How many times must I say it: Simultaneity is NOT relative

When an observer in a rocket, or even in a stationary room, sees light hitting a rear wall and a forward wall at the same time, he is not actually seeing the light hit the walls at the same time; he is actually seeing the reflected light from each wall arriving at his position at the same time. There are two events: the light hitting the walls (event A), and the reflected light arriving at his eyes (event B). If the observer claims that he sees the light hit the walls, then he’s claiming that event B is event A, and he is thus an idiot.

According to Einstein, and common sense as well, if lightning strikes either end of a moving train simultaneously, then the light from each strike will converge on an observer at the center of the train at two different times, i.e. non-simultaneously. Logically, the converse must also be true: if a bolt struck the center of the moving train, light from the bolt would strike the ends of the train non-simultaneously. From this we can conclude the following: if our observer at the center of the moving train shines a light toward the front and rear of the cabin at the same time, then each light beam will strike its respective wall at a different time, i.e. non-simultaneously…which would be in agreement with an outside observer who is stationary with respect to the train. The light will reflect from each wall and converge on the observer at the center of the cabin at the same time, and he will erroneously conclude that the light hit both walls simultaneously. The observer on the rocket and the outside observer disagree on the timing of the light hitting the walls. The observer on the rocket says it hit simultaneously, the outside observer says non-simultaneously. But the outside observer is correct, since the rocket’s observer is basing his conclusion on an erroneous perception. As I have shown, there is in fact no actual, physical difference as to when the light hit each wall; the thought experiment put forth by Einstein himself shows this, but he and his followers have failed to realize it. The relativist is not justified in concluding that simultaneity is relative, since it is only relative in the mistaken perception of the moving observer. 

Motion in space is impossible

One thing it is of vital importance to understand is that when one moves from “here” to “there” in space, one is not actually moving in space; rather, one is moving in time. When I arrive “there,” “there” is not the same “there” to which I determined to move when I was “here.”

Let me explain in detail. Let’s say I am standing at a position X at 7:01 PM. We’ll combine this to read X7:01, a timespace position. I determine that I wish to move to position Y (perhaps Y is a spot across the room, over by the sofa). I do so, arriving at Y at 7:02 PM. Y7:02. When I look back to X from Y7:02, I am looking back at X7:02, not X7:01. X7:01 is now in a part of a space which I can no longer see. It is part of the past. Likewise, when I was standing at X7:01, looking across the room and deciding to move to position Y, I was actually deciding to move to Y7:01. But instead, I moved to Y7:02. I did not move across the intervening space from X7:01 to Y7:01. I moved across the intervening time from X7:01 to Y7:02. One can never be in two spatially contiguous places at the same time. I can never move from X7:01 to Y7:01. Nothing can ever move from X7:01 to Y7:01. Motion through space is impossible, without also moving through time.

Indeed, the part of me that determined to leave position X7:01 never actually left it. Even as I arrive at Y7:02, that other part of me is still there at X7:01. When I stand at Y7:02 and look back at X, I do not see that part, because I am looking at X7:02, not X7:01.

How are spaces connected in time? What velocity is necessary to move me from one moment to the next, from one position in time to another? I don’t mean spatial velocity, the force I need to achieve to propel myself from X to Y. I mean, what force, what velocity through time, is necessary to move me from X7:01 to X7:02? Because a force, a velocity, must be required, whether I am moving or stationary in the spatial part of timespace. We are all of us being propelled through timespace whether we wish it or not. Some velocity, some force, must therefore be exerted upon us to propel us from X7:01 to X7:02, in addition to the force I must exert to move from X7:01 to Y7:02.

On the experimental validation of relativity

I don’t believe that relativity has been validated by a century of experiments. There may be experiments that seem to confirm relativity, but I believe there is no true substance to these experiments. They verify conclusions of relativity, but those conclusions are illusions. An analogy: my eyes verify the existence of the illusion in an optical illusion, but the illusion is just that: an illusion. All supposed experimental verifications of relativity that I have seen are themselves relative: they depend on your viewpoint. 

The hydrogen maser experiment

Another of the tests that supposedly confirms the curvature of space-time is the hydrogen maser experiment of the mid-1970’s. This experiment did not prove the curvature of space-time; rather, it merely confirms that light is affected by gravity. I have no quarrel with the notion that light is affected by gravity. It makes sense that light should be affected by gravity: everything else is so affected, why shouldn’t light be as well?

The assumption is apparently that, since this experiment confirms the principle of equivalence, then it de facto confirms the curvature of space-time. But again, I am not disputing the principle of equivalence, or Galilean relativity. Gravity and acceleration should be expected to appear similar; gravity is acceleration relative to the ground of any given planet, and “gravity” in an accelerating spaceship is acceleration relative to the rear wall of the interior of the spaceship. Well, duh! Of course they appear similar. What I am disputing is the conclusions Einstein draws by trying to hold on to both Maxwell’s findings and Galilean relativity, namely the conclusion that light signals and our state of motion somehow determine how we experience the physical passage of time. We should not hold on to Galilean relativity. Galilean relativity is equivalent to an optical illusion, and any conclusions drawn from it are equally illusory. I contend that there is a privileged reference frame, regardless of our inability to detect it. Inside Galileo’s ship, claiming that a passenger on the ship, ignorant of the outside world, will be unable to detect by any experiment ether the ship is in motion, is immaterial. Such ignorance on the part of a man can have no physical impact upon the actual world; his ignorance does not dissolve the world outside his ship, making everything, from his viewpoint, relative to his ship. His ship is still enclosed by a wider world. If his ship were in fact all there was to the universe, then all motion and physical phenomena would be relative to his ship. But he has only to go on deck or look out a porthole to see that his ship is indeed enclosed within a wider universe. So he can’t pretend that his ignorance of the precise state of the absolute reference frame, namely the bounds of the universe, has any physical effect upon motion and phenomena. All motion and phenomena in his ship must therefore be relative to that wider universe as a whole. He may choose to attach such motion and phenomena to a smaller part of that universe, but such attachment does not alter the fact that motion and phenomena are actually relative to the wider universe.

Time dilation and the Doppler effect - Youtube video

Special relativity's time dilation is inconsistent with the Doppler effect, and is contradicted by general relativity's principle of equivalence.

My recent Youtube video explains it all:

Eotvos experiment does not prove space-time is curved

The Eotvos experiment, presented as proof that space-time is curved as general relativity claims, does not prove that space-time is curved. It merely proves that things fall equally in gravity regardless of their composition and mass, to a degree of precision greater than that obtained by dropping things off buildings.

