Is Einstein’s Special Theory unavoidable?

There appears to be some vociferous dissent on this matter on these
boards, and I wondered whether these dissenters were aware of the
following. Suppose we accept:

1. that all observers see light moving in a vacuum at the same speed,
never faster or slower, and irrespective of the motion of the observer
with respect to the light source, and

2. We cannot have straightforward and impossible contradictions in our
universe. For example, we cannot have a scenario in which I see a car
crash into another in front of me, while you, standing alongside me,
see the two miss each other. Now while I help the ambulance people
with the wounded people, you see me just miming the whole thing, with
no wrecked cars, no ambulance, no hurt people and so on.

Now, I was led to believe that if we simply accept 1. (which has been
experimentally verified over and over, and no exception has ever been
reported), and if we accept 2. (and only completely irrational people
could do otherwise) then Einstein’s Special Theory follows as a
NECESSARY consequence.

That is, time MUST appear to slow down in a fast-travelling space
ship, because if it didn’t, then when we see a ray of light move from
the back to the front of the spaceship (it being made of glass) we may
time it as taking an hour. But the astronauts see it as taking a split
second. If there was NO time dilation, then a straightforward
illogical contradiction would ensue. We could communicate with the
astronauts by radio, so how that contradiction would be solved if not
for time dilation?

It would appear that the conclusion Einstein drew about what would
take place when speeds close to that of light were reached, were
simply logical necessities that should be seen by any normal person
who thinks of the matter. The only way out of it is to simply deny
that light has a fixed speed, and who is doing that now? No one.

The other effects, that of the increase in mass and the space
contraction also follow logically. If we accept time dilation, then we
can see an astronaut bang a nail into a piece of wood, except he does
it in slow motion. Suppose he bangs the nail once and this drives it
right in. But if WE bang a nail into a piece of wood at the same slow
rate as the astronaut does, then we only drive it in a fraction of an
inch. So, for the laws of physics to be the same there as here, the
hammer must have gained more mass. And so on and forth for the other
relativistic effects. Does anyone have an argument with this line of
reasoning, or am I missing something? I’m not a techie, so when you
post a reply to this, and you will, please…be kind.

Myles (spaced out) Paulsen

On Jun 1, 9:52*pm, abzorba wrote:
There appears to be some vociferous dissent on this matter on these
boards, and I wondered whether these dissenters were aware of the
following. Suppose we accept:

1. that all observers see light moving in a vacuum at the same speed,
never faster or slower, and irrespective of the motion of the observer
with respect to the light source, and

2. We cannot have straightforward and impossible contradictions in our
universe. For example, we cannot have a scenario in which I see a car
crash into another in front of me, while you, standing alongside me,
see the two miss each other. Now while I help the ambulance people
with the wounded people, you see me just miming the whole thing, with
no wrecked cars, no ambulance, no hurt people and so on.

Now, I was led to believe that if we simply accept 1. (which has been
experimentally verified over and over, and no exception has ever been
reported), and if we accept 2. (and only completely irrational people
could do otherwise) then Einstein’s Special Theory follows as a
NECESSARY consequence.

That is, time MUST appear to slow down in a fast-travelling space
ship, because if it didn’t, then when we see a ray of light move from
the back to the front of the spaceship (it being made of glass) we may
time it as taking an hour. But the astronauts see it as taking a split
second. If there was NO time dilation, then a straightforward
illogical contradiction would ensue. We could communicate with the
astronauts by radio, so how that contradiction would be solved if not
for time dilation?

It would appear that the conclusion Einstein drew about what would
take place when speeds close to that of light were reached, were
simply logical necessities that should be seen by any normal person
who thinks of the matter. The only way out of it is to simply deny
that light has a fixed speed, and who is doing that now? No one.

The other effects, that of the increase in mass and the space
contraction also follow logically. If we accept time dilation, then we
can see an astronaut bang a nail into a piece of wood, except he does
it in slow motion. Suppose he bangs the nail once and this drives it
right in. *But if WE bang a nail into a piece of wood at the same slow
rate as the astronaut does, then we only drive it in a fraction of an
inch. So, for the laws of physics to be the same there as here, the
hammer must have gained more mass. And so on and forth for the other
relativistic effects. Does anyone have an argument with this line of
reasoning, or am I missing something? I’m not a techie, so when you
post *a reply to this, and you will, please…be kind.

