinking is it
either true or false. Go in thinking the facts must support the conclusion. Then form your
own conclusion.
I have discusses the theory of relativity with a large number of people including
Physicists. Everyone consistently works to move the discussion away from section 9 of
Albert’s paper. Very few people attempt to explain the justification for the conclusion of
section 9. Most people try to justify section 9 with other sections of the paper. That is,
they say that section 9 is correct because the other sections are correct. Then they
justify the accuracy of the other sections because section 9 is correct. That is; A is
correct because B is correct; and B correct because A is correct. Occasionally people
have said they understand the theory but they haven’t read it because they don’t have
time. They say they haven’t even read just the short section 9 portion while they argue
the validity of that section and the entire paper. NOTE: When discussing this thought
experiment, people will try to move away from the problem. Don't let people divert
unless or until they address the known false perception used to replace fact. Once the
discussion moves away, they have successfully diverted from the problem they can't
answer.
Basically; section 9 is about a THOUGHT experiment. That means, the pivotal section of
the theory isn’t based on actual experimental data. It is simply based on a philosophical
thought experiment conclusion that requires information to be both known and
intentionally ignored. Section 9 deals with a hypothetical person on a train. Just as the
hypothetical person on the moving train is at the midpoint between simultaneous events
A and B on the embankment, we tell him two events just happen. He doesn’t know he is
moving. Eventually the lights arrive at different times.
The typical explanation says he has two options.
1) the trigger events happened at different times so they aren’t simultaneous.
2) the trigger events happened at the same time but the light traveled at different
speeds.
Since C is constant, the only choice is option 1.
However; as always, I come in and say it is a trick question. There is a third option.
3) The light events happened at the same time. Light travels at the same speed from
both points. Thus, the person on the train is moving. Nobody addresses the issue that
the hypothetical train passenger in the thought experiment would say the events are
simultaneous when he knows the facts. The use of the term trick question is important
to help people have a clear mind when reading section 9 of Albert’s paper.
Here is another trick question for old timers. How many groves are on one side of a 33
1/3 RPM record that last 2 minutes. Before going to any formula, think about the grove
on a record. It is one grove that goes around and around.
If a game baseball game is called after 5 innings because of rain, how many outs were
there? Many people will go to the formula 3 times 5 = 15. Actually it is 6 outs per inning
(3 each side) making it 30 outs after 5 innings.
One of my favorites is: If a bear walks past a house with all 4 sides facing south, what
color is the bear? To determine the color of the bear, you must first determine the
location of the house. I told you where the house is located.
My very most favorite trick question. When indications of simultaneous events don’t
arrive at a person at the same time, what does it mean? To most people it means the
person isn’t at the mid point between the events. To a Physicists, it means time has no
meaning.
Before reading the short section of Albert’s paper, you might find the short video of
value. It shows how the first person determined the size of the earth based on
shadows and sticks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8cbIWMv0rI
Now, please go to one of the two following links to read just section: IX. The Relativity of
Simultaneity from: Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html or http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einste...Relativity.pdf
The first link goes direct to section 9 of Albert’s paper. The second link goes to Albert’s complete
paper. Page through using the up and down arrow next to the page numbers on the control bar.
After you read section 9, The Relativity of Simultaneity, then you might be ready for some
questions.
- For section 9 to be valid, is it necessary for the train to be moving? Yes is the only
answer.
- For the hypothetical train passenger to think the events aren’t simultaneous, can he be
aware of all the facts? That is; can he be aware that the train is moving. No is the only
answer. If he knows he is moving, then he would be able to determine a reason for the
different arrival times of the simultaneous events.
- Based on the above, is it remotely possible that the simultaneous events are
simultaneous since the hypothetical train passenger in the philosophical thought
experiment was specifically required to be mistaken as a result of a lack of experience
and knowledge? Yes, it is possible. It is more than possible. It is the only choice.
SECTION 9 Examined in detail.
We have the embankment. The train is miles away and won’t go past the embankment
for sometime.
A------------------------M-------S1-------S2--------B > this is the embankment at velocity 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A1>>>>A2>>>>A3>>>>>> Light from lightning strike at point A
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<B3<<<<<B2<<<<B1<<<<< Light from lightning strike at point B
On the embankment we have the two simultaneous events at A and B. We have the M
for the man at the Mid point between A and B. We have two sisters on the
embankment. The sisters are so much alike they look like twins, so we will call them twin
sister 1 and sister 2. I suppose the man and the twin sisters don’t get along because
they are standing apart.
Shortly after the simultaneous events happen at A and B, some light from B arrives at
Sister 2. That is because she is closer to B. Then the light from B arrives at Sister 1.
Then the light from A and B arrive at the man at the Mid point between A and B. Then the
light from A arrives at Sister 1. Then the light from A arrives at sister 2.
All this is as expected. The sisters aren’t at the mid point so the lights arrive at different
times. I can’t see how anybody could dispute the scenario. In fact; in all my discussion,
nobody challenges these results. Nobody claims the simultaneous events aren’t
simultaneous because the sisters, who aren’t at the midpoint, don’t observe them as
simultaneous.
