16 hours ago, studiot said:

I must admit that it is a long time since I last looked at Einstein's train and lightning though experiments and I was thinking about the length contraction one.

I no longer have the original text of these experiments, but I have found a reliable explanation online here.

https://www.vicphysics.org/documents/teachers/unit3/EinsteinsTrainGedanken.pdf

Note the authors' comment that there are a lot of versions about, some quite misinformed.

No there is no third, fourth or what ever observer involved and there are only two frames, the frame of the train and the frame of the platform.

The referenced article explains quite well what you may be thinking of as a third observer as the point of view that the train is standing still and the platform is moving past it.

However, as far as I can see all this is entirely off topic and you have made no response at all to my comments on the actual topic of this thread viz spooky action at a distance.

I suggest the relativity issue be further discussed in its own thread as it is entirely off topic to action-at-a-distance, spooky or otherwise.

Thank you studiot, that is the description I was thinking about where I thought an assumption of Einstein might have been incorrect.

" For Mike to see the events as simultaneous, the light must have come from A and B and met at his position. Remember that Mike is at rest relative to the embankment. Nina in the train, however, is racing away from A and towards B and so will see the flash from B first (diagram M2) because it will have less distance to travel. Note that we could not take a photo and see what is represented in the diagrams! (The camera only ‘sees’ the light when it enters the lens.) They must be seen as ‘reconstructions’ of what must have been. Diagram M3 shows the moment that Mike sees both flashes and diagram M4 shows the moment a little later again when Nina sees the flash from A."

The lightning does not have "less distance to travel" It is happening in Ms frame. The distance from each lightning strike to Nina when she is parallel to Milke is exactly the same distance as it was in Mikes frame. The Speed of Nina does not effect the speed of light, she experiences the strike coming in at C from the rear as she experiences the light coming in from the front. The only thing that changes is the frequency of the light. The aft strike will appear a bit redish and the forward strike will appear a bit bluish. No forshorting of the train is required to true everything up. The strikes are simultaneous to both M and N.

Regards, TAR

4 minutes ago, tar said:

No forshorting of the train is required to true everything up. The strikes are simultaneous to both M and N.

I'm not debating with you an explanation from some armchair of a measurement that has actually been made.

Length contraction is a measured observable fact.

This was first done in 1941.

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

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Your concern is based on your misunderstanding of something, and that’s got to be the assumption until you actually present the train paradox narrative that says anything about “instantaneous” or “now” or distant observers “witnessing the same moment”

AFAICT you’re confused by your own strawman

Perhaps Swansont but perhaps I have a way to look at the Universe where everything is happening at the same time, simultaneously. and anything moving within this simultanity sees light blueshifted in the direction they are traveing and red shifted in the direction of where they have been. And ALL things seen have already happened, the father into the past they happened the longer it took the light to get from the event to our equipment. But when we see a star burning in the sky NOW we KNOW it had to have sent out the photons that are striking our equipment NOW, years ago. And since Alpha Proxima. which is 4.24 ;yrs distant will be visible still in 4.24 years we KNOW that Alpha Proxima is sending out Photons, RIGHT NOW.

The question of the thread is are we connected to Alpha Proxima in any way that if we shake Right NOW will Alpha Proxima feel the movement simultaneously?

Regards, TAR

31 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I'm the same age as you, then.😊

I think you are rather overdoing things if you think the absence of a preferred frame of reference is somehow an argument against God. Don't forget the Big Bang theory, which depends on general relativity, was originally proposed by a Catholic priest, Mgr. Lemaître: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

As for predictions that cannot be tested, the point surely is that for a theory to be scientific it must make testable predictions. General Relativity obviously does this. Even our GPS systems wouldn't work without GR. However, I don't think that means that every prediction or speculative extrapolation that one can make from it necessary has to be testable.

As for Einstein's "spooky action at a distance", my understanding is this was one of Einstein's rare errors in that in modern physics there is no such thing. Quantum entanglement does not imply any instantaneous communication between the correlated entities.

Exhemist, I don't think anything the Universe does "depends on" General Relativity to do it. If General Relativity is found to be incorrect does the Universe then disappear?

The equations of Relative match what the universe is doing, but that does not mean you can't get a match along another route. For instance you get the same result if you foreshorten the train as when you increase the frequency of the light coming in at C. You don't need to bend fold and mutilate reality to fit your equations. You need to bend fold and mutilate your equations to fit reality.