Myles (spaced out) Paulsen


1. All the inconsistencies in SR directly follow because of the
assumption that light has same velocity in all frames. Now remember
that with rejection of ether, light cannot be wave. It moves like
matter. So don’t bring in Maxwell’s equations. With this we assume
that light has constant velocity ‘c’ with respect to itself. IOW,
light substitutes the frame of ether. Now consider a pulse or a bunch
of photons that are emitted in the frame O’. Since this pulse doesn’t
acquire velocity of the source, measured velocity of the pulse in
frame O’ must change with respect to the velocity of O’. Forget
experiments, some other proper theory might govern them. Conclusion:
Electrodynamics doesn’t obey 1st postulate. It is true only for all
material objects which acquire velocity of the frame.
2. If velocity of light is assumed to be same in all frames then SR is
inevitable. But since we encounter logical inconsistencies, SR cannot
be true and so light cannot have same velocity in all frames. Since
light doesn’t acquire velocity of the source, it means that it doesn’t
acquire velocity of the frame. Thus it has some absolute velocity.
With respect to this absolute velocity, frames should move. Thus any
uniform motion is not equivalent to zero motion. This is true for
mechanics but not for electrodynamics.

Vilas Tamhane wrote in
:

[...]

1. All the inconsistencies in SR directly follow because of the
assumption that light has same velocity in all frames.

SR is as consistent as Euclidean geometry.

Good luck finding an internal contradiction in the Lorentz group.

Now remember
that with rejection of ether, light cannot be wave.

Not at all true.

It moves like
matter.

Again, not at all true.

So don’t bring in Maxwell’s equations.

Yeah, why invoke the justification for SR's existence in the first place?

With this we assume
that light has constant velocity ‘c’ with respect to itself.

Light is not an inertial frame, so not.

IOW,
light substitutes the frame of ether.

Not in a way that makes sense to those without brain damage.

Now consider a pulse or a bunch
of photons that are emitted in the frame O’. Since this pulse doesn’t
acquire velocity of the source, measured velocity of the pulse in
frame O’ must change with respect to the velocity of O’.

Sure, let's assume something contrary to SR in a rant about SR. That
doesn't make you at all retarded.

Forget
experiments, some other proper theory might govern them. Conclusion:

....you are an idiot?

That stupid little 'forget experiments' line says you acknowledge SR is
observationally correct, which is all that matters.

Electrodynamics doesn’t obey 1st postulate. It is true only for all
material objects which acquire velocity of the frame.

What a roundabout way of agreeing that light is not an intertial frame.

2. If velocity of light is assumed to be same in all frames then
SR is inevitable. But since we encounter logical inconsistencies, SR

"I don't like SR. fart" is not a logical inconsistency.

cannot be true and so light cannot have same velocity in all frames.
Since light doesn’t acquire velocity of the source, it means that it
doesn’t acquire velocity of the frame. Thus it has some absolute
velocity. With respect to this absolute velocity, frames should move.
Thus any uniform motion is not equivalent to zero motion. This is true
for mechanics but not for electrodynamics.


Speaking of electrodynamics, I wonder if you ever studied it. Have you?
If so, from what resource?

On Jun 1, 11:52*pm, abzorba wrote:
There appears to be some vociferous dissent on this matter on these
boards, and I wondered whether these dissenters were aware of the
following. Suppose we accept:

1. that all observers see light moving in a vacuum at the same speed,
never faster or slower, and irrespective of the motion of the observer
with respect to the light source, and

2. We cannot have straightforward and impossible contradictions in our
universe. For example, we cannot have a scenario in which I see a car
crash into another in front of me, while you, standing alongside me,
see the two miss each other. Now while I help the ambulance people
with the wounded people, you see me just miming the whole thing, with
no wrecked cars, no ambulance, no hurt people and so on.

Now, I was led to believe that if we simply accept 1. (which has been
experimentally verified over and over, and no exception has ever been
reported), and if we accept 2. (and only completely irrational people
could do otherwise) then Einstein’s Special Theory follows as a
NECESSARY consequence.

That is, time MUST appear to slow down in a fast-travelling space
ship, because if it didn’t, then when we see a ray of light move from
the back to the front of the spaceship (it being made of glass) we may
time it as taking an hour. But the astronauts see it as taking a split
second. If there was NO time dilation, then a straightforward
illogical contradiction would ensue. We could communicate with the
astronauts by radio, so how that contradiction would be solved if not
for time dilation?

It would appear that the conclusion Einstein drew about what would
take place when speeds close to that of light were reached, were
simply logical necessities that should be seen by any normal person
who thinks of the matter. The only way out of it is to simply deny
that light has a fixed speed, and who is doing that now? No one.