In case you think, “Hey, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The Eotvos test is merely a test of the principle of equivalence, so you’re getting all worked up about nothing. No one considers Eotvos a proof for curved space-time.”

Oh yeah, wise guy? “The Eotvos experiment is viewed as one of the primary tests of the validity of curved space-time.” (Clifford M. Will, page 39-40, Was Einstein Right?)

At this point, the relativist will probably say, "A theory can never be proved. One can only offer evidence in support of it. And the Eotvos experiment supports relativity." 

Well, bollocks on you. Quit trying to spoil my rant against Einstein.

Arsenic-eating life: peer review vs. blogging

There's an interesting debate going on, centered around the "arsenic-eating" life that was recently discovered by a team of NASA-based researchers. What's interesting to me is the issue of peer review versus blogging. To me, "peer review" means, not only that the science in the article has been checked out by "those in the know," but also that the article in question has been scrutinized to make sure it doesn't contain any heresy against the Currently Accepted Dogma of the church of Science. It's funny how in the comments to the above referenced article, a lot of commentators equate non-peer-reviewed blog posts with the so-called "religious right." One commentator, echoing the general sentiment, says, "Considering blog comments aren't peer reviewed, why don't these blogging scientists just adopt a flippin' religion and base their critique on that?" 

It's funny how scientists regard anyone who dares to question peer-reviewed studies as unworthy of the public's attention. Anyone who questions the accepted "truth" is automatically a crackpot, or a religious nut, or a dimwit. Mainstream science, for all its purported interest in discovery and advancement, only allows certain questions to be asked, and only certain theoretical avenues to be explored, only by people who have been deemed to be "knowledgeable," which really means people who adhere to accepted dogma. Anything and anyone else is heretical, and needs to be censored or censured.

The train and the lightning strikes again

Let’s say we have a spaceship traveling through space at uniform velocity. The pilot, Vincent, is standing in the middle of the cabin. He has a digital clock beside him, as well as a switch. The switch is connected by wire to a light bulb at the front of the cabin, and a light bulb at the rear of the cabin, so that, when the switch is thrown, both light bulbs light up. Each light bulb is connected to a clock right beside it. These clocks detect and record the exact moment when the pulse comes through the wire and activates the bulb. These clocks were synchronized with Vincent’s by putting them right beside Vincent’s clock and set to the time of Vincent’s clock. The two clocks were then instantaneously teleported to their respective positions beside the light bulbs at the front and rear of the cabin. Or they were walked to their positions by Vincent, or whatever. Any way you can imagine that the clocks would get to their positions without getting out of synch with Vincent’s due to motion. We are absolutely certain that when I look at the rear or forward clock, I can be sure that Vincent’s clock is showing the same time.

Okay. Vincent throws his switch, carefully noting the time as he does so. What will happen? First, due to the forward motion of the ship, the light bulb at the rear of the cabin will light up, its clock will stamp the time, and the light from the bulb will head back toward Vincent at the center of the cabin. Seconds later, due to the forward motion of the ship, the light bulb at the front of the cabin will light up, its clock will stamp the time, and the light from the bulb will head back toward Vincent at the center of the cabin. Because the light from the rear has further to travel due to the forward motion of the ship, and the light from the front has less distance to travel, the lights each reach Vincent at the same time. He concludes that the pulse from his switch reached both walls at the same time, triggering their lights. (This is incontrovertible; Einstein would agree: if he claims that when two lightning bolts hit the front and rear of the train simultaneously from the vantage point of an outside observer, but will be perceived as non-simultaneous to an observer in the rocket, then he must agree that the reverse would hold true: that non-simultaneous strikes would be perceived as simultaneous by the rocket’s observer, which is exactly the situation I have described above.

Since Vincent sees the lights at the same time, he believes that when he compares the two clocks at the front and rear of the cabin, they will both contain the same time stamp. He performs this comparison. Astonishingly, the time stamps are not identical. The clock at the rear has an earlier time stamp than the clock at the front. How can this be? he wonders.

Let us further say there is an observer, Nancy, standing alongside the rocket’s path. There is a v-shaped mirror in directly in front of her, which will allow her to see both lights without turning her head. When the light bulbs go off, she sees the rear bulb go off first, and the front bulb go off second, agreeing with the judgment of Vincent’s clocks.

Clearly, Vincent’s perception of the simultaneity of the bulbs going off was in error. He cannot argue with his clocks; despite his perception, the bulbs did not go off simultaneously. He must agree with Nancy. Yet special relativity would have us accept Vincent’s perception as accurate, and believe that a discrepancy exists between Nancy and Vincent: Vincent says the lights went off simultaneously, Nancy says they didn’t. Therefore simultaneity is relative.

You cannot claim that I am misunderstanding relativity here. My illustration is in perfect agreement with the two main illustrations put forth by Einstein and proponents of relativity: namely, the thought experiment where the observer shines a light from the middle of the train, or spaceship, or whatever vehicle you choose to use; and the thought experiment where lightning strikes the front and rear of the train, spaceship, etc.

The proponent of relativity will probably say there is one thing wrong with my thought experiment: the clocks have not been properly synchronized. Once Vincent’s clocks are positioned at the front and rear of the cabin, we must send light signals back and forth between them, to adjust them properly. But I utterly reject this second phase of synchronization. This synchronization merely adjusts for the error that exists. It is merely a way of getting the clocks out of synch again, and into agreement with relativity’s conclusions. The error exists; you can’t “sweep it under the rug” by “synchronizing the clocks with light. To do so is to merely adjust the clocks so that the error seems to go away. I’m right and you’re wrong, yet you’re trying to tell me I’m wrong because I haven’t adjusted for your error. That’s ridiculous! I don’t care if you’ve got Albert Einstein and the supposedly greatest minds of the past hundred years of physics behind you, if you’re wrong, you’re wrong, I don’t care who you are. Was Galileo wrong about heliocentrism just because the Church said he was? If the whole of the scientific church says someone is wrong, does that mean they truly are? At 4:45, if I want to leave work, and I set the clock forward to 5:00 and leave, I can’t then pretend, without being in error, that I didn’t leave fifteen minutes early. No matter that I set the clock forward to 5:00, the fact remains that I left work fifteen minutes early. My boss will claim that I left work fifteen minutes early, and will want to dock me fifteen minutes’ pay; shall I attempt to wriggle out of this by claiming that there is an actual, physical difference between my 5:00 and his, merely because I moved the clock forward?o:p>

In relativity, light moves along with the rocket

Let’s take a standard illustration from relativity. We have two mirrors stationed on opposite walls of the interior cabin of a spaceship, and a light pulse bounces back and forth between these two mirrors, constituting as it were a light clock. The standard schpiel is that an observer on the rocket sees the light beam traveling straight up and down, since he is not in motion relative to the mirrors, while an observer on the ground sees the light beam traveling in a diagonal path between the mirrors, slanted in the direction of the ship’s motion, due to the mirrors being in motion relative to the ground observer. From this, we are supposed to conclude that, from the viewpoint of the ground observer, time for the observer on the rocket is passing at a slower rate than for the observer on the ground, or vice versa, depending on which viewpoint you assume. This supposed difference in time measurements is due to the light taking a shorter path in one frame and a longer path in the other.