The train approaches. Get ready. Now, the train points A and A’ are aligned. Points B
and B’ along with M and M’ are aligned. Even though A/A’ and B/B’ and M/M’ are in
different frames, they are comparable locations across frames. Their movement doesn’t
distinguish them.
A----------------------------M-------S1-------S2--------B > this is the embankment at velocity 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A1>>>>A2>>>>A3>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<B3<<<<B2<<<<B1<<<<<<<
A’--------------------------M’S3--------------------------B’ > this is the train at velocity V
----------- A’--------------------------M’S3--------------------------B’ > train at velocity V
------------------- A’--------------------------M’S3--------------------------B’ > train at velocity V
The man on the train is traveling with sister 3. She is so much like sisters 1 and 2 that
they must be triplets. They are riding on a very modern train and don’t know they are
moving. They don’t feel the bumping and don’t hear any noise. They must have been
distracted and weren’t aware that the train left the station sometime ago.
The lightning strikes A and B and A’ and B’ at the same time. For relativity to apply, we
must have 4 light events instead of just 2. Although we go through just addressing the
two lightning strikes on the embankment, the exact reverse applies.
After the lightning strikes A and B, the train moves.
Just as triplet sister 3 is aligned with triplet sister 1, that is the time that both sisters
and the man at the midpoint on the train at observe the light from point B.
Remember earlier we said: Even though M and M’ are different, they are comparable
locations across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them. The same applies to
the triplet sisters. Even though S1 and S2 are different from S3, when they are aligned,
they represent comparable locations across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish
them.
Some time later, both lights simultaneously arrive at the man on the embankment.
Just as triplet sister 3 is aligned with triplet sister 2, that is the time that both sisters
and the man at the midpoint on the train at observe the light from point A.
Thus we have three comparable cross frame locations.
M and M’ are cross frame comparable locations. Even though M and M’ are different,
when they are aligned, they represent comparable locations across frames. Their
movement doesn’t distinguish them.
Sister 3 and 1 alignments are cross frame comparable locations. Even though sister 3
and sister 1 are different, when they are aligned, they represent comparable locations
across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them.
Sister 3 and 2 alignments are cross frame comparable locations. Even though sister 3
and sister 2 are different, when they are aligned, they represent comparable locations
across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them.
Are you seeing the trend here. It is perfectly correct for Sister 1 and Sister 2 to
understand that the arrival times are different for lights from A and B. Since we
established that the points where sister 3 aligned with sister 1 is comparable, and,
where sister 3 and sister 2 aligned is comparable, then sister 3 understand the reason
the lights from events that happened at points A and B are simultaneous even though
they arrived her locations at different times. So we have a disconnect. The Physicists on
the train needs to listen to the three women instead of listening to Albert who is
standing on the embankment watching the world go by.
CONCLUSION:
Section 9, The Relativity of Simultaneity is the pivotal section of Albert’s work. It is based
on a carefully specified condition that must deliver a false illusion. The person on the
train must be moving but can’t be aware of the movement. This is required to facilitate
the mistaken conclusion that the cross frame simultaneous events changed from
simultaneous to not being simultaneous. Without the specified error, time retains
meaning. With time having meaning, the entire paper goes away.
Many very brilliant well informed people have written excellent papers about relativity.
Most do a wonderful job of explaining the conclusions of the theory based on the
assumption that section 9 is correct. Most but not all Physicists accept Albert’s paper as
correct. Even though they do, I still haven’t found any to address my challenge to section
9.
Paul Marmet, Ph. D. (1932-2005) was a brilliant Physicists. He had a brilliant career and
worked in many areas. http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/info/author.html He wrote
many papers. Some of his work also challenged the theory of relativity. His approach
was different than mine. In the about 100 years of the theory of relativity, many brilliant
Physicists didn’t accept it from the first day it was published until it was accepted many
years later. Since it was accepted, many brilliant Physicists like Paul Marmet, Ph.D.
continued to challenge it. I simply took a different tact to challenge the theory. I
examined the theory and found the pivotal section that is based on an illusion becoming
fact.
I am looking forward to the day when someone will give a valid explanation for a
specified false perception to replace fact, or; for the acknowledgment that facts can’t be
replaced by a specified false perception. After that day, I can move on to other things
with either finally having a better understanding of the concept that logic doesn’t apply
in physics; or, Physicists can move on to bigger and better work dealing with things
moving through time and space instead of thinking that time and space bend to fit
around things.
Addendum: Do physicists have open minds?
My concern is to improve science. In one discussion I was pointed to very good paper
that goes into detail explanations about the conclusion of the theory. Regardless of the
section 9 problem, the paper is very good work.
http://www.oberlin.edu/physics.../Einstein/SRBook.pdf
In that paper I found;
quote
New experiments are being performed every day, and new explanations are being
devised every day. Perhaps someday a reliable experiment inconsistent with relativity
will be performed. When that day arrives scientists are prepared to abandon relativity,
just as Einstein was prepared to in 1921
However, relativity is far more likely to be modified than completely overturned.
