+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 44

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Einstein was wrong

    Not trying to make anybody mad, but here's my proposition based on our exchange so far.

    Let's go back to Einstein's discussion on the train and the simultaneous flash of light.

    Here we see the moving observer and the stationary observer in the same position at the instant the lightning hits.

    This is something Einstein doesn't necessarily mention, but at the instant of the lightning hitting, we assume the traveler and ground observer are in alignment.

    This means that both observers would be in position we'll call "T-1"

    However, when the flash "hits" the moving observer, he is now at a position we'll call "T-2".

    What Einstein has slipped by us is a mathematical flaw, insinuating that T-1 =T-2.

    If we look at the moving observer as being merely a stationary observer on a grid listing T-2, T-2, T-3...., we could simply place the moving observer in a stationary position at any of the points above, and the flash would "hit" him at the same instant, moving or not.

    If we took another observer and placed him on the grid corresponding to the flash as it hit the moving observer from the back of the train, both "hits" would correspond whether the observer was moving or not.

    The only difference is that the observer has moved(we can picture a chess piece here) from one square on the grid to another.

    The "time" in which the events occurred would still be the same, assuming that the stationary observer was simply moved to the same space as the moving observer when the flash "hit" him.

    The frames of reference are "absolute" in the sense that they must relate to the time of the lightning, the rate at which the lightning travels, and their positions in relation to that lightning.

    The only difference is that it would take three stationary observers to have the same experience as one stationary and one moving observer, since we are describing three relations to two flashes of light.

    If we go back to Einstein's thought experiment, we may see how he equates 1 with 2.

    Instead of one moving observer, place two observers in a seat, side by side, one facing the rear and one facing the front.

    The lightning strikes as moving and stationary observer come into alignment, but one moving observer records the time of the flash from the front of the train, and the other records the flash from the rear.

    Even though they sit in the same position at the same time, they will experience two different flashes, because they are in a different relation to those two flashes.

    Nothing whatever has changed in the relation to time and space. The experiences were objective experiences, but they had to be measured from an actual event that occurred in time and space, or they could never have measured their experience in any relationship to that event. The "absolute frame of reference", therefore, was the occurrence of the event as it related to their position in space.

    Movement of the observers had nothing to do with it. It was simply a matter of how long it took the light to get to them from each position to their own position, and whatever that position, it could be copied by using stationary observers.

    The result would be the same using cars as the "speed of light" driving at sixty mph. Since the speed is constant and finite, it wouldn't matter what you describe, since the effect would generally be the same either way, whether the observers were moving or not.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    Basically what this all comes down to is that you're not being thorough enough with defining things like position and time. Like I mentioned in another thread, you've really got to get a book on special relativity and read it through carefully. I can't explain this via a forum because it takes far too many diagrams. There are two different sets of coordinate systems at play here and you are only using one of them, so you can't possibly get the right answer.

    Unfortunately you quickly reach a point with this stuff where you just can't make sense of it without actually sitting down and working out some equations.



    Plus, I can assure you that Einstein was not wrong. I have observed the effects of special relativity myself - anyone that's done undergraduate physics has as well. Time dilation lets us observe muons on the surface of the Earth that would not be able to get here if time was running at the normal rate for them. GPS systems work using very accurate clocks, and they are adjusted because their clocks run slower than our clocks. Atomic clocks flown around the world on fast jets lose time. Nuclear bombs explode. None of these would be possible if Einstein was wrong.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    .

    None of these would be possible if Einstein was wrong.
    Let me clarify. What the math led to is correct, but the explanations which Einstein gave in his thought experiments do not lead to the same conclusions as he explains it. And he himself admitted to lacking in this regard.

    From his explanations, and only his explanations, I see this:

    Einstein states there are no absolute frames of reference. This has bugged me since I was 15, because with no absolute frames of reference, how do we even measure something? No Planck's constant, not even mathematics itself.