But the conclusions drawn from the above illustration are incorrect. The Doppler shift is hard evidence of this. If light actually behaved as in this standard illustration, traveling in a diagonal path from the viewpoint of a reference frame that is stationary relative to the source of the light, then there would be no Doppler shifting of light. In the above illustration, from the viewpoint of one reference frame, light is being carried forward with the motion of the ship. In other words, in the illustration, the behavior of the light is dependent on the motion of the source. But the Doppler shift shows us, and even relativity claims, that light is independent of its source. In the correct mirror illustration, the light, once emitted or reflected, would travel straight across the intervening space to the opposing mirror, independent of the ship. In fact, due to the forward motion of the ship, the light would hit the opposing mirror at a point slightly behind the emission or reflection point of the mirror it had just left, and just how far behind would of course depend upon the velocity of the ship. In fact, relativity recognizes this point in the general theory, using this fact to draw the connection between acceleration and gravity. Why does relativity correctly describe the behavior of light for the general theory, while incorrectly describing it for the special theory? The difference is acceleration, obviously. But acceleration does not alter the behavior of light. The general theory has it correct. In the illustration of the light clock: for a ship not undergoing acceleration, the light bouncing between the mirrors will simply drift rearward at a constant, steady rate, while in a ship undergoing acceleration, the light will drift backward at an ever-increasing rate. In other words, in uniform motion, the point at which the light is reflected from each mirror will drift backward, with an equal spacing between the points on the wall where the reflection occurs; while in acceleration, the point at which the light is reflected from each mirror will drift backward, with a spacing between the reflection points that increases with each reflection. I am of course using a single pulse of light that, once emitted, continues bouncing indefinitely between the mirrors, rather than a steady stream of light pouring from an emitter. In the case of a steady stream of light, each successive pulse will hit the opposite wall at the same point, still slightly rearward of the emission point. Ether we use a single photon or a steady stream doesn’t alter my point or the physics of it. This “rearward drift” is just more visible if you confine the illustration to a single photon.

Relativity is riddled with these types of inconsistencies, such as the one above, between the special theory and the general.

If you believe this is not inconsistent, and I’m just a nutty crackpot, think about the Doppler effect. Visually, when light is emitted from a moving source, the light waves look like a v-shaped funnel—a series of concentric circles, starting with a huge circle, with each interior circle slighter smaller and to the side of the larger, until at the apex of the v we have a tiny circle, which is the pulse just emitted from the source. If I’m not describing it well enough, look in any physics textbook on the Doppler Effect, or better yet, watch an animation. You’ll see that each circle expands in place where it was emitted while the source moves onward. The Doppler effect looks like this because each pulse, each circle, stays in place in space and grows larger, while the source moves away from it. A flash of light, a pulse, is represented by a single circle, expanding in place from where it was emitted. Need I say it a few more times? The light wave, or the sound wave, is stationary, while the source moves onward. Or, if you insist on relativity, the source is stationary and the pulse moves away. So the pulse, the flash, would hit the opposite wall of the spaceship at a point slightly behind the spot opposite its point of emission. There is no way around this conclusion. It is a hard physical fact. But in relativity’s view, the flash is carried along with the motion of the ship, so that it is stationary relative to the ship. You cannot dispute anything I’ve said here, about the Doppler effect or about relativity. If you do, you’re the crackpot who doesn’t truly understand physics, not me. Relativity claims the light is moving along with the ship, stationary relative to it. The assertion that a stationary observer will observe the light in the rocket as taking a diagonal path across the cabin, while an observer in the rocket will see the light going straight across the cabin, is a fallacious assertion! This is the method by which Einstein claims time dilation, but it’s a faulty claim. An observer in the rocket will see the light pulse drift slightly rearward inside his cabin, while an outside observer at rest relative to the light will see it travel a straight path. The observer at rest relative to the rocket will see the light at rest relative to himself, while the rocket’s observer will see the light moving away, relative to himself.

The generation of a light wave is like a rock dropped into the water behind a speeding boat. The rock is dropped, and boom, the wave spreads out from the point of impact. The point of impact and the spreading wave does not follow along behind the boat, picking up the momentum of the boat. The impact point stays in place, receding behind the boat, even as the wave’s edge expands outward toward the boat. If relativity’s interpretation is true, then the point of impact would move along behind the boat, remaining stationary relative to the boat. 

Particle or wave, object or path of object

Quantum Mechanics — a particle is a solid thing at any given single moment of time; a wave is a process that happens over time. They’re two different sorts of things. The difference between them is the difference between a point and a path. To say something is either a particle or a wave, depending on how you look at it, is like saying that I am either standing still or I’m running around the room. You’re either looking at me, or you’re looking at the path I’m following in running around the room. The first is a solid object at one moment, or multiple moments, of time, while the second is merely an abstract thing that only exists across multiple moments, as a mental construct assembled from a real solid object in motion. So the particle wave distinction in quantum mechanics is really a distinction between the time taken to measure the particle and the particle itself. Wait long enough, and it will become a wave; but if the smaller your measurement’s temporal interval is, the wave will become more particle-like, as you narrow down its location. The supposed paradox of the particle/wave duality of matter is really no paradox, as there is really no duality. To say that there is a duality here is like saying that, when I am standing still at precisely ten o’clock, I am an entirely different thing than I would be if you were to consider me running around the room between ten o’clock and five after ten. In the latter case you are considering the path of my motion, but the path is not me. Examining the path would tell you nothing about me other than the state of my motion.

An idea about time

The common view of “block time,” where everything that has happened, is happening or will happen, exists statically in a sort of three-dimensional block, is wrong. In such a model, the perception is that each moment of time is merely a slice of a greater whole, separated from one another by some sort of space, forming a block. That is, each moment of three dimensional space is but a slice of the block, each slice being an entire three dimensional universe stacked one on top of the other until a block is formed.