Regards, TAR

21 hours ago, swansont said:

You’re not in an acceleration frame (SR works in u]inertial frames), and the light-travel time is something you account for.

It’s a lot harder to understand when you don’t bother learn the various elements and skip directly to the end.

It’s not even that. You are equidistant from the two landing points so the light travel time is equal. Thus seeing them at the same time means they are simultaneous.

Swansont,

Exactly. That is why Einsteins assumption that Nina will see the forward strike sooner than the aft strike because she is hurtling toward the forward strike is incorrect. Her speed has NOTHING to do with it. She does NOT see the forward strike before the aft strike. She HAS TO see them at the same time.

Regards, TAR

I apologize for not knowing all the steps to get to the conclusions you get to using the tenants of relativity. I am still stuck on the assumptions that started the whole idea. I wish we could have THAT discussion.

You cannot get a true conclusion if any of your premises are false.

Regards, TAR

39 minutes ago, tar said:

Perhaps Swansont but perhaps I have a way to look at the Universe where everything is happening at the same time, simultaneously. and anything moving within this simultanity sees light blueshifted in the direction they are traveing and red shifted in the direction of where they have been.

A thought experiment question.

In a universe with no light at all, but everything else, would these phenomena still occur ?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I'm not debating with you an explanation from some armchair of a measurement that has actually been made.

Length contraction is a measured observable fact.

This was first done in 1941.

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

That experiment has bothered me. The Muon flux at sea level is 1 per minute, hitting a square centimeter area. How did we get the million muon flux at 10Km height? And what in the world is a muon at rest, if the muon by definition is an energetic partiicle? That is, how can you measure a muons half life at rest?

In other words if I was a scientist and I measured the muon flux at 10Km and then measured the muon flux at sea level I could then use the time it takes muons to reach sea level as a factor in determining the half life of a muon. You can't do it the other way around, come up with a half live and then ask how many muons should hit the ground if you start with a million. So the "expected" flux IS the measured flux.

1 hour ago, tar said:

Exhemist, I don't think anything the Universe does "depends on" General Relativity to do it. If General Relativity is found to be incorrect does the Universe then disappear?

The equations of Relative match what the universe is doing, but that does not mean you can't get a match along another route. For instance you get the same result if you foreshorten the train as when you increase the frequency of the light coming in at C. You don't need to bend fold and mutilate reality to fit your equations. You need to bend fold and mutilate your equations to fit reality.

Regards, TAR

But that's not what I wrote. What I wrote was that the Big Bang theory "depends on" GR. Which it does.

Nobody would disagree with you that observed reality trumps any theory. That's obvious. But relativity, both special and general, fits observation, so it is congruent with reality as far as we can tell at the moment. In SR, foreshortening in one frame of reference corresponds to time dilation in the other (I always like the cosmic ray induced muon example to picture this). No "mutilation" of anything is required: it all fits nicely.

4 hours ago, Eise said:

The absolute limit, yes. But you could go lower, by stating that mechanical information never can go faster than the speed of sound in the material we are working with. Maybe it helps tar to understand it... maybe not.

Eise,

I get the speed of sound thing and the mechanical wave going through the row of steel balls and popping the one at the end of the line out.

But military jets can go FASTER than the speed of sound. If you sent a mechanical signal from the back of the jet to the front of the jet the information would be being sent faster than the speed of sound.

It is said sound does not travel in a vacuum because there is no particles to bump up against each other...but space is not a total vacuum, there are particles of various sorts in it and dust and such at huge intervals. Does sound have a speed through space? Every particle is already ?attached" to the particles around it. The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the magnetic forces and the gravitation forces of the various particles are already connecting each particle to the next. Maybe in an unmeasurable fashion, but still connected in a grid or matrix where if you move one particle over here it has SOME effect on the particle over there, at some speed of impulse. The question of the thread is is there ANY mechanism that would shake the particle over there, WHEN you shook the particle over here.

I suggest when you move the back of the car, you are moving the front of the car at the same time. No speed of impulse required. Its simultaneous.

Regards, TAR

35 minutes ago, tar said:

he question of the thread is is there ANY mechanism that would shake the particle over there, WHEN you shook the particle over here.

NO
The particle over there doesn't know that you shook the particle over here, until the 'information' gets to it, and that information has a maximum speed, c .

38 minutes ago, tar said:

I suggest when you move the back of the car, you are moving the front of the car at the same time. No speed of impulse required. Its simultaneous.

