Hijack from Speed of Time

[Mordred]

wow you simply refuse to see the math directly in front of you and how it pertains directly to the equation in section 2 of Einstein's paper.

This has become a pointless waste of my time. Enjoy your misconceptions.

[Logicandreason]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

Constancy of the speed of light is not part of what you are calling “classical physics”

It was assumed that the light speed would be added to the speed of the source. 

When I was informed that I would be banned from this forum unless i restricted my argument to Mathematics alone, I was unable to explain texturally, in plain English where Einstein's logical and rational error was to be found.

I warned everyone that this was not the professional approach, and that even if I show the Math error,, (which I have just done) you all could simply loop back on the argument are reapply the original concept error, which in your minds negated my math.  

Its circular logic fallacy.

In fact, classical Physics DOES say that Light has constant motion. 

But Classical Physics was not developed by stupid men.

So while light speed is indeed "constant" of motion, its measurement can only ever be related to the  origin of the measurement.  Like ANY measurement, the Origin is PART of the Measurement.

In Einstein's paper he acknowledges this when he wrote, 

Quote: "The “time” of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock. .......

It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it “the time of the stationary system.”

Clearly for Einstein's thought experiments to make any sense, he HAD TO HAVE A ORIGIN for the experiments, which he identifies as "the Stationary System, the clock in the stationary system".  This provides the ESSENTIAL ORIGIN for both LOCATION and for TIME which MUST be defined or else no time period or length measure can have any meaning.

I can not say, the object everyone and anyone is looking for is located at 345 meters north.  and if any person and every person walks north for 3 minutes at speed of 4 mph, anyone and everyone will find it."

Its gibberish, because no reference origin is specified to which the measurement are related.  Same with Einstein's paper.

He initially specifies the origin for distance and time, being the stationary frame, but later deletes all reference to that origin replacing that required origin with the claim that ANY and ALL origins are going to give the same result.  This is nonsense.

[Mordred]

You only get banned for violations of the Site rules. If a thread in speculations does not meet the requirements in the links I posted on page one. The thread gets locked. That is not the same as being banned.

[Logicandreason]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

wow you simply refuse to see the math directly in front of you and how it pertains directly to the equation in section 2 of Einstein's paper.

This has become a pointless waste of my time. Enjoy your misconceptions.

The math in front of me is attached. 

I showed that it is incorrectly representing what Einstein is claiming in the Rod in a moving frame" thought experiment.  He claimed the we were measuring the time it took for light to traverse a moving rod, but in the math the Rod is not moving. ^RAB is the static Rod length and light will span a static length in the same time for anyone that is in the same static frame.

But in the equation that Rod is supposed to be in motion, as is the light, which the equations shows has motion relative to the Rods motion. ( c+ or _ v)  Therefore , that motion + and - v, MUST be included for the NUMERATOR so the Numerator MUST be (^RAB + or - v). and not simply ^RAB.

This is 100% correct Classical Physics applied mathematically.  

Prove mathematically that this is not correct. Then I'll accept the consequences.

 

[Mordred]

why would you believe the rod is not moving when it shows it directly in the math you just posted ? What do you think the v-c and v+c is all about. I even spent time telling you this yesterday. The rod length is static does not mean the rod isn't moving. The static implies what is now called Born rigidity. In other words he isn't applying the SR Lorentz contraction at this stage. At this stage he is directly examining Classical physics. You don't seem to get that/

\(Observer A (train direction given by- V)\longrightarrow Observer B\)

does that help ?

Edited June 11, 2023 by Mordred

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

When I was informed that I would be banned from this forum unless i restricted my argument to Mathematics alone, I was unable to explain texturally, in plain English where Einstein's logical and rational error was to be found.

That never happened in this thread. The only mention of being banned is where Mordred explained that it only happens for rules violations.

 

27 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

I warned everyone that this was not the professional approach, and that even if I show the Math error,, (which I have just done) you all could simply loop back on the argument are reapply the original concept error, which in your minds negated my math.  

Since the premise of this is untrue, this is moot.

27 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Its circular logic fallacy.

In fact, classical Physics DOES say that Light has constant motion. 

Back this up.

There would be no need for it to be a postulate in relativity if it was the case.