But this is an error. In actuality, each moment exists superimposed with all other moments, in a sort of jumble. For example, The block view would have my life strung out in a sort of temporal space, with, say, a million versions of myself strung out in a sort of line, each one separated from the others by some sort of distance. But such a view is too spacialized. This is how it really is: my nine-year-old self coexists in the same space with my current self, just as my current self exists in the same space with my ninety-year-old self. We are bound into a whole by the temporal dimension; space and time are bound inextricably together. But they are not a singular spacetime, as relativity would have us believe, and they are not bound together in the manner of the “block” view, where time is reduced to a merely spatial dimension. They are each unique and separate, yet bound into a whole in such a way that they cannot be separated, in much the same way that none of the supposed three dimensions of space can be isolated from the others. Much as my body has a volumetric extension in space, that spatial volume, at one and the same time, has a temporal component; not a component that is “stacked” as in the “block” view, but rather a component that occupies the same spatial position, but in a different temporal position—but yet not even really the same spatial position, for the space itself, seemingly the same, occupies a different temporal position. My consciousness spans the whole of my life, right now and at every moment. The consciousness I am thinking with now is the exact same consciousness that my nine-year-old and ninety-year-old self are also thinking with, “right now.” Every moment of my entire life is sort of “plugged in” to the same consciousness. Or, put another way, each moment of my life is like a different “frequency” to my consciousness, which is “global” to my whole temporal lifespan. “We” are all here, right “now,” each aspect of me being merely a different spatio-temporal side, much the way a cube has different spatial edges. That same cube also has a temporal “edge.” For example, suppose I sat and stared at a motionless cube for years. Each and every moment, though it looks the same, it is actually presenting me with a different aspect of itself. I am, as it were, seeing it from a different side, each and every moment, for I am viewing different temporal sides of it, much in the same way that, were I to walk around it, I would see different spatial sides of it. Yet in each case it is the same cube.

An idea about electrons

Just an idle thought--

Suppose the electron is constantly exploding into a cloud of debris, which then implodes, reforming the electron.

In its compressed form, it is solid—an electron. It’s pulled together by some sort of attractive force similar to the nuclear force. But thus compressed, its energy is so great that its solid form can’t be maintained. It explodes, dissolving into a cloud of debris, or gas. With its energy thus dispersed, the attractive force again dominates, and the cloud, the gas, collapses in on itself, reforming the electron, whereupon it explodes again…. This happens continuously, perhaps millions of times a second, so that, in effect, the electron is both a particle and a wave.

What we know as magnetism is actually the electron in its exploded, gaseous state. This constant cycle of explosion and implosion is electromagnetism.

This cycle also somehow propels an electromagnetic wave forward, much like a blowfish (or whatever that fish is) moves by drawing in water and expelling it. Perhaps when it implodes a small burst of energy is released that sort of knocks the newly-re-formed electron forward.

Kinetic Theory of Light?

In the double-slit experiment, the outcome—the interference pattern—is the same whether you fire photons individually or as a continuous beam. The difference is, individually, you’re spreading the process out over time. Just as in relativity, the observer in motion measures the same speed of light, but over a “longer” time.

You need to fire X number of individual photons to get a recognizable pattern, and a steady beam has to shine for X minutes to emit an identical number of photons.
X photons/time=interference pattern.

For example, for single photons, X photons/30 minutes (or whatever) = interference pattern. This is a timelike light wave—spreading the wave across time, i.e. the wave emerges over time.

Conversely, X photons/1 nanosecond (or whatever, just much less time)=interference pattern. This is a spacelike light wave—the wave exists all at once in space.

A timelike light wave has particulate properties, whereas a spacelike light wave has wave-like properties.

So light requires a certain number of photons to take on wave-like properties. The wave nature of light is thus an emergent property of the large number of photons. Just like with a gas—one atom does not a gas make. A gas is an emergent property of a large number of particles and temperature acting in concert.

Light wave = photons + time

Gas= particles + temperature

Can the kinetic theory of gases be applied to light?

Post 6

Y575BE96HYUW 

Classic illustration of relativity: On a spaceship in uniform motion, a crewmember turns on a light in the middle of the ship and sees it hit the front and rear walls of the cabin at the same time. However, a stationary observer watching the spaceship from the outside sees that the light hits the front wall and the back wall at different times, since the forward wall is receding from the light while the rear wall is racing toward it. So who’s right? Both are! Events that are simultaneous in one moving frame are not simultaneous in another.

This is a major error in relativity. When we say “the crewmember sees” the light hit both walls simultaneously, what this means is that the light has reflected off both walls and returned to his eyes. But in the thought experiment, the outside observer is only concerned with when the light hits the walls! This thought experiment, so often used to illustrate the relativity of simultaneity, concerns one event (light making a round trip journey back to crewmember’s eyes) from one perspective, and a separate event (light striking the walls) from another perspective, and compares them as if they’re the same event that is somehow out of synch. But there’s no contradiction here: if you examine the same event from either reference frame (either look at the light striking the walls, or the light returning to the crewmember’s eyes) then it has the same outcome, namely that the light hits the walls at different times. The crewmember merely believes the light hits the walls at the same time because the light that took longer going out has a shorter path back due to the crewmember’s motion, and vice versa. Sweeping conclusions about how the universe works have been drawn from the erroneous thought experiment. This is preposterous, and it’s such an obvious error, I don’t understand why everyone is making it.

What about all the supposed experimental confirmations of relativity?

Take for one the case of muons, particles that have a half-life measured in nanoseconds. When these particles are accelerated to near light speed, their lifespans are lengthened dramatically, which scientists attribute to the dilation of time. Time for the muon is “slowed down,” so its decay happens at a slower rate from our point of view.

But the muon does not automatically score a point in favor of relativity’s validity. One can come up with other equally plausible, far simpler explanations for the life-extension of accelerated muons. Mark McCutcheon, in his book, The Final Theory, proposes that the normally unstable muons, when accelerated, are held together longer by the crushing pressures of their acceleration. Basically they’re experiencing an external pressure that overcomes their internal pressure to fly apart. There’s no need to appeal to relativity for an answer.

Another proof offered is that Einstein’s calculation explains the orbit of Mercury. He came up with numerous equations before he settled on the right one, and he settled on that one because it fit the data of Mercury’s aberrant orbit. In other words, he built his final field equations around Mercury’s orbit, he fit them to it purposely. Apparently he came up with earlier equations that didn’t fit. While it looks like he predicted Mercury’s orbit, he actually tailored his equations to fit it. It’s not like he slaved away at his equations completely ignorant of Mercury’s orbit and then, lo and behold! Mercury’s aberrant orbit conveniently and magically fell out in the numbers. “Perfect, Einstein! Do you realize your equations explain Mercury’s puzzling orbit?” “Oh, really? Wow!” He slaved away at his equations, already fully aware of the decades-old puzzle of Mercury’s orbit, hammering at his numbers and twisting them around until he managed to fit them around the fact of Mercury’s aberrant orbit. He would have developed his equations with the thought in mind, “Okay, I know about the slight bit of Mercury’s precession that can’t be explained. So I need to play around with my equations, adding variables here and there and tweaking the numbers, until my equations explain Mercury.”