And you'd be wrong.
Again.

Thread, Thought Experiment.

put a big sign on the front of your spaceship. The guys on our sister planet, orbiting Alpha Proxima have a really good telescope and will be able to reaad thT SIGN IN 4.24 years. However if we start off toward Alpha they will be able to read the sign BEFORE that 4.24 year time has past. When will they firsst see the sign? What will they witness as they keep looking at the sign? For purposes of the ezperiment we will make it a digital sign that displays a digital clock ticking off a hundredth of a second every hundredth of a second.

I propose when they first see it it will show sime time less than 4.24 years and TICK Backward, ticking down to zero as our ship appears to go backward toward Earth until the time reads 0 at which time they will see the ship take off and the clock will begin to tick from zero just a little faster than a hundredth of a second per hundreds of a second....in any case When the ship reaches A;;[ha Proxima the ships clock willl read whaterers time the stay at home clock reads from Alpha,, PLUS 4.24 years. That is, in my understanding of the Galaxy, Alpha and Earth exist at the same time. When we get to Alpha and look back at Earth we will see it as it looked 4.24 years before our arrival on Alph. Our clock ticked just a fast as the stay at home clock and currently from the godlike perspective, the clocks are the same time, however the stay at home clock's image is getting to us at light speed and ALWAYS from now on will read 4.24 years behind the traveling clock.

So has information we brought from Earth traveled light speed PLUS the speed of our craft?

Regards, TAR

2 hours ago, tar said:

Perhaps Swansont but perhaps I have a way to look at the Universe where everything is happening at the same time, simultaneously.

I think there are people using chemical enhancement who can do this, too.

2 hours ago, tar said:

and anything moving within this simultanity sees light blueshifted in the direction they are traveing and red shifted in the direction of where they have been. And ALL things seen have already happened, the father into the past they happened the longer it took the light to get from the event to our equipment. But when we see a star burning in the sky NOW we KNOW it had to have sent out the photons that are striking our equipment NOW, years ago.

We know it takes light time to travel. Nothing earth-shattering here

2 hours ago, tar said:

And since Alpha Proxima. which is 4.24 ;yrs distant will be visible still in 4.24 years we KNOW that Alpha Proxima is sending out Photons, RIGHT NOW.

If it were a star that could go supernova, that could have happened in the last 4 years. No way to tell until the light gets here.

2 hours ago, tar said:

The question of the thread is are we connected to Alpha Proxima in any way that if we shake Right NOW will Alpha Proxima feel the movement simultaneously?

Regards, TAR

Nope.

8 minutes ago, tar said:

Thread, Thought Experiment.

put a big sign on the front of your spaceship. The guys on our sister planet, orbiting Alpha Proxima have a really good telescope and will be able to reaad thT SIGN IN 4.24 years. However if we start off toward Alpha they will be able to read the sign BEFORE that 4.24 year time has past. When will they firsst see the sign? What will they witness as they keep looking at the sign? For purposes of the ezperiment we will make it a digital sign that displays a digital clock ticking off a hundredth of a second every hundredth of a second.

I propose when they first see it it will show sime time less than 4.24 years and TICK Backward, ticking down to zero as our ship appears to go backward toward Earth until the time reads 0 at which time they will see the ship take off and the clock will begin to tick from zero just a little faster than a hundredth of a second per hundreds of a second....in any case When the ship reaches A;;[ha Proxima the ships clock willl read whaterers time the stay at home clock reads from Alpha,, PLUS 4.24 years. That is, in my understanding of the Galaxy, Alpha and Earth exist at the same time. When we get to Alpha and look back at Earth we will see it as it looked 4.24 years before our arrival on Alph. Our clock ticked just a fast as the stay at home clock and currently from the godlike perspective, the clocks are the same time, however the stay at home clock's image is getting to us at light speed and ALWAYS from now on will read 4.24 years behind the traveling clock.

So has information we brought from Earth traveled light speed PLUS the speed of our craft?

Regards, TAR

Show us the math.

Mainstream physics says the rocket will chase the photons all the way there. The first photon takes 4.24 years.

14 hours ago, tar said:

But military jets can go FASTER than the speed of sound. If you sent a mechanical signal from the back of the jet to the front of the jet the information would be being sent faster than the speed of sound.

A bad comparison. The jet is moving faster through the medium, but it is not the medium itself being faster than the speed of sound, air in this case.