 

27 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

 

 

But Classical Physics was not developed by stupid men.

So while light speed is indeed "constant" of motion, its measurement can only ever be related to the  origin of the measurement.  Like ANY measurement, the Origin is PART of the Measurement.

I have no idea what “origin of the measurement” is supposed to mean.

27 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

 

In Einstein's paper he acknowledges this when he wrote, 

Quote: "The “time” of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock. .......

It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it “the time of the stationary system.”

Clearly for Einstein's thought experiments to make any sense, he HAD TO HAVE A ORIGIN for the experiments, which he identifies as "the Stationary System, the clock in the stationary system".  This provides the ESSENTIAL ORIGIN for both LOCATION and for TIME which MUST be defined or else no time period or length measure can have any meaning.

And what does this have to do with anything under discussion? You’re tap-dancing again.

Stick to the issues that have been raised, and which you’ve not addressed, like the”correct” equation for the time difference, to replace the one Einstein gives.

[Logicandreason]

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

why would you believe the rod is not moving when it shows it directly in the math you just posted ? What do you think the v-c and v+c is all about. I even spent time telling you this yesterday. The rod length is static does not mean the rod isn't moving. The static implies what is now called Born rigidity. In other words he isn't applying the SR Lorentz contraction at this stage. At this stage he is directly examining Classical physics. You don't seem to get that/

ObserverA(traindirectiongivenby−V)⟶ObserverB

does that help ?

You are mathematically in error. You need to consider what you are claiming is correct math when its obviously wrong.

c+ and c- in this equation is the calculated SPEED of the LIGHT relative to a stationary frame. such as previously identified by Einstein.   That is the denominator in a velocity equation t=d/v

But as the equation is dynamic and not static, indicated by the fact that we have a duration tA to  tB. then the NUMERATOR which is a DISTANCE can ONLY mathematically be a "DISTANCE TRAVELLED" in the Time period tB  - tA.

The Numerator in the velocity equation as applied to a dynamic condition can never remain as a non moving distance.

We call these FACTS, "Mathematics". You ought to look it up one day. Even a child can follow the reasoning in simply classical Physics Math such as this.

Einstein's Equation is NOT classical physics at all. its an error of classical physics math.

 

[Mordred]

Sigh lets try a different angle 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelson-morley_calculations.svg

see image here 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

its in essence the same mathematics same relation you can see the image and how v-c and v+c is applied

Edited June 11, 2023 by Mordred

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

I got a nonsense result, so rather than destroying all of known classical Physics, I instead decided to first check the Equations. And its clear that the Equations do NOT represent Classical Physics, and they do not even make sense.  The Rod has motion, but the equation has not considered that motion. It only refers to the static lenghth of the rod, which is NOT what the experiment is trying to measure!

It’s clear to me (and others) that the equation is correct, so just asserting that it’s wrong is meaningless.

You’ve been asked for a derivation of the “correct” equation. Where is it?

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

 

Of course you can, but that is only going to give the same distance if you know the actual measurement of lights speed, relative to the object being measured.  IN classical Physics, c is a constant relative to the origin of the measurement. but the measurement of c is not a universal constant..

 

You just stated the it was, in your previous post.

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

That is the postulate of Einstein, nothing to doo with classical physics. Its exactly his second postulate.  (a Postulate is a claim that the author is asking us to accept without any justification, as he intends to prove that its correct by application of his conclusions which he hopes are obviously correct.

Pick one answer, please. Is c a constant, or not, in “classical” physics?

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

But its  not what we are measuring. We are supposed to be measuring how long light will take to traverse the length "r_{AB" WHEN} r_AB is in motion an directions with and against the direction of the light. In the equations, reference of the motion of the rod is totally  missing.

The motion of the rod is accounted for in the equation. That’s why we have c+v and c-v terms. v is the speed of the rod, hence at accounts for motion.

But at least you now admit we are measuring time, and not distance.

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

I've explained the error in terms so simple that a child can follow it, yet you just cant see it? You cant even comment on what in the preceding paragraph I just wrote?  WHERE HAS THE EQUATIONS OF EINSTEN ALLOWED FOR THE MOTION OF THE ROD? SHOW ME.

The v term, as I’ve mentioned. If the rod isn’t moving, v is zero.