It’s a stretch to say that because he stumbled upon an equation that explains astronomical data, relativity must be true. You can’t deny the mathematical truth of his equation, but you can deny his claims about what it means. For example, suppose I’m a detective investigating a crime scene where gunplay was involved. I may be able to calculate the precise angles and trajectories of every bullet in the walls, but that data alone will not tell me the identity and motive of those involved in the crime. I can draw my conclusions, and another detective could draw his own that are completely at odds with mine—but neither of us will disagree about the mathematics of the gunplay. Einstein’s mathematics may thus support any number of theories at odds with his own, all of which would share and be supported by his mathematics. Relativity is a philosophical interpretation of the implications of his mathematics. Much like reading a book, where two readers may come up with two wholly different themes—but this difference does not alter the fact of the words or the book as a whole. The book can even be said to support whatever theme the reader wishes to read into it, but the only correct theme, it can be argued, is that which the author himself had in mind when writing it. Einstein, with his field equations, is not to be equated with the author of the book in my metaphor. Rather, he would be a librarian, perhaps, who has opened the book and exposed the words to other readers.

So what about the supposed confirmation of relativity by GPS satellites? They have to be corrected because the clocks on the satellites get out of synch with the clocks on the ground?

Let’s look at what GPS is. A device on the ground, to determine its position, transmits a signal to a satellite in orbit. The satellite in orbit must take into account the time to calculate the device’s position on the ground. But the signal from the device has taken time to travel to the satellite, so the satellite’s clock is obviously “out of synch” with the time reading from the device, since the encoded time stamp is from a few nanoseconds earlier. So the satellite has to compensate for this. But there’s nothing strange or unexpected here. There really is no time difference. The clock in orbit and the clock on the ground are still reading the same time. If they want to compare their times using electromagnetic signals, they obviously must compensate for the travel time of the signal. The clock on the ground says, “It’s five o’clock,” and transmits that information to the satellite. Five seconds pass on both clocks, and the satellite receives the signal and hears, “It’s five o’clock.” The satellite looks at its own clock and says, “No, it’s not, it’s five seconds after five o’clock.” Only an idiot would conclude that there is an actual time difference between the two clocks due to some strange property of nature. A reasonable person obviously concludes that there is merely a lag due to the travel time of the signal that must be taken into account.

Let’s pretend the GPS satellites were in orbit around Mars. The GPS device on Earth transmits its signal, the signal travels to Mars. And lo and behold, the clocks are now “out of synch” by a whopping ten minutes.

Of course the above has neglected to take into account the supposed influence of gravity on time. But again, there’s no mystery, or mysterious force of nature warping time. Time is not being warped. It’s merely the travel time of the signal that must be compensated for. Gravity pulls at the signal, and so affects its travel time. But just as I’ve outlined above, the clocks are not reading two different times. At each instant, when the signal is transmitted and again when the satellite compares the signal’s time stamp to its own clock, the clocks still reading the exact same time. It doesn’t matter that the signal says differently. The signal took time to travel. Big deal. There’s no mystery. It’s simple classical physics. The real mystery is why so many supposedly intelligent people conclude that there must be an actual, physical difference in time and its rate of passage between the satellite’s position and the device on the ground, that can only be explained by Einstein’s relativity.

Let’s take another illustration. Suppose my friend lives on the other side of the world from me. We’re conversing by cell phone. The distance is such that it takes four seconds for the signal from my phone to reach his, and vice versa. I look at my clock and tell him, “It’s five o’clock.”

He hears me say this and looks at his own clock. “No, it’s not. You’re mistaken. It’s four seconds after five.” Assuming we’re both nitpickers here, and such a miniscule difference matters to us.

Of course, when I hear him say this, by my clock it is now eight seconds after five. Therefore, according to relativity, I must conclude that his time actually lags four seconds behind mine. We live in different times, we have s separate experience of time. Likewise, he must conclude the same thing about my time. And we must both wonder, what a strange phenomenon, that our times, our nows, are different.

This is stupidity! Who in their right mind would think that the signal’s travel time indicates an intrinsic difference in the physical times of our two locations? What kind of obtuse nut wouldn’t merely shrug it off with the knowledge that there’s no real difference in time, it just seems that way due to the travel time of our signals?

A nut who believes in relativity, that’s who.

Post 5

So what do we have? We have a thing, light, which possesses a property, velocity, that apparently alters depending on the state of motion of the observer, so that each observer will measure the same momentary speed, but such that nothing else about the thing changes, i.e. the total distance traveled remains the same for all observers. To me, my instincts are telling me that this is somehow related, possibly identical, to the quantum mechanical phenomenon of light being either a wave or a particle depending on how you measure it. Perhaps light has an equal probability of being everywhere along its entire path at once, and when an observer measures its speed, the particle or wave sort of “coalesces” at that point along the path, and keeps pace with the observer until the measurement is complete. In other words, just as in the double slit experiment of quantum mechanics, when an observer in a speeding rocket shines his light beam, the light has no exact position or velocity along its path, until the rocket’s observer measures the beam, whereupon it takes on the velocity alongside the observer. Likewise if a stationary observer were to measure the same beam, the light would take on its appropriate velocity in relation to the stationary observer. So light has no momentary velocity until it is actually measured, whereupon each observer will measure the same velocity regardless of his state of motion.

Post 4

In dealing with reference frames, and claiming that no reference frame is preferred over any other, that is, that all reference frames are relative and there is no absolute reference frame: if we, say, choose a rocket in uniform motion as a reference frame, there is obviously space external to the rocket, so how can we not say that the rocket’s reference frame is inferior to that external space? The rocket is demonstrably, entirely contained by that external space, so the reference frame attached to that external space must necessarily be superior to that of the rocket. By this reasoning, since any possible reference frame we might choose is contained within the universe, then all reference frames must be inferior to the universe as a whole. Therefore, there is an absolute frame of reference that comprises the universe as a whole, and any measurements made relative to an inferior reference frame are correct in thought only, and we will be making an error if we attribute any real, physical significance to such measurements. It doesn’t matter that we cannot pinpoint the universal reference frame. This inability to pinpoint it does not mean we may ignore its existence in physical theory. 