Quote
I hope that is the case. I found substantial examples of the results of the theory. I didn’t
find anything that addresses the section 9 problem. I doubt it will be replaced with
another form of relativity. I suspect some form of proximity factors that include very
inclusive consideration of complete data beyond things like Doppler on a super scale.
That is for the experts in many areas to address.
Addendum: All frames aren't equal.
The earth and a train aren't equal. Two trains are equal. When the Albert says the train
and embankment are interchangeable, that isn't correct. It is obvious that the train
can't be considered to be interchangeable with the earth. So what conditions allow the
interchangeability of two frames?
The origination events must have the same relationship with both frames for the frames
to be interchangeable. There must be comparable conditions. Two lightning strikes in
one frame don't translate to the other frame.
To be interchangeable,
- there must be 4 simultaneous light origination events, 2 in each frame. Or,
- points A and A' must be truly the same. Or,
- they must be isolated from either frame.
None of this alters the original problem. The arrival time doesn't determine the
origination time.
Addendum: All light measurements relative to ground, none relative to other frame.
To review experiments addressing the theory of relativity, mostly the speed of light,
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
When reviewing that site, I realized we have an assumption I had missed before. As far
as I can determine, all experimental data measuring the speed of light has basically
been done relative to the earth. That is; I can’t find any experimental data relative to
the train in Albert’s thought experiment. Thus; we accept without proof that light is going
C inside the train. It seems that we only know that every experiment shows it constant
relative to earth. A comment that the sprague light race won’t work prompted me to
think of the above issue. We have all said the speed of light is C relative to the train. If
that is so, then light from a flashlight on the train is going C if the flashlight is held both
inside and outside the train window. Suppose the speed of light isn’t C relative to the
train. Suppose it is bound within it’s relativity to the earth.
I searched and can’t find any true moving frame experiment measuring the speed of light
other than those where the earth is the moving frame. Has the MM experiment or any
comparable measurement been done on a train or in an airplane or on a spacecraft?
Each adds variables. Perhaps the spacecraft or a high flying airplane moves it too far
from the proximity relationship with the earth. Please don’t focus on the other variables.
Please focus on the search for proof that the speed of light is C relative to another cross
earth frame such as the train.
Copyright All rights reserved.
Don Edward Sprague, 08 February, 2010 Copyright
Here is a simple representation of the most important experiment addressing
simultaneous events.
A---------------------------M----------------------------B
--------------------------------------m'-------------------
M is a person at the midpoint between A and B so he observes simultaneous arrival of
light that simultaneously originated at A and B.
m' moved away from the midpoint between A and B so he observes different arrival
times for the same light that simultaneously originated at A and B.
To most people, it is obvious that the person who isn't at the midpoint will see different
arrival times of the light. To Physicists, it means time has no meaning.
In section 9 of the Theory of Relativity, the focus is placed on arrival time instead of
origination time of past events. Everyone knows the origination time isn't based just on
arrival time. The theory converts different arrival times to a representation of the
origination times of the past events. We all know the light traveled different distances.
Thus the indications must arrive at different times.
HOWEVER: The theory says the opposite. According to the theory, since the light
travels different distances, it will arrive at different times which means the earlier
simultaneous events didn't seem to originate simultaneously to anybody who isn't at the
mid point.
This is a thought experiment described in section 9 of the theory of relativity. The false
perception is used to change the definition of simultaneous and eliminate the meaning of
time. The person's movement is specified to get the person away from the mid point.
Then the person's movement is discarded. His known false perception is converted to
fact. That means, section 9 of the theory of relativity says, you don't need to actually be
correct to be correct. You only need to think you are correct to be correct.
I found that nobody disputes the pivotal importance of section IX The Relativity of
Simultaneity in the Theory of Relativity. Section 9 is a very short easy to read section of
Albert’s paper and it basically fits on one 8 by 10 page using normal print and spacing.
Section 9 is the linchpin section. Without section 9, the theory of relativity is
meaningless. Shortly I will provide two links to two different places showing section 9 of
Albert’s work.
From here on, it is just commentary.
Regardless of your field of interest or skills, you can easily read and understand section
9 of Albert’s paper if you actually passed the 8th grade. It is very important to have an
open mind when reading section 9 of Albert’s paper. Please don’t go in thinking is it
either true or false. Go in thinking the facts must support the conclusion. Then form your
own conclusion.