14 hours ago, tar said:

I suggest when you move the back of the car, you are moving the front of the car at the same time. No speed of impulse required. Its simultaneous.

Ehhm... You know that we do not notice relativity effects in daily life, don't you?

And also the speed of sound in the chassis of the car is much too high that you would ever notice this effect. But you would notice if you had a kilometer long iron bar.

You are using daily experiences to understand empirically proven, but not intuitive scientific theories.

Edited September 7Sep 7 by Eise

19 hours ago, tar said:

So has information we brought from Earth traveled light speed PLUS the speed of our craft?

No.

And that was what Einstein had realized, that the speed of light is the same for everyone, and that means any inertial observer will see light moving at the same speed. He investigated the implications of that, and came up with the equations that result from it. And experiments show the equations to be correct.

You can develop equations that reflect having the speed of light being cumulative with the speed of the source. They don’t agree with experiment, though this disagreement is small when speeds are small, so we tend not to notice with naked-eye experiences.

On 9/6/2025 at 1:52 PM, MigL said:

NO
The particle over there doesn't know that you shook the particle over here, until the 'information' gets to it, and that information has a maximum speed, c .

And you'd be wrong.
Again.

MigL, But in everyday experience we think of the front of the car moving instantaneously as the tires roll on the pavement. The whole car is already connected by molecular forces and magnetic forces and gravitational forces. It is already all in the same time. Existing in the same moment. When the back of the car goes a mile in a minute the front of the car goes a mile in a minute.

I understand that there will be a lag time for light to go from the back of the car to the front, as there would take time for a sound to go from the back to the front or the vibration as I tap on the frame, but normally we don't consider that we have to add these femto or nano secs to the "time" it is at the front of the car and the back of the car, we include the whole car or the whole spaceship. Don't we? I am thinking we can do that because the car is already connected.

Regards, TAR

6 hours ago, swansont said:

No.

And that was what Einstein had realized, that the speed of light is the same for everyone, and that means any inertial observer will see light moving at the same speed. He investigated the implications of that, and came up with the equations that result from it. And experiments show the equations to be correct.

You can develop equations that reflect having the speed of light being cumulative with the speed of the source. They don’t agree with experiment, though this disagreement is small when speeds are small, so we tend not to notice with naked-eye experiences.

SwansonT, I was not adding velocity to the speed of light. I was adding the speed of light together with the speed of the craft to show that information could be moved faster than the speed of light. In we carried information to Alpha Proxima, which is currently4.24 years away by light we will NOT be 4.24 years away anymore. We will be there. However the Earth is STILL 4.24 lyrs away.

Regards, TAR

Swansont, I am speculating that if we start two digital clocks and leave one here and take one with us to Alpha Proxima, and look back at Earth with a powerful telescope once we get there, the time we read on the Earth clock will be 4.24 years before the time we read on our traveling clock EVEN THOUGH the two clocks are actually still in sync and reading the same time to people next to clocks. If we then sync set a digital clock on Alpha and return home, when we get home both our clocks will still be in sync and the one on Alpha will read, from Earth, 4.24 years slow.

Regards, TAR

23 minutes ago, tar said:

MigL, But in everyday experience ...

In everyday experience, the effects of relativity are trivial to non-existent.
I would have thought you'd know that after all these years.

Go back, think about it, and come back with some good questions.

19 minutes ago, tar said:

SwansonT, I was not adding velocity to the speed of light. I was adding the speed of light together with the speed of the craft to show that information could be moved faster than the speed of light.

Sorry, what? You’re not adding the velocities, you’re just adding the velocities?

Maybe you’d like to try this again.

19 minutes ago, tar said:

In we carried information to Alpha Proxima, which is currently4.24 years away by light we will NOT be 4.24 years away anymore. We will be there. However the Earth is STILL 4.24 lyrs away.

And this matters…how?

19 minutes ago, tar said:

Swansont, I am speculating that if we start two digital clocks and leave one here and take one with us to Alpha Proxima, and look back at Earth with a powerful telescope once we get there, the time we read on the Earth clock will be 4.24 years before the time we read on our traveling clock EVEN THOUGH the two clocks are actually still in sync and reading the same time to people next to clocks. If we then sync set a digital clock on Alpha and return home, when we get home both our clocks will still be in sync and the one on Alpha will read, from Earth, 4.24 years slow.

The clocks won’t be in sync. We already know, experimentally, that time dilation is a real effect.