 

8 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

The Numerator in the velocity equation as applied to a dynamic condition can never remain as a non moving distance.

The numerator is simply the length of the rod. It’s not the distance the light travels, as measured in the rest frame. That’s accounted for with the c+v and c-v terms. 

But since the equations is for time, the distance the light travels isn’t explicitly stated. You can find it by multiplying the time by c, since d=ct

[Logicandreason]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

44 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Its circular logic fallacy.

In fact, classical Physics DOES say that Light has constant motion. 

Back this up.

There would be no need for it to be a postulate in relativity if it was the case.

Well I TRIED to back this up but I was told that any explanation would precipitate me getting blocked from the conversation.

I was only permitted to supply Math with no explanation.

The key to this question is understanding, (try hard, I know understanding is not easy for religious people, and this point is mentioned the the site rules and guidelines as explained by Swansont in his comment on page one.

The key is to realise that the nature of MOTION, namely having a consistency of motion, is NOT interchangeable with A Subjective MEASUREMENT of that Motion.

In every statement now, since Einstein, any enquiry(google search)  about the "Constancy of Lights motion", automatically gives results relating ONLY to a NUMERICAL measurement of Lights motion. 186,000 m.ps.

Maxwell was one of the ways that people before Einstein could see that Light probably had a constant speed, Measurable relative to SOMETHING, but they could not figure out what that something was. 

So pre Einstein there was evidence that Light had a set speed according to Maxwell and most likely postulated by others of the day too, but their voices have ben lost in history now, as they have nothing more to add of note.

So yes, there was really no need for Einstein to make the constancy of Light MOTION a postulate.

But he did have to postulate that it was constant, and always measurable as 186,000 mps.

There is more to this, but I have a pressing need to go into the yard and rake up leaves.

 

 

 

[iNow]

On 6/9/2023 at 7:04 PM, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

We’ve been ready for some time. You keep promising to present your case, and have had ample opportunity to do so, but have squandered this opportunity in favor of delay and distraction. 

If your next post doesn’t contain the “evidence” you’ve promised, we’re done here. 

 

Time is relative, I know, but this mod note seems like forever ago

[Logicandreason]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Sigh lets try a different angle 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelson-morley_calculations.svg

see image here 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

its in essence the same mathematics same relation you can see the image and how v-c and v+c is applied

And this explanation about the M & M experiment, the illustration and the supplied Math, is inadmissible on account of the fact that it offers no proof of anything. A null result on an experiment is not proof of some claim, its perhaps if you are really generous with your standards, POSSIBLY  ONLY HINTING that there is no Aether.  but its also, if you are not so loose with your assumptions, the M&M experiment and all subsequent experiment results HINT that this equipment is just not suitable to demonstrate the existence of an Aether.   Also, it could HINT that the results are invalid because the machine was never calibrated to fixed standards before it was used. or another thing that could be HINTED is the fact that never has anyone demonstrated that the equipment was even able to show any velocity of light differences in the first place. (N.B.  Einstein's actual words were that he believed that Maxwell and M&M Null result "SUGGESTED". I used the word HINTED as a synonym.

Nowadays, the existence of an Aether in some form or other is STILL postulated by many Physicists especially of the Quantum persuasion. But they re label it as the Quantum Field or some such thing. Changing the name means nothing, the idea called quantum Field is along the same lines as the idea of an aether or even the idea of a fixed Spacetime of GR. 

So, sorry but M&M is not the way past this problem.

Nor is Einstein's statements about the HINTING that he thinks is really important regarding Maxwell's claimed "non invariance" which simply doesn't exist. 

SIGH, (meaning: why do I have to keep baby stepping you through all this? ) your inference when you used the word SIGH.

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Time is relative, I know, but this mod note seems like forever ago

I have posted as much evidence as Einstein including the Math. And of similar quality.

NO one has yet shown where I have it wrong. 

Why don't you have a go?

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s clear to me (and others) that the equation is correct, so just asserting that it’s wrong is meaningless.

You’ve been asked for a derivation of the “correct” equation. Where is it?

You just stated the it was, in your previous post.

Pick one answer, please. Is c a constant, or not, in “classical” physics?

The motion of the rod is accounted for in the equation. That’s why we have c+v and c-v terms. v is the speed of the rod, hence at accounts for motion.