The other effects, that of the increase in mass and the space
contraction also follow logically. If we accept time dilation, then we
can see an astronaut bang a nail into a piece of wood, except he does
it in slow motion. Suppose he bangs the nail once and this drives it
right in. *But if WE bang a nail into a piece of wood at the same slow
rate as the astronaut does, then we only drive it in a fraction of an
inch. So, for the laws of physics to be the same there as here, the
hammer must have gained more mass. And so on and forth for the other
relativistic effects. Does anyone have an argument with this line of
reasoning, or am I missing something? I’m not a techie, so when you
post *a reply to this, and you will, please…be kind.

Myles (spaced out) Paulsen

For a non-"techie" you are ok. You can safely ignore the posts of the
Vilas Tamhane, he's just a pathetic imbecile.

On Jun 2, 6:52*am, abzorba wrote:
There appears to be some vociferous dissent on this matter on these
boards, and I wondered whether these dissenters were aware of the
following. Suppose we accept:

1. that all observers see light moving in a vacuum at the same speed,
never faster or slower, and irrespective of the motion of the observer
with respect to the light source, and

2. We cannot have straightforward and impossible contradictions in our
universe. For example, we cannot have a scenario in which I see a car
crash into another in front of me, while you, standing alongside me,
see the two miss each other. Now while I help the ambulance people
with the wounded people, you see me just miming the whole thing, with
no wrecked cars, no ambulance, no hurt people and so on.

Now, I was led to believe that if we simply accept 1. (which has been
experimentally verified over and over, and no exception has ever been
reported), and if we accept 2. (and only completely irrational people
could do otherwise) then Einstein’s Special Theory follows as a
NECESSARY consequence.

That is, time MUST appear to slow down in a fast-travelling space
ship, because if it didn’t, then when we see a ray of light move from
the back to the front of the spaceship (it being made of glass) we may
time it as taking an hour. But the astronauts see it as taking a split
second. If there was NO time dilation, then a straightforward
illogical contradiction would ensue. We could communicate with the
astronauts by radio, so how that contradiction would be solved if not
for time dilation?

It would appear that the conclusion Einstein drew about what would
take place when speeds close to that of light were reached, were
simply logical necessities that should be seen by any normal person
who thinks of the matter. The only way out of it is to simply deny
that light has a fixed speed, and who is doing that now? No one.

The other effects, that of the increase in mass and the space
contraction also follow logically. If we accept time dilation, then we
can see an astronaut bang a nail into a piece of wood, except he does
it in slow motion. Suppose he bangs the nail once and this drives it
right in. *But if WE bang a nail into a piece of wood at the same slow
rate as the astronaut does, then we only drive it in a fraction of an
inch. So, for the laws of physics to be the same there as here, the
hammer must have gained more mass. And so on and forth for the other
relativistic effects. Does anyone have an argument with this line of
reasoning, or am I missing something? I’m not a techie, so when you
post *a reply to this, and you will, please…be kind.

Myles (spaced out) Paulsen

heh, was reading another thread.

On 1/ the problem is ALL OBSERVERS see same speed. (All frames). And
no, as far as I know, we haven't observed "ALL OBSERVERS", we have
mostly observed "things at rest on earth" see time dilation of "things
moving at the speed of light" but not the reverse. But since we have
not accelerated lab equipment to the speed of light, it will be a long
while until we validate that one.

I do not accept "lack of simultaneity" easily (the only way out of the
"paradoxes" brought about by the postulate 1) but that last point is a
matter of taste and faith. IMHO.

On Jun 2, 1:12 pm, Marc Fleury wrote:
On Jun 2, 6:52 am, abzorba wrote:

1. that all observers see light moving in a vacuum at the same speed,
never faster or slower, and irrespective of the motion of the observer
with respect to the light source, and

Well, the null results of the MMX do not require the constancy in the
speed of light. All there is is the length contraction. shrug

Constancy in the speed of light was first proposed by Voigt in 1887 a
few weeks before the MMX. Voigt’s work was referencing Michelson’s
solo-1881 experiment that also showed null results. shrug

2. We cannot have straightforward and impossible contradictions in our
universe. For example, we cannot have a scenario in which I see a car
crash into another in front of me, while you, standing alongside me,
see the two miss each other. Now while I help the ambulance people
with the wounded people, you see me just miming the whole thing, with
no wrecked cars, no ambulance, no hurt people and so on.

Yes, this point means relative simultaneity is total nonsense. The
real world operates in absolute simultaneity. shrug

So, what is this relative simultaneity? Consider a series of events
with several observers in various frames of references. Under
relative simultaneity, no observers can agree on a chronological order
to these events. Under absolute simultaneity, all observers will
agree on the chronological order.