34 minutes ago, tar said:

But in everyday experience we think of the front of the car moving instantaneously as the tires roll on the pavement. The whole car is already connected by molecular forces and magnetic forces and gravitational forces. It is already all in the same time. Existing in the same moment. When the back of the car goes a mile in a minute the front of the car goes a mile in a minute.

We can think of it that way because there is no cost to being wrong about it. The discrepancies are so small you can’t possibly discern them. But “too small to discern by eye” is not the same as nonexistent. Or do you think atoms don’t exist?

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Sorry, what? You’re not adding the velocities, you’re just adding the velocities?

Maybe you’d like to try this again.

And this matters…how?

The clocks won’t be in sync. We already know, experimentally, that time dilation is a real effect.

We can think of it that way because there is no cost to being wrong about it. The discrepancies are so small you can’t possibly discern them. But “too small to discern by eye” is not the same as nonexistent. Or do you think atoms don’t exist?

Swansont, my point about the velocities was that if there is constant data coming from Earth to Alpha and a craft takes that constant data flow TO Alpha the ship will arrive with the data 4.24 years BEFORE the constant data flow arrives by light image.

Regards, TAR

Point being if you move a light cone to the location of another light cone the two light cones are now the same and the absolute past and the absolute future of both you and the guy on the planet going around Alpha are united. Now EARTH is in the relative past and future of Alpha AND you and the both of you see Earth as it was 4.24 years in the past.

The light cone is a consequence of the theory of relativity you cannot ignore it in talking about relativity.

Things are simultaneous to an observer if they enter his here and now at the same time. This simultaneity is of course RELATIVE depending on where and when you are because other locations in space have their own light cone that defines absolute past below and absolute future above and all the volume out to the sides is RELATIVE past and future. I have understood this for 35 years at least and have been musing about the implications. You act like I am trying to disprove Relativity. I am not, I am rather using relativity to inform my understanding of the Universe.

I run my thought experiments knowing that a light flash from here and now goes into our future light cone and a light flash illuminating our here and now is on our past light cone. The cone shell boundry is the speed of light but stuff happening inside the cone can happen at lesser speeds and is part of our absolute past and absolute future. But the rest of the all the heres and nows that are outside our light cone are in our relative past and future. EVERY photon coming in is old news. It has been traveling from a past event to our eye or equipment for as long as the event was distant. This MEANS there are other photons from past events on their ways here NOW. They are on our future light cone. The ones leaving Alpha NOW will illuminate our here and now in 4.24 years.

24 minutes ago, tar said:

Point being if you move a light cone to the location of another light cone the two light cones are now the same and the absolute past and the absolute future of both you and the guy on the planet going around Alpha are united.

Light cones are part of space-time diagrams and can't be moved as you please.
There are certain rules they follow.

Assuming the proper scale on your axis, the space-time diagram will have the speed of light at a diagonal 45^o angle.
Anything following that line is called 'light-like' and is moving at c .
Anything moving more horizontally means that space is being traversed faster than c ( an impossibility ) and is termed 'space-like'.
What we usually experience is motion more vertical, which means space is being traversed slower than c , and termed 'time-like'.

How, exactly, are you moving your two light cones ?
( maybe understanding this will clear up your misconceptions Spacetime diagram - Wikipedia )

Edited September 8Sep 8 by MigL

17 hours ago, MigL said:

In everyday experience, the effects of relativity are trivial to non-existent.
I would have thought you'd know that after all these years.

Go back, think about it, and come back with some good questions.

MigL, I was thinking about the Muon experiment and read a short paper on how they determined the speed of a Muon and the half life of a Muon and they then jumped to the question of how many Muons "should" hit the ground starting with a Muon flux of a million at 14km. They say that Newtonian physics can not explain why more Muons than expected reach the ground and you HAVE TO assume time dilation from the Muon's frame or Length Contraction from the Earth's frame. What they never give me is what the half life of a Muon was figured to be in 1952 or HOW they figured there was a million muon flux at 14km. I was expecting the experiment to compare a Muon Scintillator placed at sea level with a Muon Scintillator at 14km. I also thought good experimental procedure would place a collector at 7km for comparison. But no. The paper described NONE of my concerns. It talked about Muons at a rest state and about the methods used to determine speed and half life at the surface, but never talked about how they determined flux at 14km. I would suggest the same experiment be run at 14km, at 7 km and at sea level to truely evaluate the flux at each level and determine a realistic half life to begin with.