But at least you now admit we are measuring time, and not distance.

The v term, as I’ve mentioned. If the rod isn’t moving, v is zero.

 

The numerator is simply the length of the rod. It’s not the distance the light travels, as measured in the rest frame. That’s accounted for with the c+v and c-v terms. 

But since the equations is for time, the distance the light travels isn’t explicitly stated. You can find it by multiplying the time by c, since d=ct

Well I am really doubting that you guys really have Ph.D.'s in Physics or Math now.

There is no intellectually honest Mathematician or even high school student that will say they the Numerator in this equation can be a fixed static length.  

In Physics used a LOT today, and in Mathematics, they often reduce a moving subject to a hypothetical entity called a Point. The do this for Planets, and even whole Galaxies. The concept is sound.

When I travel in my car, I never consider when the front of the car gets to the shop compared to when the back of the car gets there. I consider my car a single entity with no regard for its length, Its a Point that I can consider as having reached the shop. The cop with his radar also treats my car as a point.

So now let's revise Einstein's equation USING THE CLAIMS YOU ARE MAKING about the Rods length, ^rAB but now we shall just look at it as a POINT.  You say that the "v" in the Denominator defines the MOTION of the ROD so we dont need to use v in the numerator.

But what happens now to this equation, given that it is squarley based on the standard velocity equation t=d/v?

Well we get  Time = ZERO/ c + v).  and also Time + ZERO/ (c-v)

Whereas I contend that the Distance in the equation can only be the DISTANCE MOVED, and can never be the length of the car or Rod.

Another reason why you are impossibly wrong,  is revealed by the fact that if we simply rotated the same rod into a vertical orientation, so that now the ROD's Length is maybe 1/20 the of the actual longest part of the rod, so now "D" is say 1 unit instead of 20, yet nothing else has changed, the velocity is identical,  you actually must believe that the TIME PERIOD the rod is in motion is now different! 

But obviously a short Rod and a vey long rod moving at the same speed both start and stop motion at the same time, irrespective of their length.

So your statement,  "It’s clear to me (and others) that the equation is correct, so just asserting that it’s wrong is meaningless." ,  Has now been shot to hell.

And I have given you the "correct equation" 27 TIMES now. Stop claiming that I have not.

It is:  

 t= the distance  travelled /   the velocity

but your claiming that: 

t = the length of my garage / velocity of my car. 

(my car is the same length of my garage)

It's not not really possible to make this any clearer or any simpler.  Its getting so simple that I will need to use crayons or finger paint soon to explain it to you.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Logicandreason]

6 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

You say that the "v" in the Denominator defines the MOTION of the ROD so we dont need to use v in the numerator.

Correction here,  I meant 

You say that the "v" in the Denominator defines the MOTION of the ROD so we don't need to use distance travelled in the numerator.

[Mordred]

you really missed the point I was making with the M and M experiment paper didn't you ? The point I was making was that the same c-v, c+v relation is being used and applied directly under an experimental basis. If that relation was incorrect then the experiment itself would have shown it as being incorrect. Yet you sit there and accuse us of religious convictions. Naturally we will believe observational evidence that shows an equation as being valid.

We would be idiots not to. 

I can literally post dozens of professional peer reviewed articles involving light that will employ precisely the same relation between emitters in motion and static observers that use that same math relation. 

None of that will make a whoot of difference your mind is set. You will not agree with any of them. So ask yourself this

who has the religious like conviction. Us that can recognize experimental evidence that supports an equation. Or yourself that denies the experimentally tested accuracy ?

regardless so far the only thing you have proven is that your mind is set and thus a closed book on the subject matter of SR in general. Any effort to show you differently is literally a waste of our time.

However just in case lets look at some  kinematic on light papers

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/relativity_chap_1.pdf

http://web2.ph.utexas.edu/spw/gleeson_071117.pdf

https://cas.web.cern.ch/sites/default/files/lectures/chavannes-de-bogis-2013/rel1.pdf

Yes these point out the loss of simultaneity we already covered that so no point repeating it. That's where SR steps in with the corrections.

Ask yourself the following is it really everyone else in error including the thousands of tests performed, 100's of different studies done by countless different professional physicists in error over the course of over 100 years of intensive studies in numerous different experiments that's all in error

Or is is yourself ?