    Here's what I see from his explanation, which may be due to my lack of understanding, but more to his lack of clarity in explanation.

    Is "now" a different experience for different people in his thought experiment? I don't think so, since Einstein tacitly establishes a "now" in his thought experiment which he never identifies, leading to the idea of relative "nows" regarding the speed of light.

    Example, when the moving and stationary observer are in direct alignment, and with the measurement of two flashes of lightning being simultaneous with that alignment, Einstein establishes a "0" point in time which both moving and stationary observer share BEFORE either of them experience the flash of lightning.

    This zero point had to be established in order to develop a relative time frame regarding the speed of light.

    So, at the time the mover and stationary observer looked eye to eye, that became the absolute "now"(0) from which time began.

    The point at which lightning struck the two ends of the train established a kind of Euclidian line segment from which the (o) would serve as an absolute frame of reference.

    That "now" was implicitly established without mention prior to the experience of the lightning flash for either one, so serves as the absolute "now" from which all measurement begins.

    From that point, thanks to the Lorentz transformation and other mathematical equations, the truth emerges.

    However, any point at which either observer experiences the flash of lightning will not be "now", but "later".

    Only one instant of time can serve as a reference frame for the experiment, before either observer "saw the light".

    Anything after than is a time scale measured as "later".


    What the Lorentz transformation does, is to relate the "now" reference from which the stationary observer experiences lightning, to the "now" in which the traveler experiences the lightning. Each becomes a relative "0" in its relation to the other.

    But the same relative frames of reference can be created in relation to light speed without the parallel line of the moving observer, simply by stationing an observer at any point on the same line and transforming the relationship to a relative position to the first observer.

    There is no "now" in physics because Einstein ignored the "now" that must begin each experiment as a reference outside the speed of light.

    The numbers demonstrate the truth, but his explanation just seems short to me.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    An addition to the above. Einstein seems to have omitted "position(now)" in favor of "velocity(speed of light)".

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,313

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    i just had the thought that "light" HAS NO SPEED!? at least not when you are "WITH IT"!? it's the ETERNAL NOW of no regard!? :freak3: :spin2: :
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx View Post
    i just had the thought that "light" HAS NO SPEED!? at least not when you are "WITH IT"!? it's the ETERNAL NOW of no regard!? :freak3: :spin2: :


    I had similar thoughts for years, until it finally hit me that Einstein was giving us a "two for one" sale!


    Einstein has said that the speed of light is the absolute reference by which to measure events, which means that, in order to reach mathematical equivalence, all measurements of time or space apart from the speed of light must expand or contract.

    But that is ONLY if you accept the measurement of light as an absolute!

    Einstein said the observer on the train, in my earlier discussion of his thought experiment, was at exactly the same point as the stationary observer standing on the ground at the time the two flashes of lightning occurred.

    How do we know this? Because Einstein established that the two observers were parallel to each other at that instant, which is established simply measuring the TIME it takes for the light to reach the stationary observer.

    If light travels at a finite, constant speed, it cannot be an "eternal now", its speed is subject to the measurements of TIME and SPACE.

    How do we know this? Because it takes the light a measurable amount of TIME and SPACE to get to each observer in relation to the position of each observer.

    We already know that the observer on the train and on the ground were standing parallel at the time of the lightning flash BEFORE either of them received the signal of light.

    The simultaneity of that time is established with the lightning flash being irrelevant.

    Lightning is introduced at both ends of the train ONLY to establish a "zero point" in relation to the STATIONARY OBSERVER.

    The stationary observer then establishes "now" as that time when both observers are parallel,

    Every event at any point after that is "later", AS MEASURED FROM THE STATIONARY POINT AT WHICH THE MOVING AND STATIOARY OBSERVER WERE IN ALIGNMENT, OR PARALLEL.

    That was the absolute "now" from which the other events followed.

    Was the moving observer in a different time frame that made it "now" when he saw the lightning?