As it was, just doing the sea level experiments they came up with unrealistic results for the velocity of a muon.

"The result obtained from this trial was an average speed of 30.1±1.2cm/ns. This is greater than the speed of light c. Have we really found a particle that travels faster than light? It is believed there are perhaps some systematics at play1. 1 We are grateful to Professor Becker for this recommendation"

I am thinking that there might be other ways to explain Muon Flux other than length contraction and time dilation. You cannot truly compare what happens at the same time 14km up and at sea level without an observer at 7km that sees the events as simultaneous.

Regards, TAR

What I am proposing, generally is that one can, with ALL observations of everything, ever, posit a Universe that consists of a connected plane of light cone foci, that includes EVERY here and now that there is, And ALL events can be explained without ANY time dilation or length contraction required. Every here and now on the plane can figure their relationship to every other here and now on the plane, based on distance alone and one can MOVE laterally on this plane, and in so doing move their whole light cone to have a foci at a different here. All locations in space proceed in time in unison. Future is straight up, past is straight down and as time progresses your absolute past widens out and includes the absolute past of more and more of your surrounding universe.

This idea is scalable and can actually merge general relativity with special as it can be applied to event the tiniest of here and nows. With tiny stuff you can move the targets light cone laterally by just moving your experiment from your desk to the next desk, and in actuality just by sitting still your experiment's light cone is moving around the Earth's axis and the Sun, and the center of the galaxy at a certain vector.s

All the heres and nows on Earth, tiny or big have a unique light cone but each is constantly moving literarily on the universal here and now plane. and with the spiral nature of our passage though space the lilght cones on Earth all shift around and merge and misalign and realign enough that you can easily considers the whole Earth as existing in the same here and now, and STILL retain the differences in light speed travel between the various light cones on Earth.

Thread. Lets say something is ticking in a muon like a little bomb that is going to pop, as some undetermined number of ticks but the half life of the muon has been determined and half any population of Muons will "blow" in 30 micro seconds or whatever. Each muon is ticking like a clock and an observer at 14km would see the Muon ticking REAL slowly as it speeds away toward Earth because the wavelengths of the image is stretched out, the frequency of the ticks is slow, but the image is coming in at C. The observer at sea level, looking up into the muon flux is seeing the ticks WAY blue shifted. Still coming in at C but the ticks are all compressed together in terms of the wavelength.

The math works out the same if you compress or expand the wavelengths or timing of the ticks as when you squish or expand space and time. I submit it is more realistic to view thee ticking differential as a frequency thing than as a mutilation and twisting of space and time.

And this being the case (in my estimation) you should be able to transfer data in space, FTL because ALL of space is progressing in time in a parallel manner and you can move your light cone foci by physically moving.

This allows you to send data out, like a program to the Mars rover, that will allow you to operate the rover in your future light cone, NOW.

47 minutes ago, tar said:

I was thinking about the Muon experiment and read a short paper on how they determined the speed of a Muon and the half life of a Muon and they then jumped to the question of how many Muons "should" hit the ground starting with a Muon flux of a million at 14km.

OK so you read a short paper which didn't tell you any of the back history leading up to this.

Professor Millikan (famous for millikan's experiment with electrons) was a very careful and thorough worker and indeed justly famous for the work he did on the electron and its properties.

But he also did a lot of work in Cosmic Rays.

Not only was he a careful worker but he also documented his work in papers and in a book what was revised several times, starting in 1917 and called the electron.
My 1947 revision is a model of how to report basic research, methods, results and conclusion and is now called

electrons (+ and -) , protons, photons, neutrons, mesotrons and comic rays.

It is the mesotrons that are the same particles we now call muons.

The book also documents and correlates the work of other scientists in this field.

The actualy work took place over a period 1917 to the early 1940s.

It was published by Chicago University Press (and also by Cambridge University Press in England)

On page 519 ff , you will find all the detail you want carefully explained with photographs, graphs, and more.

Edited September 8Sep 8 by studiot

So any life instruction we send the rover does not get to the rover for 15 or 20 ninutes, or whatever it is now. At one point I remember we were 22 light minutes from Mars. But we KNOW the rover is doing something right now, even though we won't get the pictures for 20 minutes.

When we get the pictures we will see what the rover was doing 20 minutes ago.

6 minutes ago, tar said:

So any life instruction we send the rover does not get to the rover for 15 or 20 ninutes, or whatever it is now. At one point I remember we were 22 light minutes from Mars. But we KNOW the rover is doing something right now, even though we won't get the pictures for 20 minutes.