 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Mordred

[iNow]

9 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

NO one has yet shown where I have it wrong. 

Uhuh 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Time is relative, I know, but this mod note seems like forever ago

The next post included their technical challenge.

2 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Correction here,  I meant 

You say that the "v" in the Denominator defines the MOTION of the ROD so we don't need to use distance travelled in the numerator.

Correct. If we used distance traveled, the equation would be t=d/c

That’s the equation Einstein gave in section 2, c=d/t, rearranged to solve for t

But since the rod moves, the distance traveled is greater than r_AB when co-propagating, and less when counter-propagating 

 

[Bufofrog]

9 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Another reason why you are impossibly wrong,  is revealed by the fact that if we simply rotated the same rod into a vertical orientation, so that now the ROD's Length is maybe 1/20 the of the actual longest part of the rod, so now "D" is say 1 unit instead of 20, yet nothing else has changed, the velocity is identical,  you actually must believe that the TIME PERIOD the rod is in motion is now different!

Your inability to follow the logic and math of relativity makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Well I am really doubting that you guys really have Ph.D.'s in Physics or Math now.

There is no intellectually honest Mathematician or even high school student that will say they the Numerator in this equation can be a fixed static length.  

Wait, what? The length of the rod is not a fixed length in “classical” physics?

 

10 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

In Physics used a LOT today, and in Mathematics, they often reduce a moving subject to a hypothetical entity called a Point. The do this for Planets, and even whole Galaxies. The concept is sound.

When I travel in my car, I never consider when the front of the car gets to the shop compared to when the back of the car gets there. I consider my car a single entity with no regard for its length, Its a Point that I can consider as having reached the shop. The cop with his radar also treats my car as a point.

So now let's revise Einstein's equation USING THE CLAIMS YOU ARE MAKING about the Rods length, ^rAB but now we shall just look at it as a POINT.  You say that the "v" in the Denominator defines the MOTION of the ROD so we dont need to use v in the numerator.

But what happens now to this equation, given that it is squarley based on the standard velocity equation t=d/v?

Well we get  Time = ZERO/ c + v).  and also Time + ZERO/ (c-v)

This is all irrelevant.

10 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Whereas I contend that the Distance in the equation can only be the DISTANCE MOVED, and can never be the length of the car or Rod.

Ah, but it can.

 

10 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

 

So your statement,  "It’s clear to me (and others) that the equation is correct, so just asserting that it’s wrong is meaningless." ,  Has now been shot to hell.

In your mind, but not in actuality/

10 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

And I have given you the "correct equation" 27 TIMES now. Stop claiming that I have not.

It is:  

 t= the distance  travelled /   the velocity

 

But you have not actually presented the distance traveled. That’s the key here.

 

Einstein’s equation gives the same result, but there is a little algebra involved in arriving there.

For simplicity, the elapsed time will simply be t, and the length of the rod r

For the co-propagating case, Einstein’s equation is  t = r/c-v

The rod moves at v, so in the time t it has moved a distance of vt

So the light has to travel d = r + vt

We already know that d = ct, so r + vt = ct 

r = ct-vt = t(c-v)

Thus t = r/c-v, which is Einstein’s equation.

So Einstein’s equation uses distance traveled/velocity and is correct.

It is left as an exercise to do the reflected case

 

10 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

but your claiming that: 

t = the length of my garage / velocity of my car. 

No. It’s becoming clear that the math is confounding you.

 

12 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

In every statement now, since Einstein, any enquiry(google search)  about the "Constancy of Lights motion", automatically gives results relating ONLY to a NUMERICAL measurement of Lights motion. 186,000 m.ps.

The good news is that this is no longer a measurement. The speed of light is a defined quantity. And physicists rarely use miles. We use SI units.

[Logicandreason]

9 hours ago, Mordred said:

you really missed the point I was making with the M and M experiment paper didn't you ? The point I was making was that the same c-v, c+v relation is being used and applied directly under an experimental basis. If that relation was incorrect then the experiment itself would have shown it as being incorrect. Yet you sit there and accuse us of religious convictions. Naturally we will believe observational evidence that shows an equation as being valid.

We would be idiots not to. 