I have discusses the theory of relativity with a large number of people including
Physicists. Everyone consistently works to move the discussion away from section 9 of
Albert’s paper. Very few people attempt to explain the justification for the conclusion of
section 9. Most people try to justify section 9 with other sections of the paper. That is,
they say that section 9 is correct because the other sections are correct. Then they
justify the accuracy of the other sections because section 9 is correct. That is; A is
correct because B is correct; and B correct because A is correct. Occasionally people
have said they understand the theory but they haven’t read it because they don’t have
time. They say they haven’t even read just the short section 9 portion while they argue
the validity of that section and the entire paper. NOTE: When discussing this thought
experiment, people will try to move away from the problem. Don't let people divert
unless or until they address the known false perception used to replace fact. Once the
discussion moves away, they have successfully diverted from the problem they can't
answer.
Basically; section 9 is about a THOUGHT experiment. That means, the pivotal section of
the theory isn’t based on actual experimental data. It is simply based on a philosophical
thought experiment conclusion that requires information to be both known and
intentionally ignored. Section 9 deals with a hypothetical person on a train. Just as the
hypothetical person on the moving train is at the midpoint between simultaneous events
A and B on the embankment, we tell him two events just happen. He doesn’t know he is
moving. Eventually the lights arrive at different times.
The typical explanation says he has two options.
1) the trigger events happened at different times so they aren’t simultaneous.
2) the trigger events happened at the same time but the light traveled at different
speeds.
Since C is constant, the only choice is option 1.
However; as always, I come in and say it is a trick question. There is a third option.
3) The light events happened at the same time. Light travels at the same speed from
both points. Thus, the person on the train is moving. Nobody addresses the issue that
the hypothetical train passenger in the thought experiment would say the events are
simultaneous when he knows the facts. The use of the term trick question is important
to help people have a clear mind when reading section 9 of Albert’s paper.
Here is another trick question for old timers. How many groves are on one side of a 33
1/3 RPM record that last 2 minutes. Before going to any formula, think about the grove
on a record. It is one grove that goes around and around.
If a game baseball game is called after 5 innings because of rain, how many outs were
there? Many people will go to the formula 3 times 5 = 15. Actually it is 6 outs per inning
(3 each side) making it 30 outs after 5 innings.
One of my favorites is: If a bear walks past a house with all 4 sides facing south, what
color is the bear? To determine the color of the bear, you must first determine the
location of the house. I told you where the house is located.
My very most favorite trick question. When indications of simultaneous events don’t
arrive at a person at the same time, what does it mean? To most people it means the
person isn’t at the mid point between the events. To a Physicists, it means time has no
meaning.
Before reading the short section of Albert’s paper, you might find the short video of
value. It shows how the first person determined the size of the earth based on
shadows and sticks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8cbIWMv0rI
Now, please go to one of the two following links to read just section: IX. The Relativity of
Simultaneity from: Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html or http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einste...Relativity.pdf
The first link goes direct to section 9 of Albert’s paper. The second link goes to Albert’s complete
paper. Page through using the up and down arrow next to the page numbers on the control bar.
After you read section 9, The Relativity of Simultaneity, then you might be ready for some
questions.
- For section 9 to be valid, is it necessary for the train to be moving? Yes is the only
answer.
- For the hypothetical train passenger to think the events aren’t simultaneous, can he be
aware of all the facts? That is; can he be aware that the train is moving. No is the only
answer. If he knows he is moving, then he would be able to determine a reason for the
different arrival times of the simultaneous events.
- Based on the above, is it remotely possible that the simultaneous events are
simultaneous since the hypothetical train passenger in the philosophical thought
experiment was specifically required to be mistaken as a result of a lack of experience
and knowledge? Yes, it is possible. It is more than possible. It is the only choice.
SECTION 9 Examined in detail.
We have the embankment. The train is miles away and won’t go past the embankment
for sometime.
A------------------------M-------S1-------S2--------B > this is the embankment at velocity 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A1>>>>A2>>>>A3>>>>>> Light from lightning strike at point A
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<B3<<<<<B2<<<<B1<<<<< Light from lightning strike at point B
On the embankment we have the two simultaneous events at A and B. We have the M
for the man at the Mid point between A and B. We have two sisters on the
embankment. The sisters are so much alike they look like twins, so we will call them twin
sister 1 and sister 2. I suppose the man and the twin sisters don’t get along because
they are standing apart.
Shortly after the simultaneous events happen at A and B, some light from B arrives at
Sister 2. That is because she is closer to B. Then the light from B arrives at Sister 1.
Then the light from A and B arrive at the man at the Mid point between A and B. Then the
light from A arrives at Sister 1. Then the light from A arrives at sister 2.
All this is as expected. The sisters aren’t at the mid point so the lights arrive at different
times. I can’t see how anybody could dispute the scenario. In fact; in all my discussion,
nobody challenges these results. Nobody claims the simultaneous events aren’t
simultaneous because the sisters, who aren’t at the midpoint, don’t observe them as
simultaneous.
The train approaches. Get ready. Now, the train points A and A’ are aligned. Points B
and B’ along with M and M’ are aligned. Even though A/A’ and B/B’ and M/M’ are in
different frames, they are comparable locations across frames. Their movement doesn’t
distinguish them.