    It could not have been, because the lightning travels at the same speed regardless, which means that the flash of light he was moving towards would have to be farther away.

    But if it was farther away, then it could not have reached the stationary observer the same time as the other flash at the other end of the train.

    To get around this, Einstein only had one solution, and that was to conclude that space contracted in relation to the speed of light.

    Using the Lorentz transformation, which translated the "zero" point of the stationary observer the the "zero" of the moving observer, using the speed of light as an absolute framework, the equivalence of all positions can be reached mathematically simply by expanding or contracting space in relation to the absolute of light speed.

    That is the ONLY way that light can be a constant, under Einstein's conception, and the traveler experiences "now" in a different time frame.

    Once the mathematician accepts this as the framework from which he can proceed, all the math works to amazing precision, because all events are translated to a finite yet absolute frame of reference. But time and space must be altered accordingly, challenging common sense views.

    OTOH, if he accepted the "zero" time as the absolute frame of reference without regard to light, then all events experienced by the traveler and stationary observer would be measured within "Galilean" time, with each observer proceeding measurable to different experiences with a single time frame, an absolute reference, in which time remains absolute in reference to space.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    Look, Doojie, you're trying to reason about these things from a non-rigorous philosophical type perspective, and it's just not going to work. Einstein was very, very meticulous about defining these thing. How to define a now, and how to define time, and how to define distance, and what it means to compare these things between reference frames.... That will take up half a book on special relativity.

    There is a lorentz transformation for the time coordinate now, but I don't know how to explain it in terms of "nows" and "thens". They just aren't terms that you can use to describe the physics of special relativity.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,259

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    Two things effect time as I know. Gravity and time.

    I don't know of anything else that can effect time.

    Of course I don't know what the heck I am talking about.

    I am just a high school graduate, and a truck driver. KAZZA had mentioned how time, and gravity effects time.

    Looking at this from someone who does not know the subject well.

    I feel their are only three things that make up our entire universe.

    Space, time, and Matter.

    It is how we understand these three things that allows us to manipulate them, and use them to our advantage.

    Math is the one truth we have.

    Einstein has been proven correct many times.

    Was Einstein wrong. No I don't think so. I feel as we look at different things, the science and math will advance.

    The science and math has advanced somewhat.

    Still there is no way to get around the nature of gravity, and the nature of time as far as I know.

    At some point could we could manipulate these things.

    I don't see why not.

    Disclaimer: This post was made by a person who does not know what in the world he is talking about. Though it is fun to try to seem that you do.
    Last edited by howdy; 05-22-2009 at 10:51 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    Look, Doojie, you're trying to reason about these things from a non-rigorous philosophical type perspective, and it's just not going to work. Einstein was very, very meticulous about defining these thing. How to define a now, and how to define time, and how to define distance, and what it means to compare these things between reference frames.... That will take up half a book on special relativity.

    There is a Lorentz transformation for the time coordinate now, but I don't know how to explain it in terms of "nows" and "thens". They just aren't terms that you can use to describe the physics of special relativity.
    Let me say,Kazza, that I respect your opinion, and I am in no way trying to challenge you personally on this. However, I'm almost sixty, and this thing has bugged me since I was 15.

    I assume you are college age from your self description, and I'm not going to play the age card, since mathematicians do their best work by about age 25. I'm over the hill. However, I have Einstein's book, and it simply is not rigorous.

    the numbers may well be correct, but they are based on the acceptance of his description which depends on the Lorentz transformation with the speed of light. Once you accept that as a basis for your mathematical perspective, the of course everything else must follow.

    I'll get back to this later, but I hope we can continue the discussion with no anger or resentment. I may be wrong, but not in terms of Einstein's description.
    Last edited by doojie; 05-22-2009 at 06:15 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    Howdy, I appreciate your input.

    Math, however, is "truth" to the extent that it is based on an axiomatic foundation.