I can literally post dozens of professional peer reviewed articles involving light that will employ precisely the same relation between emitters in motion and static observers that use that same math relation. 

None of that will make a whoot of difference your mind is set. You will not agree with any of them. So ask yourself this

who has the religious like conviction. Us that can recognize experimental evidence that supports an equation. Or yourself that denies the experimentally tested accuracy ?

regardless so far the only thing you have proven is that your mind is set and thus a closed book on the subject matter of SR in general. Any effort to show you differently is literally a waste of our time.

However just in case lets look at some  kinematic on light papers

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/relativity_chap_1.pdf

http://web2.ph.utexas.edu/spw/gleeson_071117.pdf

https://cas.web.cern.ch/sites/default/files/lectures/chavannes-de-bogis-2013/rel1.pdf

Yes these point out the loss of simultaneity we already covered that so no point repeating it. That's where SR steps in with the corrections.

Ask yourself the following is it really everyone else in error including the thousands of tests performed, 100's of different studies done by countless different professional physicists in error over the course of over 100 years of intensive studies in numerous different experiments that's all in error

Or is is yourself ?

 

 

Actually, we ought not to engage in a new topic, of M&M interferometer.  Please start a new topic. 

I have criticisms of the INTEPRETATION of the M&M equipment, but this topic is about SR as explain specifically by Einstein.

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Uhuh 

I don't think "Uhuh" is showing me where I'm wrong. I cant even find it in the dictionary.

If you have something to say, provide the evidence. And use understandable English and Math.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

The next post included their technical challenge.

Correct. If we used distance traveled, the equation would be t=d/c

That’s the equation Einstein gave in section 2, c=d/t, rearranged to solve for t

But since the rod moves, the distance traveled is greater than r_AB when co-propagating, and less when counter-propagating 

 

So now you are saying that I am correct? 

9 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Your inability to follow the logic and math of relativity makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you.

Provide the evidence and the Math.  Ad hominem attacks are frowned on here. Calling me incapable is a attack on my person. Stick to the evidence and the math.

[Mordred]

49 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Actually, we ought not to engage in a new topic, of M&M interferometer.  Please start a new topic. 

I have criticisms of the INTEPRETATION of the M&M equipment, but this topic is about SR as explain specifically by Einstein.

That's quite alright it's an archaic test but it does examine the speed of light in 2 directions and not deviate due to velocity. An old test for Lorentz invariance in the speed of light. Modern tests places Lorentz invariance down to an upper bound for any deviation from constant c at 

\[0.7*10^{-11}\] for any deviation from c due to motion of the emitter. This upper bound is through a wide range of experiments testing for speed of light deviations. A more well known example being the St-Ives experiment.

So if you feel c isn't constant as per SR then you have a huge body of evidence against your belief 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Einstein’s equation gives the same result, but there is a little algebra involved in arriving there.

For simplicity, the elapsed time will simply be t, and the length of the rod r

For the co-propagating case, Einstein’s equation is  t = r/c-v

The rod moves at v, so in the time t it has moved a distance of vt

So the light has to travel d = r + vt

We already know that d = ct, so r + vt = ct 

r = ct-vt = t(c-v)

Thus t = r/c-v, which is Einstein’s equation.

So Einstein’s equation uses distance traveled/velocity and is correct.

It is left as an exercise to do the reflected case

 

No. It’s becoming clear that the math is confounding you.

 

The good news is that this is no longer a measurement. The speed of light is a defined quantity. And physicists rarely use miles. We use SI units.

Just as I suspected. You surely have no qualifications as a Mathematician, probably failed high school math by the look of your attempt at the logic of algebra.

The GLARING ERROR in your really silly algebra attempt, is here:

d = ct, so r + vt = ct 

Its so bizarre that a grown up, in a healthy state of mind, would make the error that is obvious here.

equating ct with r + vt is the error.

ct is a variable, not a constant, because the elapsed time t, is a different value in the two instances that you mention in the one breath.

So the correct reference to ct must show that in this set of equations that there has to be another time period, a t'  for example. so if you insist on using ct rather than the more convenient v, c, d, and l,  then you must have a ct and also a different distance ct'.

Because first you said that ct was the distance covered by light in time t which was equal to the rod length.