Post 3

If relativity fits observation and data, but the reasons it uses to explain those observations and data go against common sense and experience, then we should try to come up with new reasons. For example, if I find a million dollars on my doorstep when I open my door one morning, with no idea of how it got there, I could explain it by saying a magical fairy left it there. It would certainly fit the data and observation then available to me, and I might be able to use my magical fairy to explain other occurrences. But such an explanation is obviously absurd. So I would search for another, more reasonable explanation. We can use the belief that the universe rotates around the earth to explain observations and make predictions. But we know better. Even if we didn’t, the theory would still be useable and workable. The point is, even absurd theories can explain and predict. But just because they do doesn’t mean we should accept them as they are and give up searching for the truth. 

Post 2

“Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening toward the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence, the observer will see the beam of light coming from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important result:

Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train (and vice versa)…” —Albert Einstein, Relativity

An observer might come to such a conclusion in the unlikely event he’s unaware that he’s on a moving train, and unaware as well that his motion is carrying him toward the first light even as he recedes from the second. But either our observer is an ignorant clod who is unaware of the existence of a wider universe, or is merely an unfortunate who is totally ignorant of his motion—so what? Does our ignorance alter objective, real facts? The fact is that both A and B took place simultaneously, Einstein is careful to stipulate that. Our confusion or our inability to determine simultaneity does not alter the objective, natural fact of the simultaneity.

If we subscribe to the relativity of simultaneity, which Einstein urges us to do based on the fact that the speed of light puts a limit on how fast we can send and receive information, then we are committing ourselves to a foolish notion. A similar analogy is this: I’m speaking on the telephone with a friend on the other side of the world. I ask a question, there is a long pause, and then a response from my friend. I ask another question, and at the same time, my friend talks over me. Anyone who’s ever spoken to someone in another country has likely had such a conversation. Now, when I’m talking to my friend, do I conclude that he’s being rude by talking over me, constantly interrupting? No, of course not. I’m aware that there’s a lag in the time it takes for the phone signal to travel around the world and back. My friend started talking a few seconds earlier, and the signal just happens to reach my phone at the same time I start talking, and so it appears that he’s talking over me, when in reality he isn’t. Einstein, in urging us to subscribe to the relativity of simultaneity, would basically have me conclude that, because I heard my friend speaking over me, he didn’t speak until several seconds after he actually did. (This would be the situation where the observer on the train concludes that lightning flash A took place later than lightning flash B). In other words, if my friend does something at, say, 2:00, and I do something identical at that that same time according to our previously synchronized clocks, if I don’t learn until a few hours later that my friend did his thing at 2:00, then I can’t conclude that our acts were simultaneous. Even though they were. Which is a patently absurd thing to expect a person to believe. Just because I learn of two simultaneous events at different times doesn’t mean I must conclude that they weren’t simultaneous.

I am not misunderstanding Einstein’s assertions. I’m giving valid illustrations of the meaning behind his assertions. Reread the quotation above. He’s saying that whichever of two simultaneous events we learn of first, we must conclude that that one happened first, because the light from that event reached us first. He would have us believe that the medium (light) used to convey information about an event regulates the timing of that event.

But again I say: our inability to receive timely information regarding distant events doesn’t alter the objective fact of the simultaneity (or lack thereof) of those events. Simultaneity is not relative. Our ability to receive information regarding simultaneity may be relative, but simultaneity itself isn’t. In the above quotation, Einstein is right: the observer on the train will see one flash before the other. But that he “must therefore come to the conclusion” is asinine. No we mustn’t therefore come to the conclusion, because we know better. And even if we didn’t know better, our ignorance wouldn’t change the facts. Ignorance, as they say, is no defense. Just because our hapless observer reaches an erroneous conclusion based on the misleading data available to him doesn’t alter the reality of the simultaneity of the two events in question. Come on, Albert. 

Post I

The supposed time dilation of relativity arises when an observer on a rocket shines a light at the forward cabin and measures the distance the light travels before striking the forward wall, and an outside observer measures the same path traversed by the light and finds it to be greater due to the forward motion of the rocket. Since both must measure the light beam as having the same speed, the outside observer must conclude that the person inside the rocket also measured a smaller amount of time. Therefore time must pass more slowly for objects in motion.

This conclusion, stemming from precisely the above outlined thought experiment, is foolish. In both cases, the light has traversed the same distance. It doesn’t matter that the person inside the rocket might not know he is in motion; the inability of any conscious observer to determine an absolute frame of rest doesn’t matter; nature does not take the ignorance of conscious beings into account in determining how much distance a light beam has traversed. In the case of the rocket above, the light has traversed the same distance through space regardless of the “frame of reference” of whoever decides to do a little measuring.

As an example, let’s say that alongside our rocket, the outside observer shines a light in the same direction as the rocket’s travel, at the same time that the person in the rocket shines a light at the forward wall. Now, at the instant the beam of light inside the rocket hits the forward wall, the beam of light outside has traversed the same distance through space as the beam inside the rocket, regardless of who does the measuring, because the rocket enclosing the beam is irrelevant once the light is emitted from its source. This is obvious from the well known Doppler effect, redshifts and blueshifts. Once the beam has left the emitter inside the rocket, both the beam inside and the beam outside are on equal ground, so to speak. This is a consequence of the invariance of the speed of light. Compare the path of both beams and you will find them the same length. They are completely superimposable one upon the other. Just because the observer inside the rocket, utterly ignorant of the outside universe, measures the distance from the emitter to the front wall and comes up with a shorter measurement than the observer measuring the outside beam, doesn’t mean that time has become “dilated” due to the supposed difference in distances and the constancy of the velocity of light. Einstein asserts that because c is constant, and both observers measure different distances, their times must therefore also be different. But the distances are not different. The path of both beams, as can be shown, are equal, therefore the times cannot be different. Time is not “dilated” in the case of the rocket. The observer in the rocket cannot alter objective fact due to his inaccurate measurement. Nature does not care about his inaccurate measurement; nature is not affected by his measurement.

Let’s now suppose the observer in the rocket is standing on the hull of his rocket. Let’s further suppose that there is nothing external to him by which he is able to gauge his motion, so that he believes he is at rest. He measures the light beam traveling alongside his ship, and finds that the length it traverses from stem to stern matches the length of the beam inside his ship. Of course he will find the same path lengths, since in both cases he is using his ship as a reference.

But still, from both perspectives, that of the rocket ship and that of the stationary observer, the two light beams have the same length, as is obvious from their superimposeabiltiy. That the observer in the rocket has a length measurement that differs from the stationary observer, makes no objective difference. Einstein, however, believes that it does, and because of the need to maintain the constancy of light speed from all frames of reference, he uses this supposed difference in measurement to construct his theory of relativity claiming that time is dilated for one observer due to his “shorter” measurement.