    If the axioms are correct, and every statement proceeding from that is a well formed statement, then the math is correct.

    However, if foundation (axioms) of the math is incorrect, then the axioms and theorems proceeding from that will be in error, but will still be consistent from the axioms established, and there will be no way to check the accuracy of the math except from "outside" the framework of math itself.

    Yes, math is correct, but keep in mind that there is something called Godel's theorem(Godel was a close friend of Einstein) which says that in every axiomatic system, there exists undecidable propositions.

    Math is the closest thing we can have to truth, but one system cannot contain all truth. I encourage your input, in all things.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,259

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    OK. So some thing are left to chance. The math can't be perfect when trying to exactly predict chance. Though I would not doubt that at some point we could come up with a way to predict chance events.

    There will be always something unpredictable that happens at times, no matter how good the math is.

    That is where we are as humans at this time.

    Really when you think about it. It is what makes us human.

    The variable of not knowing everything exactly.

    Ask yourself, if we came up with a theory of everything.

    Is that something good, or something to worry about.
    Last edited by howdy; 05-22-2009 at 11:12 PM.

  12. #12
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. User Rank
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    Howdy, I appreciate your input.

    Math, however, is "truth" to the extent that it is based on an axiomatic foundation.

    If the axioms are correct, and every statement proceeding from that is a well formed statement, then the math is correct.

    However, if foundation (axioms) of the math is incorrect, then the axioms and theorems proceeding from that will be in error, but will still be consistent from the axioms established, and there will be no way to check the accuracy of the math except from "outside" the framework of math itself.

    Yes, math is correct, but keep in mind that there is something called Godel's theorem(Godel was a close friend of Einstein) which says that in every axiomatic system, there exists undecidable propositions.

    Math is the closest thing we can have to truth, but one system cannot contain all truth. I encourage your input, in all things.
    To claim that one of the greatest minds of our time was wrong, specially in light of the fact that so many other things are dependent upon his findings, is absurd.

    However, the greatest minds have had their idea overturned as more is learned. If you feel you are correct, the write an article and submit it for peer review.

    Otherwise, just stating that Einstein was wrong, is a very silly thing to do.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by LogicallyYours View Post
    To claim that one of the greatest minds of our time was wrong, specially in light of the fact that so many other things are dependent upon his findings, is absurd.

    However, the greatest minds have had their idea overturned as more is learned. If you feel you are correct, the write an article and submit it for peer review.

    Otherwise, just stating that Einstein was wrong, is a very silly thing to do.
    I understand what you're saying. When I presented my virus theory in college about thirty years ago, I was given almost exactly the same answer, only to find that virtually everything i said then, is accepted almost without question now.

    All I can do at this point is to submit what I see to Kazza and hope that he will show me the flaws in my argument, which leads me to the argument itself.

    Let's examine Einstein's thought experiment as he describes it, regarding the simultaneous flashes of light.

    With both the stationary observer and the moving observer at "0", Einstein has established a Euclidian line segment whose ends extend to the two flashes of light and no farther.

    IOW, he has drawn a finite segment with two finite ends, represented by two lightning flashes.

    Because these two points, in conjunction withe both observers at "0" in the center of the line, represent "now".

    I can select a point anywhere on that line segment, and no matter where it is between the two ends, it will be "now".

    IOW, Einstein has drawn a Euclidian line segment that represent time outside of space. Both ends of the segment, because of the lightning strike, which we know occurred "now", contain the limit of all events which can be properly defined as "now".

    Whatever position I select for any observer at any point on that line, it is "now", and there are an infinite number of selections I can make.

    However, what Einstein has done, and it works mathematically to precision, is to define "now" on that segment not as one continuous frame of time representing "now", but has actually broken it into an infinite progression of "now" events that are defined in terms of the speed of light, which is not infinite, but finite.

    To explore this, let's get back to basics in calculus. If we drop a rock from a 400ft cliff, we can measure the position and trajectory of that rock at any selected instant in time, and know how far it has traveled in relation to time.

