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.