But then you also say they its the distance of the rod length as well as the distance the rod moved.

The TIME required for light to span the Rod is t, so if now the light has to span that rod PLUS some extra distance, then it will take longer, therefore  we need a t'.   So there are TWO time variables in you method not one. But you only try to use one, thus there is the reason your algebra is nonsense.

The only way to PROVE that you are wrong is to assign REAL NUMBERS to replace those algebraic symbols and do the math.

Let t = 1

let rod length = 10

let rod velocity = 5

let  light velocity = 10

Distance  = to be calculated

Using your equation:   d = ct, so r + vt = ct 

and using your statement that d=ct

we get     Distance , (you claim is  d = ct ) substituting we get:

10 = 10,  so 10 + 5 = 10

so you really think that 15 = 10?

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That's quite alright it's an archaic test but it does examine the speed of light in 2 directions and not deviate due to velocity. An old test for Lorentz invariance in the speed of light. Modern tests places Lorentz down to an upper bound for any deviation from constant c at 

 

0.7∗10−11

for any deviation from c due to motion of the emitter. This upper bound is through a wide range of experiments testing for speed of light deviations.

 

 

These claims are contestable, but lets do it in a new thread. Its getting to complex here to debate a number of things at once. The task is to prove or disprove that Einstein's claim that classical Physics gives a wrong result. He claimed to have proved mathematically the error with the Rod experiment. Lets stay with that in this thread until the issue is resolved.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Mordred]

It's directly related, you seem to have issues with accepting c as constant regardless of velocity of emitter.  Here is a detail your missing here. It is not our job to convince you to believe in SR. Everyone one of us knows that's usually impossible to do with anyone that refuses to accept any theory or model.

 The onus of evidence or proof that such a well tested theory isn't our responsibility. 

The onus is on you to show that SR is incorrect in the face of all the evidence showing SR as being correct.

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It's directly related, you seem to have issues with accepting c as constant regardless of velocity of emitter.  Here is a detail your missing here. It is not our job to convince you to believe in SR. Everyone one of us knows that's usually impossible to do with anyone that refuses to accept any theory or model.

 The onus of evidence or proof that such a well tested theory isn't our responsibility. 

The onus is on you to show that SR is incorrect in the face of all the evidence showing SR as being correct.

 

You are using the logical fallacy of putting your words into my mouth.

I said that Light has constant motion. I said that light motion is not influenced by the motion of the light source. 

But this is not synonymous with " light has a universal measured speed 186,000 m.p.s"

And I've explained why in previous posts.

And when Einstein claimed that light is a universal constant of 186,000 mps or c, that was his POSTULATE, which he was supposed to prove along with the other postulate, that measurements are unchangeable LAWS of physics. 

He failed to prove these postulates, or rather he failed to prove that his conclusion when both postulates are combined, was a true conclusion.

But regardless, none of this has any bearing on the Rod experiment, as its 100% classical Physics which he is trying to say, is wrong. IN the rod experiment, light speed is considered as being consistent, as is the consistency of the Rods motion.

 

[Mordred]

If you believe that then why do you struggle so hard with the use of the interval ? You still won't accept c-v and c+v which I further supplied a reference paper (albeit M&M that also tests Lorentz invariance in c) that uses equivalence to a moving rod in the experimental setup. 

Did you somehow miss that detail ?

[Logicandreason]

21 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 The onus of evidence or proof that such a well tested theory isn't our responsibility. 

The onus is on you to show that SR is incorrect in the face of all the evidence showing SR as being correct.

 

Again you have it arse about face.

The onus is on me to prove that the Math in Einstein's paper is wrong, which I have done many time already.

I am under no obligation to also delve into why people claim various experiments must be interpreted a specific way and no other options exist. That is another task.

I have shown what I intended to show, that Einstein in his 1905 Paper, has failed to prove that Classical Physics has any problem that requires solving.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

If you believe that then why do you struggle so hard with the use of the interval ? You still won't accept c-v and c+v which I further supplied a reference paper (albeit M&M that also tests Lorentz invariance in c) that uses equivalence to a moving rod in the experimental setup. 

Did you somehow miss that detail ?

I see none of this mentioned or used in the Rod Experiment. Please move your assumptions about the meaning of various other experiments to another new Topic.