Re: Light Postulate Invalidated

From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) (net_at_nospam.com)
Date: 09/07/04 

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 19:25:29 -0700

Dear Cadwgan Gedrych:

"Cadwgan Gedrych" <cadwgan_gedrych@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5e1797c9.0409061652.5134bfb7@posting.google.com...
> Surprisingly, simple observation without measurements can
> disprove the basis of SR (aka Einstein's light postulate).

Sorry. This is Maxwell. The second postulate is not required, since it is
redundant in SR today.

> Consider any two entities which are on a collision course,
> as shown below:
>
> E(a)-------------><--------------------E(b)
>
> The location of their meeting point depends only upon their
> relative motion, and this depends on their individual speeds,
> as the following analysis shows:
>
> Suppose the two entities E(a) and E(b) always leave frame A
> points (0,0,0) and (10,0,0) respectively at the same time (per
> frame A's clocks at the given points).

Simultaneous departure? What method do you use to synchronize the clocks?
Just curious.

> E(a) and E(b) will of
> course always move toward each other so that they eventually
> collide. Now suppose that after one such collision point is
> marked on frame A, E(a) and E(b) return to their starting
> points, and again leave on a collision course, except this
> time E(a) moves at a different speed. This change in entity
> E(a)'s speed will change the location (wrt frame A) of the
> entities' collision point. Indeed, a change in either or both
> of the entities' speeds will make their collision point shift.
>
> Clearly, any shift in the location of the collision point
> indicates a change in the entities' relative motion.

Could also be done by an offset in the starting times.

> Just as clearly, the conclusion just given holds regardless
> of the physical nature of the entities.
>
> For example, the conclusion holds in the case where entity
> E(a) is an inertial observer, and entity E(b) is a light ray.

Except that you have an infinite acceleration, an impulse, for the inertial
observer, but OK.

> In this case, if the observer changes his speed during each
> iteration of the experiment, then the shifting meeting point
> provides direct visual proof that the motional relationship
> (aka the relative motion) between the light ray and the
> observer has changed.

Actually no. It says something about E(a) and frame A.

> In other words, the shifting meeting point proves that light's
> one-way speed varies with observer speed, thereby disproving
> Einstein's sole basis for special relativity, i.e., his light
> postulate.

You are very incorrect. The first (and only necessary) postulate is that
all the laws of physics are the same for inertial observers. Also it only
proves that you don't understand that you have proved nothing, since
"synchronous starting" is an illusion for only frame A. E(a) *never*
agrees with A on when the light "E(b)" was started.

> Since Einstein's definition of clock synchronization was based
> on his light postulate, we see that Einstein's clocks are not
> correctly related temporally.

No, actually. You have depended on clock synchronization in order to set
up your "problem". So only your misunderstanding is made clear.

> This means that Einstein's transformation equations are wrong
> because his clocks control the values of t, t', v, and c.

Lorentz's transformations, actually. Did you research anything before you
posted, or is this just processed Metamucil?

> In other words, the above simple experiment invalidates Einstein's
> transformation equations; however, it does not replace them with
> the simple Galilean transformation equations; we must take actual
> clock slowing and actual rod shrinkage into account (because these
> are the only possible physical causes of round-trip invariance and
> isotropy); this results in the following equations for light's
> one-way speed (max and min) using correctly-related (or absolutely
> synchronous) clocks:
>
> w = c^2/(c±s),
>
> where w = light's one-way speed and
> s = observer's speed wrt the fixed-in-space
> emission point of the light ray
> (this point is fixed in space due to light's
> source-independent nature)
>
> The justification for using absolutely synchronous clocks on paper
> is the simple fact that no one has proved that such clocks cannot
> exist.
>
> Finally, note that whereas no one has ever proved that Einstein's
> clocks are correctly related temporally, I _have_ proved the exact
> opposite.

You have depended on them in your experimental setup. You paint yourself a
fool.

> This places special relativity in the discard bin.

Actually, no. Your intention is good, but you didn't pull it off very
well. You didn't even make crank status that time.

David A. Smith

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >>in motion relative to himself to shrink, and measures clocks in motion ... you are saying that Einstein assumed the observer using the Lorentz ... same speed in all directions in his own frame. ... plugging numbers into the Lorentz transformation, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >>in motion relative to himself to shrink, and measures clocks in motion ... you are saying that Einstein assumed the observer using the Lorentz ... same speed in all directions in his own frame. ... plugging numbers into the Lorentz transformation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... but can B define "light path length" in his frame by looking only at ... moving stick is moving parallel to a ruler which is at rest in B's ... >>clocks to measure the time, he will get a different time for the light ... assuming that each observer defines coordinates by the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... but can B define "light path length" in his frame by looking only at ... moving stick is moving parallel to a ruler which is at rest in B's ... >>clocks to measure the time, he will get a different time for the light ... assuming that each observer defines coordinates by the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Reviewing Statements in Einsteins 1905 paper.
    ... with the adoption of the second postulate. ... of reference, which is allthe standard metre requires). ... tilted time lines and out of sync clocks would be ... Agreed, nothing changed within a frame, just our preception of how ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)