    From this we may deduce that as time expands, space contracts, since the rock must have a certain amount of measurable time to fall a certain amount of space. The more time is included, the less space is left for the rock to reach its destination.

    Therefore, time expands, space contracts. The rock doesn't get larger, nor does the space it occupies somehow get smaller except in relation to time.

    However, what Einstein has done is to take a section of time between two points, both of which represent "now", and measured all events, not in relation to the one zero point from which both travelers go, but from the "time frame" which he refers to as "now" on the line segment he represents.

    When we measure the fall of a rock, we measure the fall from one point to another, with the time it takes to measure that fall, with time expanding, and space contracting.

    However, Einstein has selected two points which can only represent "now" and reduced all movement to a time frame in which the speed of light itself must be absolute.

    What he is saying, and he even refers to it in his book, is that the EXPERIENCE of each observer, traveling and stationary, will experience the flash of light as "now".

    But it cannot be "now", since the traveler has moved from "0" as representative point of "now" to another point which must in time be referred to as "later".

    IOW, there exists a non-equivalence in the positions the two observers experience in terms ONLY regarding their position EXPEREIENCING the flash of light. Is that "now" in terms of actual time for light to travel a distance? No, it is an objective "now" ONLY IN RELATION TO THE FINITE SPEED OF LIGHT.

    However, since Einstein has selected the speed of light as the absolute reference frame for "now", there is no way to eliminate the non-equivalence of time and space except by "shrinking" or ""expanding" time and space in relation to the speed of light.

    Does it work? Absolutely, and it will continue to work with amazing precision ONLY as long as the equivalence of time and space are expanded or contracted to match the finite speed of light.

    It actually works like magic, because Einstein has related all of time and space to a finite and measurable process called the speed of light.

    Is it true? It works. But is it true? It has to be true if it works, doesn't it?

    It will always be true within the finite relationships where time is measured in expanding or contracting relationship to the speed of light, just as Newton's and Galileo's concepts worked outside of the consideration of light.

    The beauty of Einstein's concept is that he separated the speed of light as a finite and digital representation of time. Time doesn't stand still, but it is forced to move in the finite relationship of light transmission for all events.

    But what Einstein has further shown is that time is represented digitally, while space is analog. Time can be selected arbitrarily along the continuum which he drew in his example, and once it is limited only to experiences with the speed of light as an absolute representing "now", the "now" itself can be drawn in terms of light speed, which means that nothing in physical movement will ever exceed it.

    If you don't think time is digital while space is analog, simply think back to Einstein's conception of a rock falling in a parabolic form as it is dropped from a moving train. In time, the rock merely falls straight down in reference to its own moving frame, but if you draw a graph with the horizontal representing the direction of the train's movement and the vertical representing the rock's fall, you must combine time and space(digital with analog) to trace the parabolic trajectory. The digital representation of the rock's fall in time is traced by an analog of the rock's trajectory in time.

    This is also what occurs in Einstein's representation of the flash of lightning. All of time is represented digitally, so that the observer's position, strictly in terms of the speed of light, can be seen as "now" on the segment, corresponding to the experience of the observer in relation to light speed. Einstein has converged time and experience to a finite speed, meaning that time and space must be altered to conform to light speed as a constant.

    Take the same process and refer to quantum measurement. If you measure the position(digital time) of an electron's position, you will not find velocity, because velocity is trajectory(analog) in relation to a digital position. That is, once you establish the position of an electron in time, you will not find its position in space, because there must be a combination of both measurements at the "classic" level to show where the object can be in any digital relation to space.

    But measuring the position of an electron provides only "noise" in regard to velocity, while measurement of velocity only provides "noise" in relation to position. The object cannot be measured in both space and time, with one being digital and one being analog.