In reality the calculations are merely shaving off the velocity of the rocket and moving it elsewhere in the equation, sort of “sweeping it under the rug.”

But I’m claiming that the light beams are the same length in all cases, regardless of the chosen frame of reference. If the paths are, objectively, superimposable, then what does it matter if we can obtain millions of different measurements, from millions of different reference frames? These millions of different reference frames are the arbitrary constructions of conscious beings. Nature, lacking the consciousness to recognize the difference, will treat the same light beam as having the same length. So if there is time dilation arising due to motion, it must arise due to a different mechanism than Einstein posits, namely that there is a difference in measurement. Because there is no objective difference, to nature. If we are to maintain Einstein’s relativity, then we must show why consciousness could affect the physical nature of time.

The nearest analogy I can think of involves one of those 3d picture books you can purchase in any bookstore. Each page contains an image that at first glance looks ordinary, or like a jumbled mess. But when you cross your eyes and stare carefully, a 3-dimensional image jumps off the page at you. Nothing about the book or the images on the pages have changed. Your perception has merely been altered so that you, in effect, are seeing the images from a different perspective. But neither the book nor the images have been physically altered in any way. They persist in the same state regardless of which way you look at them. With relativity, Einstein would have us make the same sort of error we would make were we to believe that the book and its images had actually been physically altered due to our change in perception.

In other words, if we are to maintain Einstein’s relativity, then we must conclude that nature is somehow aware that consciousness is involved in the motion and physically alters the conscious being’s physical experience of time, i.e. that nature is aware of the frame of reference of the conscious being, because it clearly takes a consciousness to determine that the length of the light beam’s path in the rocket differs from the length of the same light beam as measured from an outside observer. But experiments that show that atomic particles have longer lives when accelerated to near light-speed would seem to show that consciousness is not required. So the conclusions of Einstein’s relativity must be false, and although his theory has enjoyed experimental success, such success has come despite flawed reasoning, much in the way that a detective’s investigation of a murder may lead him to the correct perpetrator even if his understanding of the perpetrator’s motive later proves to be inaccurate.

Now, if we do abandon Einstein’s relativity, this still leaves us with the problem of the constant velocity of light. The reason why both observers measure the same velocity for light, even if one is motionless and the other is moving at close to light speed, still needs to be explored. But Einstein’s assertion, that relativity solves the problem by making time relative, does not hold. Because time can only be relative if the measured distance is relative, and, as illustrated above, the supposed difference arises from a fallacy of measurement, and in reality there is no difference in the light path. The measurements are relative, but that relativity has no objective reality. That relativity is a mere trick of thought, similar to an optical illusion.

The gist of what I am trying to say by all the foregoing is that Einstein tried to solve the incompatibility between the constancy of the velocity of the propagation of light and the theorem of the addition of velocities by claiming that time is variable, and that, as I have perhaps inadequately tried to explain, he was unsuccessful. The incompatibility still remains. In his attempt he claimed that separate observers in relative motion will measure different lengths for the path of the same light beam, which, if time were constant, would give us differing speeds of light. To avoid this, he says that time is not constant. His theory rests on this difference in measurements. As I believe there is no objective difference, his theory fails to achieve the reconciliation that was its goal.

Now, what he has actually done, if time dilation actually occurs due to a difference in measurement, is to show that conscious awareness somehow enters into the picture. Because it shouldn’t matter, objectively, that different frames of reference will measure different lengths for the path of the light beam. He has provided us a possible link between quantum mechanics and relativity, by exposing a “measurement problem” that may share an underlying cause with the “measurement problem” in quantum mechanics. This link may be the starting point toward achieving the much sought-after reconciliation between science’s two biggest, incompatible theories.

Someone might object by saying, “In your ranting against relativity you’ve only been considering the light on the first leg of its journey. If we add on the second leg, namely the portion where the light bounces off the mirror at the front of the rocket and reflects back toward the rocket’s observer, even as the outside beam is similarly reflected back at the stationary observer, the rocket’s observer measures a shorter distance, because he is rushing toward the light and so hits the return beam before the stationary observer gets hit by his own. Therefore the lengths of the beams are different, so the time measurement will differ, as both observers must measure the same speed for light.”

Even this objection is in error. The measurements are not the same because the conditions of the experiment differ. The path of the beams may differ in such a case, but the difference is because one beam is interrupted in its journey back. If it had been allowed to continue back to its point of origin, the distances are still equal. Once the light beam leaves the emitter, it is independent of the rocket. Its point of origin becomes “frozen” in place far behind the rocket; the origin does not move forward with the emitter. The only valid measurement would be if we were to measure the beam back to its true source, the “frozen” source that is now far behind the rocket.

Let’s look at it in another way. Two scientists, on Earth in the same reference frame, are conducting an experiment to measure the speed of light. Both observers shine their lights at the front wall of their respective labs, where a mirror hangs. The light hits the mirror and reflects back toward the emitter. But suppose, in its journey back, the light beam in one lab is intercepted, blocked, by a piece of cardboard that has, for whatever reason, suddenly interposed itself between the returning light beam and the emitter. The light beam of the second scientist has successfully returned to the emitter. Now, when they compare notes, is the first scientist going to say, “My light beam traveled a shorter distance than yours, therefore my time must be dilated.” Of course not! There’s no comparison between the two results, because one measurement was interfered with. Yet with relativity, Einstein would have us say that the observer in the speeding rocket validly measured a shorter distance than the stationary observer. Because the situation I have outlined above is the exact situation that lies behind relativity.

A skeptic can raise another objection by throwing at me this classic thought experiment associated with relativity: suppose the observer in the speeding rocket stands at the midpoint of his rocket and shines a light toward the fore and the aft walls at the same time. He sees the flashes hit the wall at the same time, because light travels at the same speed in both cases. So the rocket’s observer declares both beams hit the wall at the same time. No problem here, right? But suppose we now look at it from the viewpoint of a stationary observer. Since the observer is moving forward relative to me, then according to me the rearward traveling light beam will hit the aft wall first since it is rushing toward the beam, while the forward traveling beam will hit the forward wall second, since it is receding from the beam. So we have a discrepancy, since the rocket’s observer declares the two events simultaneous, while I declare them not. This is the crux of the thought experiment Einstein uses to conclude that simultaneity is relative, and thus there can be no universal now, all times are relative.