A----------------------------M-------S1-------S2--------B > this is the embankment at velocity 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A1>>>>A2>>>>A3>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<B3<<<<B2<<<<B1<<<<<<<
A’--------------------------M’S3--------------------------B’ > this is the train at velocity V
----------- A’--------------------------M’S3--------------------------B’ > train at velocity V
------------------- A’--------------------------M’S3--------------------------B’ > train at velocity V
The man on the train is traveling with sister 3. She is so much like sisters 1 and 2 that
they must be triplets. They are riding on a very modern train and don’t know they are
moving. They don’t feel the bumping and don’t hear any noise. They must have been
distracted and weren’t aware that the train left the station sometime ago.
The lightning strikes A and B and A’ and B’ at the same time. For relativity to apply, we
must have 4 light events instead of just 2. Although we go through just addressing the
two lightning strikes on the embankment, the exact reverse applies.
After the lightning strikes A and B, the train moves.
Just as triplet sister 3 is aligned with triplet sister 1, that is the time that both sisters
and the man at the midpoint on the train at observe the light from point B.
Remember earlier we said: Even though M and M’ are different, they are comparable
locations across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them. The same applies to
the triplet sisters. Even though S1 and S2 are different from S3, when they are aligned,
they represent comparable locations across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish
them.
Some time later, both lights simultaneously arrive at the man on the embankment.
Just as triplet sister 3 is aligned with triplet sister 2, that is the time that both sisters
and the man at the midpoint on the train at observe the light from point A.
Thus we have three comparable cross frame locations.
M and M’ are cross frame comparable locations. Even though M and M’ are different,
when they are aligned, they represent comparable locations across frames. Their
movement doesn’t distinguish them.
Sister 3 and 1 alignments are cross frame comparable locations. Even though sister 3
and sister 1 are different, when they are aligned, they represent comparable locations
across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them.
Sister 3 and 2 alignments are cross frame comparable locations. Even though sister 3
and sister 2 are different, when they are aligned, they represent comparable locations
across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them.
Are you seeing the trend here. It is perfectly correct for Sister 1 and Sister 2 to
understand that the arrival times are different for lights from A and B. Since we
established that the points where sister 3 aligned with sister 1 is comparable, and,
where sister 3 and sister 2 aligned is comparable, then sister 3 understand the reason
the lights from events that happened at points A and B are simultaneous even though
they arrived her locations at different times. So we have a disconnect. The Physicists on
the train needs to listen to the three women instead of listening to Albert who is
standing on the embankment watching the world go by.
CONCLUSION:
Section 9, The Relativity of Simultaneity is the pivotal section of Albert’s work. It is based
on a carefully specified condition that must deliver a false illusion. The person on the
train must be moving but can’t be aware of the movement. This is required to facilitate
the mistaken conclusion that the cross frame simultaneous events changed from
simultaneous to not being simultaneous. Without the specified error, time retains
meaning. With time having meaning, the entire paper goes away.
Many very brilliant well informed people have written excellent papers about relativity.
Most do a wonderful job of explaining the conclusions of the theory based on the
assumption that section 9 is correct. Most but not all Physicists accept Albert’s paper as
correct. Even though they do, I still haven’t found any to address my challenge to section
9.
Paul Marmet, Ph. D. (1932-2005) was a brilliant Physicists. He had a brilliant career and
worked in many areas. http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/info/author.html He wrote
many papers. Some of his work also challenged the theory of relativity. His approach
was different than mine. In the about 100 years of the theory of relativity, many brilliant
Physicists didn’t accept it from the first day it was published until it was accepted many
years later. Since it was accepted, many brilliant Physicists like Paul Marmet, Ph.D.
continued to challenge it. I simply took a different tact to challenge the theory. I
examined the theory and found the pivotal section that is based on an illusion becoming
fact.
I am looking forward to the day when someone will give a valid explanation for a
specified false perception to replace fact, or; for the acknowledgment that facts can’t be
replaced by a specified false perception. After that day, I can move on to other things
with either finally having a better understanding of the concept that logic doesn’t apply
in physics; or, Physicists can move on to bigger and better work dealing with things
moving through time and space instead of thinking that time and space bend to fit
around things.
Addendum: Do physicists have open minds?
My concern is to improve science. In one discussion I was pointed to very good paper
that goes into detail explanations about the conclusion of the theory. Regardless of the
section 9 problem, the paper is very good work.
http://www.oberlin.edu/physics.../Einstein/SRBook.pdf
In that paper I found;
quote
New experiments are being performed every day, and new explanations are being
devised every day. Perhaps someday a reliable experiment inconsistent with relativity
will be performed. When that day arrives scientists are prepared to abandon relativity,
just as Einstein was prepared to in 1921
However, relativity is far more likely to be modified than completely overturned.
Quote
I hope that is the case. I found substantial examples of the results of the theory. I didn’t
find anything that addresses the section 9 problem. I doubt it will be replaced with
another form of relativity. I suspect some form of proximity factors that include very
inclusive consideration of complete data beyond things like Doppler on a super scale.
That is for the experts in many areas to address.
Addendum: All frames aren't equal.
The earth and a train aren't equal. Two trains are equal. When the Albert says the train
and embankment are interchangeable, that isn't correct. It is obvious that the train
can't be considered to be interchangeable with the earth. So what conditions allow the
interchangeability of two frames?
The origination events must have the same relationship with both frames for the frames
to be interchangeable. There must be comparable conditions. Two lightning strikes in
one frame don't translate to the other frame.
To be interchangeable,
- there must be 4 simultaneous light origination events, 2 in each frame. Or,
- points A and A' must be truly the same. Or,
- they must be isolated from either frame.
None of this alters the original problem. The arrival time doesn't determine the
origination time.
Addendum: All light measurements relative to ground, none relative to other frame.
To review experiments addressing the theory of relativity, mostly the speed of light,
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
When reviewing that site, I realized we have an assumption I had missed before. As far
as I can determine, all experimental data measuring the speed of light has basically
been done relative to the earth. That is; I can’t find any experimental data relative to
the train in Albert’s thought experiment. Thus; we accept without proof that light is going
C inside the train. It seems that we only know that every experiment shows it constant
relative to earth. A comment that the sprague light race won’t work prompted me to
think of the above issue. We have all said the speed of light is C relative to the train. If
that is so, then light from a flashlight on the train is going C if the flashlight is held both
inside and outside the train window. Suppose the speed of light isn’t C relative to the
train. Suppose it is bound within it’s relativity to the earth.
I searched and can’t find any true moving frame experiment measuring the speed of light
other than those where the earth is the moving frame. Has the MM experiment or any
comparable measurement been done on a train or in an airplane or on a spacecraft?
Each adds variables. Perhaps the spacecraft or a high flying airplane moves it too far
from the proximity relationship with the earth. Please don’t focus on the other variables.
Please focus on the search for proof that the speed of light is C relative to another cross
earth frame such as the train.
Copyright All rights reserved.
I have had some success with a very simple
way of explaining section 9 of the theory of
relativity.
This is what Albert specified. M and m’ are at mid points between A
and B when the light events happen. However; m’ is moving when
the lights stuck A and B. Thus. m’ moved away from A and towards B.
The position of the people when the lightning strikes
------------------M----------------
A----------------------------------B
------------------m’----------------
The position of the people when they observe the arrival of lights.
------------------M----------------
A----------------------------------B
---------------------m’-m’--------------
The left m’ is the arrival of light from B, the right m’ is the arrival of
light from A.
Thus, m' isn't at the mid point so he can't observer simultaneous
arrival. Thus section 9 is wrong. Thus Albert was correct when he
said he needed to abandon his theory.
The above seems to be the easiest and most accurate way to explain
the thought experiment. It has shown success in helping convey the
situation.
However; in one case, the person changed their argument to say the
lights hit common points in each frame and the common points
remained fixed relative to M and m”.
The position of the people when the lightning strikes.
A------------------M---------------B
A------------------m’---------------B
The position of the people when they observe the arrival of lights.
The lines could look either this way
-----A------------------M---------------B
A------------------m’---------------B
or this way.
A------------------M---------------B
-----A------------------m’---------------B
In this case, M still sees the light from A and B on the embankment.
However; m’ sees the light from A and B on the train.
Now for the question about the light that m’ sees. It must be light
from A and B that are fixed relative to m’. Now we know the theory
of relativity says.
[QUOTE]
VII THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE
LAW OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT WITH
THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
Page 23
For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in
vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway
carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference.
[/QUOTE]
That means the light moving from A and B to m’ is c relative to the
moving train. Thus, the lights will arrive simultaneously.
So one again, section 9 is wrong.
We have one of two conditions. Either person m’ is moving relative
to A and B just as the lights are moving relative to A and B so the
lights can’t arrive simultaneously; Or, person m’ is a fixed distance
from A and B so the lights arrive simultaneously. In either case,
section 9 is wrong and Albert was correct when he said when he said
he needed to abandon his theory.
One final note: what is the speed of light inside a craft going ½ the
speed of light?
Remember the stuff from
[QUOTE]
VII THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE
LAW OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT WITH
THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
Page 23
For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in
vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway
carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference.
[/QUOTE]
Thus, according to the theory of relativity, the speed of light inside a
craft going any speed is c regardless of the speed of the reference
body. The craft can be going 1/2 c or 3c or any speed and the light
inside will be c relative to the moving reference body.
Copyright Don E. Sprague 2010 All rights reserved.
10 February 2010
way of explaining section 9 of the theory of
relativity.
This is what Albert specified. M and m’ are at mid points between A
and B when the light events happen. However; m’ is moving when
the lights stuck A and B. Thus. m’ moved away from A and towards B.
The position of the people when the lightning strikes
------------------M----------------
A----------------------------------B
------------------m’----------------
The position of the people when they observe the arrival of lights.
------------------M----------------
A----------------------------------B
---------------------m’-m’--------------
The left m’ is the arrival of light from B, the right m’ is the arrival of
light from A.
Thus, m' isn't at the mid point so he can't observer simultaneous
arrival. Thus section 9 is wrong. Thus Albert was correct when he
said he needed to abandon his theory.
The above seems to be the easiest and most accurate way to explain
the thought experiment. It has shown success in helping convey the
situation.
However; in one case, the person changed their argument to say the
lights hit common points in each frame and the common points
remained fixed relative to M and m”.
The position of the people when the lightning strikes.
A------------------M---------------B
A------------------m’---------------B
The position of the people when they observe the arrival of lights.
The lines could look either this way
-----A------------------M---------------B
A------------------m’---------------B
or this way.
A------------------M---------------B
-----A------------------m’---------------B
In this case, M still sees the light from A and B on the embankment.
However; m’ sees the light from A and B on the train.
Now for the question about the light that m’ sees. It must be light
from A and B that are fixed relative to m’. Now we know the theory
of relativity says.
[QUOTE]
VII THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE
LAW OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT WITH
THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
Page 23
For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in
vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway
carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference.
[/QUOTE]
That means the light moving from A and B to m’ is c relative to the
moving train. Thus, the lights will arrive simultaneously.
So one again, section 9 is wrong.
We have one of two conditions. Either person m’ is moving relative
to A and B just as the lights are moving relative to A and B so the
lights can’t arrive simultaneously; Or, person m’ is a fixed distance
from A and B so the lights arrive simultaneously. In either case,
section 9 is wrong and Albert was correct when he said when he said
he needed to abandon his theory.
One final note: what is the speed of light inside a craft going ½ the
speed of light?
Remember the stuff from
[QUOTE]
VII THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE
LAW OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT WITH
THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
Page 23
For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in
vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway
carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference.
[/QUOTE]
Thus, according to the theory of relativity, the speed of light inside a
craft going any speed is c regardless of the speed of the reference
body. The craft can be going 1/2 c or 3c or any speed and the light
inside will be c relative to the moving reference body.
Copyright Don E. Sprague 2010 All rights reserved.
10 February 2010
Will you age slower if you travel in
space? It seems to depend on the
direction you travel around the Earth;
This post has basically three parts.
- Introduction
- Definition and links to descriptions of Atomic clocks.
- Description and links to the Hafele-Keating experiment
- Modern conclusion.
- Disclaimer
Introduction:
The typical discussion about space travel states that a person won’t
age as fast when they travel in space because time slows as the
speed of the traveler increases. This conclusion has it’s roots in
section 9 of the theory of relativity. It is supposedly supported with
experimental data that proves faster moving clocks don’t show the
same time as those that are moving at earth ground speed.
Definition and links to descriptions of Atomic clocks, one of which
is caesium clock.
http://www.answers.com/topic/atomic-clock
The three most commonly used types of atomic clock are the cesium
atomic beam, the hydrogen maser, and the rubidium gas cell. The
cesium clock has high accuracy and good long-term stability. The
hydrogen maser has the best stability for periods of up to a few
hours. The rubidium cell is the least expensive and most compact and
also has good short-term stability.
http://www.answers.com/topic/caesium-clock-2
Caesium clock:
An atomic clock that depends on the energy difference between two
states of the caesium -133 nucleus when it is in a magnetic field. In
one type, atoms of caesium -133 are irradiated with radio-frequency
radiation, whose frequency is chosen to correspond to the energy
difference between the two states. Some caesium nuclei absorb this
radiation and are excited to the higher state. These atoms are
deflected by a further magnetic field, which causes them to hit a
detector.
Description and links to the Hafele-Keating experiment
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html#c3
In October of 1971 four cesium atomic clocks were flown on
commercial jet flights twice around the world. They were flown once
eastward and once westward. Hafele-Keating said they did the
experiment to test Einstein's theory of relativity. The theory
supposedly predicted that the flying clocks will lose 40+/-23
nanoseconds on the eastward trip and will gain 275+/-21
nanoseconds on the westward trip. When compared to land based
clocks, the east bound clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds while the
west bound clocks gained 273+/-7 nanosecond. Supposedly the
results provide “an unambiguous empirical resolution” of the famous
clock paradox.
- Modern conclusion.
The experiment show that clocks lost time going one direction and
gained time going the other direction. This alone presents a problem
with the typical discussion that a person won’t age as fast when they
travel in space because time slows as the speed of the traveler
increases. According to the popular conclusion of the experiment, a
person needs to fly eastward to stay younger. Conversely,
according to the popular conclusion of the experiment, a person
going westward will age faster than a person on Earth.