    A digital reference to time always contains gaps, and it has an infinity of such gaps. For example, if you measure the rate of a rock falling to the ground, you will never find a point in the rock;s trajectory corresponding to the square root of 2, or 3, or 5, etc, leaving an infinity of gaps in the measurement of time. Time is digital, which is why an analog signal to your TV will provide an image with sound and movement with "noise", but a digital image will provide either almost non-existent "noise" or no image at all.

    Analog transmission of electrons is a combination of time and space, but measuring time leaves "noise" or measuring space leaves "noise".

    An electron does not "travel" in a measurable, conventional sense, because position and trajectory can never be known at the same time. If it were, time and space would have to be the same, but we already know by simple logic that as space expands, time contracts, and vice versa.

    So, Einstein's measurements are accurate, they work, but they are not complete and consistent images of reality. They are not "true" in a complete and consistent sense, or they would be a violation of Godel's theorem.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    If you look at a thorough derivation of the theory of special relativity then this is not a problem. Einstein was very careful about differentiating between what the observers see and what actually happens.

    Each observer in the train gedanken is imagined to be at one origin of an infinite, three dimensional grid of 1 meter rods, at x=0. At every rod intersection there is another observer with a clock. In order to synchronise the clocks the observer emits a flash of light. At the instant the flash is released the observer starts his clock running 0. As the flash passes each intersection, the clock at that intersection is set to start running at a time of |x|/c where |x| is the radial distance from the observer to the clock and c is the speed of light.

    Thus instead of the simplified version we have been using with two observers, we actually have two sets of an infinite number of observers arranged in a 3D grid and carrying clocks. Each set of observers, call them S and S', are equivalent to the single observer in the earlier description of the experiment.

    If S and S' are stationary with respect to one another then they are identical in every way and all measurements will be the same.

    At t=0 and t'=0 the origin of the two coordinate systems coincide. System S' is moving at some relative velocity, u, to system S.

    Every observer is given the following instructions - if a bolt of lightning strikes your intersection, record the time at which it strikes.

    Two bolts of lightning strike somewhere, at some time, but we don't know anything about it at this stage.

    Once everything is over, all of the infinte number of observers from S and S' come together, carrying their clocks, and discuss their results. Two of the observers in S have stopped their clocks at the instant the lightning struck their intersection - there was no propogation of light necessary for them to record this, the lightning hit right on the intersections. The two observers from S report that both of their clocks read exactly the same thing - they deduce, since their clocks were synchronised, that the lightning struck their two intersections at exactly the same time.

    Two of the observers in S' also observed the lightning strike. Again, the lightning hit their intersections precisely, so there was no propagation of light. Once they come together they find that one of the observers stopped their clock earlier than the other. Since their clocks were also synchronised with each other, independently of those in frame S, they conclude that the lightning struck one of their intersections earlier than it struck the other.

    Both sets of observervations have been made with absolute rigour and both sets of conclusions are correct.


    I haven't gone through all the derivations because it's a pain to try to write maths in a forum, but hopefully this helps resolve your issue.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    530

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    He was wrong on some things ie magnetism and gravity... but not this subject...
    ie; that gravitiation fields are always attractive in contradiction to electric fields and that his and everyone elses theories still do not explain this phenomena and so are not really valid.
    Great in most circumstances but not watertight.

    He seems to have understood special relativity pretty well...but he just didnt actually come up with the idea...
    Einstien plagarised it...from an italian who published it two or three years before him in a science mag called Atte.....The real discoverer was named De Pretto if I remember correctly...

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    If you look at a thorough derivation of the theory of special relativity then this is not a problem. Einstein was very careful about differentiating between what the observers see and what actually happens.

    Each observer in the train gedanken is imagined to be at one origin of an infinite, three dimensional grid of 1 meter rods, at x=0. At every rod intersection there is another observer with a clock. In order to synchronise the clocks the observer emits a flash of light. At the instant the flash is released the observer starts his clock running 0. As the flash passes each intersection, the clock at that intersection is set to start running at a time of |x|/c where |x| is the radial distance from the observer to the clock and c is the speed of light.