But I say there is no disagreement here. In relativity’s thought experiment, the full round trip path of the light beams are used to illustrate the rocket observer’s viewpoint. In other words, the light beams travel fore and aft, are reflected back to the observer, where he declares them simultaneous. We must stress this: when relativity says “the observer sees the light beams hit the wall simultaneously,” what this means is that the light beam hits the wall and is reflected back upon its path, returning to the position of the observer, who sees both returning beams at the same time, declaring the events simultaneous. So relativity is here taking into account the full round-trip path of both beams. Now, then, turning to the case of the stationary observer, relativity has the beams hit the fore and aft walls at different times, and stops there, and concludes that a disagreement as to simultaneity exists. But this stopping point is invalid, because the experiment is unequal. In one measurement, the beams are followed all the way back to their source, while in the other, they’re only followed halfway. For this to be a valid thought experiment, the stationary observer must follow the beams back to their source as well, and then compare. When we do so, there is no disagreement. In both cases, the results are the same: the events in question, namely the striking of the fore and aft walls by the light beam, are not simultaneous from either reference frame. Consider: both light beams leave their source at the midpoint, traveling fore and aft. The rearward beam hits the aft wall first, since the aft wall is racing toward the beam. The forward beam hits the forward wall second, because that wall is receding. The beams are then reflected back. The aft beam has a longer path to follow in returning to the observer, because the observer is now receding from it, even as he is hurtling toward the forward beam, which has a shorter path to reach the observer. But, since the aft beam hit the wall first, it reflected back first. So even though it has a longer path to follow, it had a head start that compensates for the forward beam’s shorter path. Both beams thus reach the observer at the same time, whereupon he concludes the beams hit the walls at the same time. By following the light beam round-trip, we can see that the rocket’s observer will see both beams hit the walls at the same time. But we can also see that his conclusion is in error, from both reference frames, ether he realizes it or not. His ignorance of the matter has no physical consequences, even though we can see how his ignorance arises. From both reference frames, the light hits the walls at different times, but they return to the midpoint at the same time. Relativity errs by using the former event from one frame and the latter event from another frame and claiming its comparing the same event when it actually isn’t.

The light beams travel the same round-trip distance, from whatever reference frame you choose to use. The forward light beam travels a longer path on its outward journey and a shorter on its return (reflection), while the aft beam travels a shorter path on its outward and a longer on its return (reflection). But the overall paths are obviously equal.

The skeptic shakes his head and says, “Scott, Scott, all you’re saying in all your separate tirades is that the light beam does not change; it remains traveling at a constant speed, which is exactly what relativity says: so you’re agreeing with relativity without even realizing it, which is pretty stupid of you.”

But: I am not agreeing with relativity. Relativity is uses erroneous logic to draw conclusions such as the relativity of simultaneity and time dilation. I reject utterly the relativity of simultaneity as I’ve explained above. There is no difference in the measure of the distance traveled by the light in any case you can throw at me. As for time dilation, if it is occurring, relativity has derived it through an erroneous path of explanation. It has inadvertently stumbled upon a natural phenomenon. In other words, it reached a right answer for all the wrong reasons. If time dilation is truly occurring.

Let me raise one further thought experiment. Let’s go back to the case of the observer in the speeding rocket shining his light toward the front of the cabin. If time is not dilated, then he should measure a decreased velocity of light due to his forward velocity. Round trip, he will measure the proper velocity, since the light beam takes less time coming back than it does going forward, were time not dilated. But: if time is not dilated, he would measure a lesser velocity of light in just the forward direction. So if time is not dilated, then any way I look at it, I must concede that he is measuring a reduced velocity of light, which is supposedly impossible. And I concede that point.

So: if I concede that light must have a constant velocity no matter the speed of the observer, and I reject that both time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity, then I am left with the puzzle that Einstein hoped to solve with relativity: namely, the constant velocity of light irrespective of the speed of the observer.

So what I’ve been basically saying all along, like relativity, is that the light beam doesn’t change. Rather, the relationship of the observer to the light beam changes. Unlike relativity, I have a differing view of the exact nature of that change in relationship. Relativity’s view of, and explanation for, the change, is a superficial, mathematical phantom that explains nothing and merely hides the change. For example, in the final thought experiment above in which I made my concession, Einstein actually does measure a reduced velocity of light when he considers the round trip case, but he would have us disguise this measurement by “synchronizing our clocks,” that is, turning back the hands of the clock that appears out of synch, in order to compensate for the reduced speed of light. You then have the forward clock lagging a bit behind the aft clock, so that the readings will give you a “correct” measurement for the speed of light. In effect, with such a synchronization of clocks, and the Lorentz transformation, Einstein is manually, artificially forcing time dilation into the picture. By doing this he fails to penetrate to the heart of the problem. He fails to truly explain how motion alters the observer’s relationship to light. There is no doubt that such a change in relationship occurs, but Einstein gives an incorrect summation of it.

If after reading all the preceding, you still think that by denying the relativity of simultaneity, I am merely showing how much I misunderstand and am confused by the subject, let me start over again. I will show you that believers in relativity are the ones who are misunderstanding and confused. Relativity itself confirms my viewpoint: its derivation of the relativity of simultaneity is invalid.

Let’s go back to Einstein’s train traveling along the embankment. Einstein’s first illustration asks us to envision a passenger seated at the midpoint of the carriage. An observer on the embankment sees two lightning bolts strike the front and rear of the carriage simultaneously. The passenger at the midpoint of the carriage, however, due to his motion, sees the light from the bolt at the front first and the bolt at the rear second, and concludes that the strikes were not simultaneous.

Now, in a subsequent illustration, the passenger at the midpoint of the carriage shines a lamp and sees that it hits the wall simultaneously, while the observer on the embankment disagrees, saying the rear light beam hit the wall first, due to the forward motion of the train. This illustration is merely the inverse of the first.

In the first illustration, Einstein has the passenger experience the one-way trip of the light as it converges upon him from the ends of the train carriage, while in the second, he has the observer on the embankment witness the reverse, as the light emanates away from the passenger toward the ends of the train carriage. From both perspectives, the one-way trip gives a non-simultaneous result. And together they show that the round trip is the same from either perspective. In other words, both perspectives give exactly the same result, when the corresponding events are compared. Both illustrations, when considered together, show that both observers are coming to the same conclusion. The second experiment shows that the passenger on the carriage will see the round trip, namely from himself, to the walls and back to the midpoint as equal, but he will see the one-way trip, from the wall to himself, as non-simultaneous.

From the first illustration, Einstein draws the conclusion that our two observers disagree on the timing of the same events, and so simultaneity must be relative. He tries to further strengthen his assertion by offering his second illustration, which seems to reach the same conclusion. But it doesn’t, because he’s not comparing the same event within the illustration. His second illustration actually negates his conclusion that relativity is simultaneous. It does so by showing that, though each one-way leg of the light’s journey is unequal, each leg is the inverse of the other, so that, round-trip, they come out equal from the perspective of both observers.