The experiment simply proved that an electro mechanical device is
impacted buy either or both travel and proximity to Earth. The
experiment did go east and west but it didn’t go north and south. It
looks like a north south travel experiment would actually deliver
some loss that is related to the earth movement in space. That is:
the Earth’s rotation and movement around the Sun and perhaps
even the movement through the galaxy impact the function of the
electro mechanical device. The experiment still has an earth based
gravitational field interaction. In fact; the experiment has influenced
from all the objects in the entire solar systems combined and
individual components gravitation and velocity.
A search for the definition of light gives many hits. I picked
http://www.answers.com/topic/light
The site includes:
Light: as defined in Physics.
Electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength in the range from about
4,000 (violet) to about 7,700 (red) angstroms and may be perceived by
the normal unaided human eye.
Electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength.
It is necessary to restate the obvious and already stated; Light is
Electromagnetic. It’s speed has consistently been proven to be c at
any all places on the surface of the earth. However; ONLY on earth
until the Hafele-Keating experiment.
It seems that the Hafele-Keating experiment proves that energy
moves different in different inertial frames. The theory of relativity
says energy should move the same in different inertial frames. Far
from confirming the theory of relativity, it refutes the theory of
relativity.
http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf
VII THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE
LAW OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT WITH
THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
Page 23 THE PROPAGATION OF LIGHT
For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the
transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of
relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference- body as
when the rails are the body of reference.
Disclaimer:
I didn’t seek out the Hafele-Keating experiment. I didn’t have a
desire to discuss or comment about the experiment. I have a focus
on the theory of relativity and particularly section 9. When discussing
section 9, I was pointed to the Hafele-Keating experiment. I
addressed it as a side issue. I don’t have an interest in fostering or
developing a career or future work in Physics. I know that there are
many extremely qualified people who have a past and future interest
in Physics. My goal is accuracy related to the theory of relativity and
the supposed meaningless of time that it imposes.
Copyright Don E. Sprague 2010 All rights reserved.
18 February 2010
New version of the laws of physics postulate Copyright
violation?
Have you seen the new version of the laws of physics postulate? It looks like it might be
a Copyright violation of my work published 30 December 2007.
The link to the new version of the laws of physics statement: The Principle of Relativity
taken from
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Principle_of_Relativity#The_principle_of_re
lativity
1. First postulate: the principle of relativity
Observation of physical phenomena by more than one inertial observer must result in
agreement between the observers as to the nature of reality. Or, the nature of the universe
must not change for an observer if their inertial state changes. Every physical theory should
look the same mathematically to every inertial observer. Formally: the laws of physics are the
same regardless of inertial frame of reference.
Now for the version I published 30 December 2007:
Complex relativity law: All objects are moving and all speeds of
observable objects can be measured relative to the speed and
perspective of any number of observers in various locations and the
results from observer to observer must correlate. Note: this law
includes light, space, and time.
Copyright; 2007 2008 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved.
Link to original work published 30 December 2007
Constant Space, Constant time, Relative Light.
Don Edward Sprague, 30 Dec, 2007
Posted on Internet, 30 Dec, 2007
Updated Jan, 21, 2008
violation?
Have you seen the new version of the laws of physics postulate? It looks like it might be
a Copyright violation of my work published 30 December 2007.
The link to the new version of the laws of physics statement: The Principle of Relativity
taken from
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Principle_of_Relativity#The_principle_of_re
lativity
1. First postulate: the principle of relativity
Observation of physical phenomena by more than one inertial observer must result in
agreement between the observers as to the nature of reality. Or, the nature of the universe
must not change for an observer if their inertial state changes. Every physical theory should
look the same mathematically to every inertial observer. Formally: the laws of physics are the
same regardless of inertial frame of reference.
Now for the version I published 30 December 2007:
Complex relativity law: All objects are moving and all speeds of
observable objects can be measured relative to the speed and
perspective of any number of observers in various locations and the
results from observer to observer must correlate. Note: this law
includes light, space, and time.
Copyright; 2007 2008 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved.
Link to original work published 30 December 2007
Constant Space, Constant time, Relative Light.
Don Edward Sprague, 30 Dec, 2007
Posted on Internet, 30 Dec, 2007
Updated Jan, 21, 2008
| Definition of simultaneous based on an impossibility The definition of simultaneous was changed based on the different arrival time of two lights as observed by a person on a moving train. The person doesn't know the train is moving. If you see the arrival of two lights, when did they happen? The information you have is: - The laws of physics - The lights didn't arrive at the same time. You can ask questions but the answer is: NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ALLOWED. Did the lights originate at the same time? You don’t know the: - distance between 2 points. - time to travel between 2 points (on the train) - speed of travel between 2 points (of the train) - origin location of events, origin time of events You do know: - the laws of physics - the arrival of the lights is other than simultaneous. You can’t determine the origination time of two events if you don’t have information. Section 9 of the theory of relativity uses just the arrival time and no other information to claim known simultaneous events aren't simultaneous because of just different arrival times. It is impossible to determine the origination time with just the arrival time. Thus, section 9 of the theory is based on an impossibility. Copyright Don E. Sprague 2010 All rights reserved. 05 March 2010 |