When we get the pictures we will see what the rover was doing 20 minutes ago.

Sure. What is your problem?

No wonder you're so confused about the science.
You post one thing, and someone gives you advice on the proper reasoning and references, which you then ignore, and post another absurd claim regarding a different subject.
Your scatter-brained postings are confusing to everyone else also.

I think you need a hobby other than science.

live instructions

13 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Sure. What is your problem?

It was not a problem, it was an observation. Mars exists now, only once. It is not in ANOTHER space and time. It is in this one, just removed from us by 22 light minutes. There is only one now that the whole universe is currently in. We just witness it later.

5 minutes ago, tar said:

live instructions

It was not a problem, it was an observation. Mars exists now, only once. It is not in ANOTHER space and time. It is in this one, just removed from us by 22 light minutes. There is only one now that the whole universe is currently in. We just witness it later.

There is only one now as experienced from our frame of reference, since we are unable to occupy the frame of reference of anywhere else.

Speaking about “now” in relation to astronomically distant objects is a fairly useless exercise, as there is no way to experience it. And if they happen to move at relativistic speeds, relative to us, it gets worse because their clocks as seen by us run slow. (Which is what the muon observation shows, by the way.)

Edited September 8Sep 8 by exchemist

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

No wonder you're so confused about the science.
You post one thing, and someone gives you advice on the proper reasoning and references, which you then ignore, and post another absurd claim regarding a different subject.
Your scatter-brained postings are confusing to everyone else also.

I think you need a hobby other than science.

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

No wonder you're so confused about the science.
You post one thing, and someone gives you advice on the proper reasoning and references, which you then ignore, and post another absurd claim regarding a different subject.
Your scatter-brained postings are confusing to everyone else also.

I think you need a hobby other than science.

Well perhaps. MigL. I don't have the time or inclination to obtain and read "electrons (+ and -) , protons, photons, neutrons, mesons and comic rays." so I guess I am not that serious about this, and in that regard this is just a hobby. I llike running the thought experiments I have been running since I read the books on QED and Relativity that I did read years ago.

I am not credentialed but I have read a little and have taken Physics at a University level. I am not a complete layman but I have been talking with you guys about this since I frequented the site years ago. I know some of lingo and the assumptions and to a certain degree I feel part of the community. I don't know that NONE of my thoughts and ideas and observations and perspectives have NOT been incorporated into your thinking over the years.

My task here is to add something, not detract. I believe I am seeing the universe in a common sense way that explains our observations. Where I debate is in the conclusions people draw from certain measurements, in terms of what they MUST mean.

In science, equations are often applied as if you see the whole experimental space at once. This can be done in your head, but that is NOT how reality works. I am thinking that people shift from one observers location to another observer's location, or take an imaginary position from which they can witness the whole experiment at the same time, without making the proper transforms of EVERYTHNG from the one perspectives, to true it with other perspectives.

When unrealistic conclusions are drawn, you assume the universe is wired. I assume someone is starting with a false premise or failed to take all the variables into account and did not transform EVERY pertinent data point from all the observers into a common frame or perspective that would leave the universe intact and perfectly aligned with itself.

You guys always want to teach me science. I always think I have something to add to the conversation but you don't consider me a peer. This is fine. I get it. I am not initiated into every niche, each with its own proven postulates. The body of work of science is huge. Sometimes I think people get hung up on the wrong thing. Trying to find PI to the next digit, rather than trying to figure out what PI

is. We can calculate a lot based on the parameters that others have figured. But just because your equation works to describe the behavior of reality, it does not mean your equation controls the behavior of reality. Math is a series of symbols, one thing standing for another and the relationship between the symbols, and functions, variables and results from one set of functions plugged into another scheme for a particular purpose.

If your conclusion at the end of your figuring is that space contracts and time dilates it raises the question of why other things happening around the dilation and contraction do not notice.

My feeling, in all the reading I have done and all my attempts to understand the equations is that C is too often reduced to an identity of 1 to simplify the calculations and the reality of the situation has been simplified right out of the equation. C is distance/time. If C is 1 you can change the distance and change the time at the same time and still have one. But what have you done? If the shorten the distance light can cover it faster, which means the speed of light is not invariant, so you dilate time to make C an identity again. I say you can't mess with the universe that way. You have to instead mess with your assumptions.