An good example is the interference pattern where all interference
patterns can be observed coherently. Since the interference pattern
is utilized under the MMX, the MMX actually and definitively had
proven absolute simultaneity. All interpretations that suggest
otherwise are just stupid, illogical, and embracing mysticism.
shrug

The other effects, that of the increase in mass and the space
contraction also follow logically. If we accept time dilation, then we
can see an astronaut bang a nail into a piece of wood, except he does
it in slow motion. Suppose he bangs the nail once and this drives it
right in. But if WE bang a nail into a piece of wood at the same slow
rate as the astronaut does, then we only drive it in a fraction of an
inch. So, for the laws of physics to be the same there as here, the
hammer must have gained more mass. And so on and forth for the other
relativistic effects. Does anyone have an argument with this line of
reasoning, or am I missing something? I’m not a techie, so when you
post a reply to this, and you will, please…be kind.

Mass is purely an observed artifact. Observed mass increase offsets
other observed parameters changes. However, under SR and GR, the
observed parameter changes actually conflict against the laws of
physics, but this is another chapter of discussion. shrug

On 1/ the problem is ALL OBSERVERS see same speed. (All frames).

You need to understand the setup of the MMX better. These null
results do not necessarily mean 1/ is true when length contraction is
tossed into the hypothesis. shrug

And
no, as far as I know, we haven't observed "ALL OBSERVERS", we have
mostly observed "things at rest on earth" see time dilation of "things
moving at the speed of light" but not the reverse. But since we have
not accelerated lab equipment to the speed of light, it will be a long
while until we validate that one.

Yes, there is no need to create more mysticism on mathematically
fouled conjectures like SR and GR. shrug

I do not accept "lack of simultaneity" easily (the only way out of the
"paradoxes" brought about by the postulate 1) but that last point is a
matter of taste and faith. IMHO.

You are thinking along the path of true enlightenment. Any
observations of coherent interference patterns definitively prove
“lack of simultaneity” or relative simultaneity wrong. shrug

On Jun 2, 3:12*pm, Marc Fleury wrote:

I do not accept "lack of simultaneity" easily (the only way out of the
"paradoxes" brought about by the postulate 1) but that last point is a
matter of taste and faith. IMHO.

You are wrong, there is simultaneity in SR, it is just not absolute,
it is frame dependent.
So are kinetic and total energy, momentum, velocity, distance, time
intervals, temperature, E and B of the em fields and so on. So, why
are you so fixated on the fact that simultaneity is frame dependent?
It "offends" your senses?

On Jun 2, 11:56*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
*Under relative simultaneity, no observers can agree on a chronological order to these events. *

No imbecile, RoS preserves causality. The order of events is not
affected by RoS, stubborn cretin.

You are thinking along the path of true enlightenment. *Any
observations of coherent interference patterns definitively prove
“lack of simultaneity” or relative simultaneity wrong. *shrug

I am happy entertaining "deviant" thoughts such as "lack of
simultaneity is a sham" but with more meat to the argument than a
shrug. Please expand on that thought in a constructive way.

On Jun 2, 11:24 pm, "Dono." wrote:
On Jun 2, 3:12 pm, Marc Fleury wrote:

I do not accept "lack of simultaneity" easily (the only way out of the
"paradoxes" brought about by the postulate 1) but that last point is a
matter of taste and faith. IMHO.

You are wrong, there is simultaneity in SR, it is just not absolute,
it is frame dependent.

Dono aka “don’t know”, the cretin, does not know what it is screeching
about. The very lowly creature said “it is frame dependent” and yet
blasted Dr. Fleury, a phd of some sort, with “lack of simultaneity”
where simultaneity means chronological order of events. shrug

Simultaneity can only be decided if relative (“lack of”) or absolute.
Given a series of events with multiple observers, under relative
simultaneity, no observers can agree on a specific chronological order
to these events. Under absolute simultaneity, all observers always
agree on the chronological order to these events anywhere and
anywhen. srug

So are kinetic and total energy, momentum, velocity, distance, time
intervals, temperature, E and B of the em fields and so on. So, why

These are all scalar quantities. So, where does simultaneity apply?
shrug

are you so fixated on the fact that simultaneity is frame dependent?

Dumb ass, you said so already in “it (simultaneity) is frame
dependent” above. Einstein Dingleberries are getting dumber and
dumber from generation to the next. shrug

It "offends" your senses?

shrug