    Thus instead of the simplified version we have been using with two observers, we actually have two sets of an infinite number of observers arranged in a 3D grid and carrying clocks. Each set of observers, call them S and S', are equivalent to the single observer in the earlier description of the experiment.

    If S and S' are stationary with respect to one another then they are identical in every way and all measurements will be the same.

    At t=0 and t'=0 the origin of the two coordinate systems coincide. System S' is moving at some relative velocity, u, to system S.

    Every observer is given the following instructions - if a bolt of lightning strikes your intersection, record the time at which it strikes.

    Two bolts of lightning strike somewhere, at some time, but we don't know anything about it at this stage.

    Once everything is over, all of the infinte number of observers from S and S' come together, carrying their clocks, and discuss their results. Two of the observers in S have stopped their clocks at the instant the lightning struck their intersection - there was no propogation of light necessary for them to record this, the lightning hit right on the intersections. The two observers from S report that both of their clocks read exactly the same thing - they deduce, since their clocks were synchronised, that the lightning struck their two intersections at exactly the same time.

    Two of the observers in S' also observed the lightning strike. Again, the lightning hit their intersections precisely, so there was no propagation of light. Once they come together they find that one of the observers stopped their clock earlier than the other. Since their clocks were also synchronised with each other, independently of those in frame S, they conclude that the lightning struck one of their intersections earlier than it struck the other.

    Both sets of observervations have been made with absolute rigour and both sets of conclusions are correct.


    I haven't gone through all the derivations because it's a pain to try to write maths in a forum, but hopefully this helps resolve your issue.
    Last edited by reentry; 05-24-2009 at 06:26 PM. Reason: spelling and explanation

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Einstein was wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by reentry View Post
    He was wrong on some things ie magnetism and gravity... but not this subject...
    He seems to have undersood it but he just didnt actually come up with the idea...he plagarised it...from an italian who published it two or three years before him in a science mag called Atte....1903 I think...guy was named De Pretto if I remember correctly...
    I wouldn't say he plagarised it, but none of the ideas were new. His paper on special relativity was just a collection of work that had been done by other people before him, De Pretto may have been one. Einstein just suggested that it was actually representative of reality, and believed it. That's the way science works though, every publication just takes things a small step further than the one before it.

    In any case, special relativity was not what Einstein is remembered for. It was his work on general relativity that was truly unique and insightful. Not to mention his 5 other papers that year that proved the existence of atoms, developed the mass energy relation, and sparked quantum mechanics.


    It's probably still to early to say whether Einstein was wrong on gravity or not. It's only a small point that he was wrong about anyway, and the simplest way to introduce dark energy into the Einstein equations is the addition of the cosmological constant.



    edit: Just looked up De Pretto, and while he did come up with the formula E=mc^2, it was just coincidence that it's the same formula as Einstein's. His work was nothing like special relativity, and he simply based it on his incorrect belief that the kinetic energy of an object is mv^2 (instead of the correct formula, (1/2)mv^2), and so therefore the kinetic energy of an object moving at c must be mc^2.

    The formula E=mc^2 used by Einstein either relates solely to the rest mass of the object (not the kinetic), or else you need to use the relativistic mass, in which case the formula becomes E=mc^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2. E=mc^2 sounds better, though.
    Last edited by kazza; 05-24-2009 at 06:28 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. The limited data available on Einstein's brain revealed
    By buttbutt in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-07-2017, 10:24 AM
  2. The limited data available on Einstein's brain revealed
    By buttbutt in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-01-2016, 09:55 AM
  3. Einstein's Stupidity
    By BarackZero in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-29-2010, 03:20 PM
  4. Einstein's thought experiments
    By doojie in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-20-2009, 01:14 PM
  5. Einstein believed in God?
    By Lord_jag in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 06-26-2008, 04:11 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •