The Relativity of Simultaneity

[Tach]

@....
The difference is how we understand the properties of light.
If the speed of light relative to an object is constant, regardless of the speed of the object, then Pete is right.
If the speed of light relative to an object depends on the speed of the object then Motor Daddy is right.

I agree with Motor Daddy.
For me it's a big difference between the meaning of the sentences:
"The speed of light is constant regardless of the speed of the source." and
"The speed of light relative to an object is constant, regardless of the speed of the object."
This I have demonstrated here.

Except that both you and MD are wrong. Experiment says so:


1.Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964). Arkiv foer Fysik, Vol 31, pg 145 (1965).

Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast π0 (~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million. Optical extinction is not a problem for such high-energy gamma rays. The speed of the π0 is not measured, but is assumed to be similar to that measured for π+ and π−.


2. Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964).

This repeat of Kantor's experiment in vacuum shows no significant variation in the speed of light affected by moving glass plates. Optical Extinction is not a problem. k < 0.02.


3.Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.

Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast π0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of 99.9%.


4. Beckmann and Mandics, “Test of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation in High Vacuum”, Radio Science, 69D, no. 4, pg 623 (1965).

A direct experiment with coherent light reflected from a moving mirror was performed in vacuum better than 10−6 torr. Its result is consistent with the constant velocity of light. This experiment is notable because Beckmann was a perennial critic of SR. Optical Extinction is not a problem.


5. Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/.

A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5×10−7. Optical extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high vacuum

 

[quantum_wave]

Except that both you and MD are wrong. Experiment says so:


1.Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964). Arkiv foer Fysik, Vol 31, pg 145 (1965).

Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast π0 (~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million. Optical extinction is not a problem for such high-energy gamma rays. The speed of the π0 is not measured, but is assumed to be similar to that measured for π+ and π−.


2. Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964).

This repeat of Kantor's experiment in vacuum shows no significant variation in the speed of light affected by moving glass plates. Optical Extinction is not a problem. k < 0.02.


3.Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.

Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast π0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of 99.9%.


4. Beckmann and Mandics, “Test of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation in High Vacuum”, Radio Science, 69D, no. 4, pg 623 (1965).

A direct experiment with coherent light reflected from a moving mirror was performed in vacuum better than 10−6 torr. Its result is consistent with the constant velocity of light. This experiment is notable because Beckmann was a perennial critic of SR. Optical Extinction is not a problem.


5. Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/.

A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5×10−7. Optical extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high vacuum

Are you saying that these experiments resolve the question at hand? I don't see the reference to how given light rays, no matter what their source, are being measured from two different frames of reference and found to be traveling at c in both frames at the same time.

 

[Tach]

Are you saying that these experiments resolve the question at hand?

Yes.

 

[Emil]

Except that both you and MD are wrong. Experiment says so:


1.Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964). Arkiv foer Fysik, Vol 31, pg 145 (1965).

Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast π0 (~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million. Optical extinction is not a problem for such high-energy gamma rays. The speed of the π0 is not measured, but is assumed to be similar to that measured for π+ and π−.


2. Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964).

This repeat of Kantor's experiment in vacuum shows no significant variation in the speed of light affected by moving glass plates. Optical Extinction is not a problem. k < 0.02.


3.Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.

Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast π0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of 99.9%.


4. Beckmann and Mandics, “Test of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation in High Vacuum”, Radio Science, 69D, no. 4, pg 623 (1965).

A direct experiment with coherent light reflected from a moving mirror was performed in vacuum better than 10−6 torr. Its result is consistent with the constant velocity of light. This experiment is notable because Beckmann was a perennial critic of SR. Optical Extinction is not a problem.


5. Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/.

A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5×10−7. Optical extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high vacuum

O.K. How about these?

1912 Carus, Paul
The philosophy of relativity in the light of the philosophy of science / Editor (Paul Carus).
In: The Monist. Chicago. 22. 1912, pp. 540-579.
1912 Magie, William Francis
The primary concepts of physics: presidential address, American Physical Society and Section B of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Washington, D.C., 28.12.1911 / William Francis Magie.
In: Science. 1912, 23. Feb., pp. 281-293.
1912 Kennard, Earle Hesse
Unipolar induction / E. H. Kennard.
In: London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical magazine (The). Ser. 6, Vol. 23. 1912, Nr. 138, pp. 937-941.
1917 Kennard, Earle Hesse
On unipolar induction: another experiment and its significance as evidence for the existence of the aether / E. H. Kennard.
In: London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical magazine. Ser. 6, Vol. 33. 1917, pp. 179-190.
1918 Barnett, Samuel Johnson
On electromagnetic induction and relative motion [part 2] / S. J. Barnett.
In: Physical review. Ser. 2, 12. 1918, pp. 95-114. - Part 1: Physical review. 35. 1912, pp. 323-336.
1921 More, Louis Trenchard
On the postulates and conclusions of the theory of relativity / Louis T. More.
In: London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine. Ser. 6, Vol. 42. 1921, Nr. 251, pp. 841-852.
1921 Robb, Alfred Arthur
The absolute relations of time and space / Alfred A. Robb. - Cambridge: Univ. Pr. 1921. 80 p.
1922 MacAdam, Dunlap Jamison
Einstein’s relativity: a criticism / Dunlap Jamison MacAdam. - Boston: Badger 1922. 204 p.
1922 Pickering, William Henry
Shall we accept relativity? / William H. Pickering. - In: Popular astronomy. Northfield, Minn. 30. 1922, pp. 199-203.
1922 Reade, William Henry Vincent
A criticism of Einstein and his problem / by W. H. V. Reade. - Oxford: Blackwell 1922. 126 p. -
1922 Poor, Charles Lane
Gravitation versus Relativity: a non-technical explanation of the fundamental principles of gravitational astronomy and a
critical examination of the astronomical evidence cited as a proof of the generalized Th. of R. / with a preliminary essay by
Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin. - New York, London: Putnam 1922. 277 p.
1922 Russell, Bertrand
Our knowledge of the external world: as a field for scientific method in philosophy / Bertrand Russell. Reissued. - London:
Allen & Unwin 1922. 245 p.
1922 Whitehead, Alfred North
The principle of relativity with applications to physical science / A. N. Whitehead.
Cambridge: Univ. Pr. 1922. 190 p.
* 1924 Benedicks, Carl Axel Fredrik
Space and time: an experimental physicist’s conception of these ideas and of their alteration / Carl Benedicks; introd.: Sir
Oliver Lodge. - London: Methuen & Co. 1924. 98 p.
1924 Poor, Charles Lane
The errors of Einstein / Charles Lane Poor.
In: Forum (The). 71. 1924, pp. 705-715.
Introductory reading2006 G. O. Muelle 43 r: 95 years criticism SRT
1925 Lodge, Oliver J., Sir
Ether and reality: a series of discourses on the many functions of the ether of space / by Sir Oliver Lodge.
London: Hodder and Stoughton 1925. 179 p.
1925 Michelson, Albert Abraham
The effect of the Earth’s rotation on the velocity of light [part 1. 2.] / Albert Abraham Michelson u. [T. 2:] H. Gale, assisted by
Fred Pearson.
In: Astrophysical journal. 61. 1925, pp. 137-139 [p. 1]; pp. 140-45 [p. 2].
Reprinted in: The Einstein myth and the Ives papers. 1979.
1925 See, Thomas Jefferson Jackson
Newton’s complete triumph over the relativists / Thomas J. J. See.
In: Sociedad Cientifica Argentina. Anales. 100. 1925, pp. 133-140.
1925 Silberstein, Ludwik
D. C. Miller’s recent experiments, and the relativity theory / Ludwik Silberstein.
In: Nature. London. Vol. 115. 1925, Nr. 2899, 23. Mai, pp. 798-799.
1926 Menges, Charles L. R. E.
On the true signification of Fizeau-Zeeman experiments / Charles L. R. E. Menges.
In: London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical magazine and journal of science. Ser. 7, 1. 1926, pp. 1198-1201.
1926 Miller, Dayton Clarence
Significance of the ether drift experiments of 1925 at Mount Wilson / Dayton C. Miller.
In: Science. (USA). N. S. 63. 1926, Nr. 1635, 30. Apr., pp. 433-443.
1927 A debate on the theory of relativity
A debate on the theory of relativity / Robert D. Carmichael et al.; introd.: William Love Brian.
Chicago: Open Court Publ. 1927. 154 p.
1927 Larmor, Joseph, Sir
Newtonian time essential to astronomy / Sir Joseph Larmor.
In: Nature. London. Vol. 119. 1927, no. 2997, 9. April, Suppl., pp. 49-60.
1929 Gunn, John Alexander
The problem of time: an historical and critical study / J. Alexander Gunn. - London: Allen & Unwin 1929. 460 p.
1930 Lodge, Oliver J., Sir
Beyond physics: or the idealisation of mechanism; being a survey and attempted extension of modern physics in a
philosophical and psychical direction / Sir Oliver Lodge. - London: Allen & Unwin 1930. 184 p.
1930 Lovejoy, Arthur Oncken
The revolt against dualism: an inquiry concerning the existence of ideas / Arthur O. Lovejoy.
New York: Norton (Open Court Co.) 1930. 325 p.
Reprinted 1960 and 1996.
1931 Hjort, Johan
The emperor’s new clothes: confessions of a biologist / Johan Hjort; transl. from the Norwegian by A. G. Jayne.
London: Williams & Norgate 1931. 328 p.
1931 Whyte, Lancelot Law
Critique of physics / L. L. Whyte. - London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner 1931. 196 p.
1932 Lynch, Arthur
The case against Einstein. - London: Allan 1932. 275 p.
Introductory reading G. O. Mueller: 95 years criticism SRT 44 2006
1932 Ritz, Walter
A critical investigation of Maxwell’s and Lorentz’s electrodynamic theories: [printed in the article of W. Hovgaard: Ritz’s
electrodynamics theory. S. 218-254] / Walter Ritz; transl.: William Hovgaard.
In: Journal of mathematics and physics. MIT. 11. 1932, Nr. 3/4, pp. 225-248.
French title: Recherches critiques sur les théories électrodynamiques de Cl. Maxwell et de H. A. Lorentz. - In: Archives des sciences
physiques et naturelles. Ser. 4, 26. 1908, Sept., pp. 209-236.
1933 Maritain, Jacques
Theonas: conversations of a sage / Jacques Maritain; transl. by F. J. Sheed.
London (usw.): Sheed & Ward 1933. 200 p.
Preface 1932: “This English translation has been made from a revised text, in which, by the inclusion of corrections and additions prepared for
the forthcoming French edition, certain misconstructions are obviated.” - p. 63, footnote: The text of the chapter about special relativity and
the time is the same of the French ed. 1925.
* 1933 Miller, Dayton Clarence
The ether-drift experiment and the determination of the absolute motion of the earth / Dayton C. Miller.
In: Reviews of modern physics. (USA). 5. 1933, Nr. 3, pp. 203-242.
1936 Robb, Alfred Arthur
Geometry of time and space / by Alfred A. Robb. 2. ed. - Cambridge (GB): Univ. Pr. 1936. 408 p.
1. ed.: A theory of time and space. 1914.
1936 Bothezat, George de
Back to Newton: a challenge to Einstein’s theory of relativity / George de Bothezat.
New York (usw.): Stechert 1936. 152 p.
1936 Bridgman, Percy Williams
The nature of physical theory / by P. W. Bridgman. - Princeton (usw.): Princeton Univ. Pr. 1936. 138 p.
1936 Severi, Francesco
The principles of the relativity theory deduced from the common sense / Francesco Severi.
In: Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan. Proceedings. Ser. 3, Vol. 18. 1936, Nr. 6 (June), pp. 257-267.
1936 Sulaiman, Shah Muhammad, Sir
Has the theory of relativity been verified / Shah Mohammed Sulaiman.
In: Science and culture. Calcutta. Vol. 1. 1935/36, January 1936, pp. 444-449.
1938 Eagle, Albert
A criticism of the special theory of relativity / Albert Eagle.
In: London, Edinburgh, and Dublin philosophical magazine and journal of science. Ser. 7, Vol. 26. 1938, pp. 410-414.
1938 O’Rahilly, Alfred
Electromagnetics: a discussion of fundamentals / Alfred O’Rahilly; forew. by A. W. Conway.
London (usw.): Longmans, Green and Co. 1938. 884 p.
1945 Shu, Seyuan
Critical studies on the theory of relativity / by Seyuan Shu. - Princeton, N.J.: 1945. 82 p.
1946 Sellars, Roy Wood
The philosophy and physics of relativity / Roy Wood Sellars.
In: Philosophy of science. Baltimore. 13. 1946, Nr. 3, pp. 177-195.
1948 Ideström, Axel
The relativity theories of Einstein - untenable: a critic in popular form / by Axel Ideström; authorized transl. from Swedish.
Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells Boktryckeri 1948. 105 p.
1949 Bridgman, Percy Williams
Einstein’s theories and the operational point of view / P. W. Bridgman.
In: Albert Einstein - philosopher-scientist. [Hrsg.:] P. A. Schilpp. 1949, pp. 333-354.
Introductory reading2006 G. O. Muelle 45 r: 95 years criticism SRT
1949 Milne, Edward Arthur
Gravitation without general relativity.
In: Albert Einstein - philosopher-scientist. [Hrsg.:] P. A. Schilpp. 1949, pp. 409-435.
1952 Bridgman, Percy Williams
The nature of some of our physical concepts: [3 lectures, Univ. of London, April 1950] / P. W. Bridgman.
New York: Philosophical Libr. 1952. 64 p.
First publ. in: British journal for the philosophy of science. 1951, January; April; August.
1952 Jánossy, Lajos
On the physical interpretation of the Lorentz transformation / L. Jánossy.
In: Acta physica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. 1. 1952, fasc. 4, pp. 391-422.
1954 Soddy, Frederick
The wider aspects of the discovery of atomic disintegration: contrasting the experimental facts with the mathematical theories;
[Lindau, 30.6.54] / Frederick Soddy.
In: Atomic digest. For the layman. London. 2. 1954, No. 3, pp. 3-17.
Editorial in No. 3: This is a revision of his masterly address to the Fourth Nobel Prizewinners Conference at Lindau.
1955 Vogtherr, Karl
The ascertainment of simultaneity / Karl Vogtherr. - In: Methodos. Milano. 7. 1955, pp. 319-323.
1956 Dingle, Herbert
Relativity and space travel / Herbert Dingle.
In: Nature. London. Vol. 177. 1956, No. 4513, 28. April, pp. 782-785.
In: Nature. London. Vol. 178. 1956, No. 4535, 29. Sept., pp. 680-681.
1956 McGilvary, Evander Bradley
Toward a perspective realism / Evander Bradley McGilvary. - La Salle, ILL.: Open Court Publ. 1956. 378 p.
1957 Essen, Louis
The clock paradox of relativity / L. Essen. - In: Nature. London. Vol. 180. 1957, Nr. 4594, pp. 1061-1062.
1957 Tonini, Valerio
Reality and structural relativity / Valerio Tonini; transl. from the Italian by F. Arnaldi.
In: Kritik und Fortbildung der Relativitätstheorie. 1. 1957, pp. 27-44.
1958 Builder, Geoffrey
Ether and relativity. - In: Australian journal of physics. 11. 1958, pp. 279-297.
The constancy of the velocity of light / G. Builder. - In: Australian journal of physics. 11. 1958, Nr. 4, pp. 457-480.
1959 Palacios, Julio
The clock paradox and the possibility of a new theory of relativity / Julio Palacios.
In: Academia de ciencias exactas, fisicas y naturales de Madrid. Revista. 53. 1959, H. 3, pp. 511-525.
1962 Dingle, Herbert
Special Theory of Relativity / Herbert Dingle.
In: Nature. London. Vol. 195. 1962, No. 4845, 8.Sept., pp. 985-986.
1962 Rapier, Pascal M.
The relativity of Sir Isaac Newton / Pascal M. Rapier.
In: Academia de ciencias exactas, fisicas y naturales de Madrid. Revista. 56. 1962, H. 1, pp. 25-36.
1963 Cullwick, Ernest Geoffrey
The clock paradox / E. G. Cullwick. - In: IEE. Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. 9. 1963, pp. 164-165.
Introductory reading G. O. Mueller: 95 years criticism SRT 46 2006
1963 Otis, Arthur Sinton
Light velocity and relativity: the problem of light velocity; Einstein theory found invalid; a classical theory of relativity a
challenge to young scientists / Arthur S. Otis. 3. ed. - Yonkers-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Burckel 1963. 130 p.
1. ed. 1957 titled: The conceptual interpretation of the Einstein theory of relativity: is it valid? - 2. ed. 1962.
1964 Dürr, Karl
Moving clocks, moving mirrors, the Bradley transformation and the relativity theory / Charles Dürr.
Bern: Schritt-Verl. 1964. 20 p. - (Beiträge zur Grundlagenforschung der Natur. 1.)
1965 Bergson, Henri
Duration and simultaneity: with reference to Einstein’s theory / Henri Louis Bergson; transl.: Leon Jacobson; introd.: Herbert
Dingle. - Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill 1965. 190 p. - (The Library of liberal arts. 199.)
1965 Chappell, John E., Jr.
Georges Sagnac and the discovery of the ether / John E. Chappel, jr.
In: Archives internationales d’histoire des sciences. 18. 1965, Nr. 72-73, pp. 175-190.
1965 Hlavatý, Václav
Criticism of the twin paradox / Václav Hlavatý. - Brussel: Vlaamse Academie 1965. 20 p.
(Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België. Kl. der
Wetenschappen. Jaarg. 27, Nr. 9.)
1965 Keswani, G. H.
Origin and concept of relativity [Part 1-3] / G. H. Keswani. - In: British journal for the philosophy of science.
Part 1: 15. 1964/65, Feb. 1965, pp. 286-306. - Part 2: 16. 1965/66, pp. 19-32. - Part 3: 16. 1965/66, pp. 273-294.
1966 Luther, Otto
Relativity is dead / Otto Luther. - Yorba Linda, Cal.: Key Research Co. 1966. 159 p.
1967 Brown, George Burniston
What is wrong with relativity?: the substance of lectures given to the Royal Institute of Philosophy, University College
Chemical and Physical Society, The Institute of Science Technicians, etc. / G. Burniston Brown.
In: Institute of Physics and the Physical Society. Bulletin. 18. 1967, pp. 71-77.
1969 Aspden, Harold
Physics without Einstein. - Southampton: Sabberton 1969. 224 p.
* 1969 Nordenson, Harald
Relativity, time, and reality: a critical investigation of the Einstein Theory of Relativity from a logical point of view / by Harald
Nordenson. - London: Allen and Unwin 1969. 214 p.
1969 Törnebohm, Håkan
A foundational study of Einstein’s special space-time theory / H. Törnebohm.
In: Scientia. Bologna. Ser. 7, 63. 1969, Vol. 104, pp. 375-387.
Rev. text printed in: Contemporary philosophy in Scandinavia. Ed.: R. E. Olson. Baltimore 1972, pp. 169-180.
* 1971 Essen, Louis
The Special Theory of Relativity: a critical analysis / L. Essen.
Oxford: Clarendon Pr. 1971. 27 p. - (Oxford science research papers. 5.)
1971 Rosser, William Geraint Vaughan
An introduction to the theory of relativity / W. G. V. Rosser. 3. impr., revised. - London: Butterworths 1971. ca. 510 p.
* 1972 Dingle, Herbert
Science at the crossroads / Herbert Dingle. - London: Brian & O’Keeffe 1972. 256 p.
1972 Henderson, Robert L.
Relativity: a scientific blunder / [R. L. Henderson]. - New York: Vantage 1972. 102 p.
Introductory reading2006 G. O. Muelle 47 r: 95 years criticism SRT
1973 Grünbaum, Adolf
Philosophical problems of space and time / Adolf Grünbaum. 2., enlarged ed. - Dordrecht (usw.): Reidel 1973. 884 p. -
(Boston studies in the philosophy of science. 12.)
1. ed. 1963 (New York) and 1964 (London).
1976 Kantor, Wallace
Relativistic propagation of light / Wallace Kantor. - Lawrence, Kansas: Coronado Pr. 1976. 153 p.
1976 Preikschat, Fritz K.
A critical look at the theory of relativity / F. K. Preikschat. - Bellevue, Washington: [by the author] 1976. 34 p.
1977 McCausland, Ian
The Dingle affair: an unresolved scientific controversy / Ian McCausland.
Toronto: The author 1977. 13 p. - Holdings: British Libray, London.
1977 Marinov, Stefan
Eppur si muove: axiomatic, fundamentals, and experimental verifications of the absolute space-time theory.
Bruxelles: C. B. D. S. - P. Libert 1977.
* 1977 Parish, Leonard
The logical flaws of Einstein’s relativity / by Leonard Parish. - Luton: Cortney Publications 1977. 171 p.
1977 Zapffe, Carl Andrew
Seven short essays on [(1-v²/c²) ...]: an epistemological analysis of the Lorentz transformation and the chronometric branch of
relativistic physics / by Carl A. Zapffe. - Baltimore, Md.: Zapffe 1977. 47 p.
1978 ff. Speculations in science and technology
Speculations in science and technology: an international journal devoted to speculative papers in the physical, mathematical,
biological and engineering sciences / Ed.: William M. Honig.
South Bentley, Australia: WAIT - Western Australian Inst. of Technology 1978 ff.
Published: 1. 1978 - 21. 1998/99.
1978 Morales, Juan Alberto
Myths and incongruities in the special theory of relativity and a new theory of light transmission in moving coordinate systems
/ Juan Alberto Morales. - Malaga: Graficasa [by the author] 1978. 28 p.
Translation of: La relatividad. 1975.
* 1979 Einstein myth and the Ives papers
The Einstein myth and the Ives papers: a counter-revolution in physics; with excerpts from Ives’ correspondence, “The
Einstein myth” by Dean Turner, a condensation of “Euclid or Einstein” by J. J. Callahan and papers and comments by others
/ ed. with comments by Richard Hazelett and Dean Turner.
Old Greenwich, Conn.: Devin-Adair 1979. 313 p.
Review by M. Ruderfer in: Speculations in science and technology. 3. 1980, pp. 439-449.
* 1979 Alternates to Special Relativity [No. 1]
Alternates to Special Relativity [No. 1] / Ed.: William M. Honig.
In: Speculations in science and technology. 2. 1979, No. 3: Special Einstein Centennial Issue. (= pp. 217-359).
1979 Ruderfer, Martin
Detection of absolute motion from atomic time-keeping data: an experimental confirmation / Martin Ruderfer.
In: Speculations in science and technology. 2. 1979, Nr. 4, pp. 405-420.
* 1980 Alternates to Special Relativity [No. 2]
Alternates to Special Relativity [Heft 2] / ed.: William M. Honig.
In: Speculations in science and technology. 3. 1980, No. 4: Concluding Einstein Centennial (+1) Issue.
(= pp. 361-511).
Introductory reading G. O. Mueller: 95 years criticism SRT 48 2006
1980 Aspden, Harold
Physics unified / Harold Aspden. - Southampton: Sabberton Publ. 1980. 206 p.
Introduction (p. XIII): „This book supersedes the author’s 1969 “Physics without Einstein” and records the substantial progress of the past
ten years in developing the basic theme of that work.
1980 Earman, John
Relativity and eclipses: the British eclipse expeditions of 1919 and their predecessors / John Earman, Clark Glymour.
In: Historical studies in the physical sciences. 11. 1980, No. 1, pp. 49-85.
1980 McCausland, Ian
Science on the defensive / Ian McCausland.
In: Canadian electrical engineering journal. 5. 1980, No. 2, pp. 3-4.
1980 Marinov, Stefan
Measurement of the laboratory’s absolute velocity / Stefan Marinov.
In: General relativity and gravitation. 12. 1980, pp. 57-66.
1980 Schlegel, Richard
The light clock: error and implications / Richard Schlegel.
In: Foundations of physics. 10. 1980, No. 3/4, pp. 345-351.
* 1981 Rudakov, N.
Fiction stranger than truth: in the metaphysical labyrinth of relativity / N. Rudakov.
Geelong, Vic., Australia: The Author 1981. 175 p.
1982 International Conference on Space-Time Absoluteness [ICSTA] [Genoa 1982]
International Conference on Space-Time Absoluteness [ICSTA] [Genoa 1982]: proceedings; Genoa, 8.-11. July 1982 / Ed.:
Stefan Marinov, James Paul Wesley. - Graz: Est-Ovest Ed. Internationale 1982. 214 p.
1983 Winterflood, A. H.
Einstein’s error / A. H. Winterflood. 2. ed. - London: Winterflood [Selbstverlag] 1983. 71 p.
Note: Dedicated to H. Dingle.
1984 Santilli, Ruggero Maria
Il grande grido: Ethical probe on Einstein’s followers in the U. S. A.: an insider’s view; a conspiracy in the U.S. AcademicGovernmental Complex on Einstein’s relativities? / Ruggero Maria Santilli. 2. print., November 1984.
Newtonville, Mass.: Alpha Publ. 1984. 354 p.
1985 Tipnis, Sharad D.
Einstein’s relativity the greatest fallacy in the twentieth century / Sharad D. Tipnis.
Pune, 411 037 India: Madhav Publ. 1985. 199 p.
1985 Janich, Peter
Protophysics of time: constructive foundation and history of time measurement. - Dordrecht: Reidel 1985. 238 p.
(Boston studies in the philosophy of science. 30.)
1986 Phipps, Thomas E., jr.
Heretical verities: mathematical themes in physical description / Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.
Urbana, Illinois: Classic Non-Fiction Library 1986. 637 p.
Review by W. M. Honig in: Speculations in science and technology. 11. 1988, No. 3, p. 240.
1987 Progress in space-time physics
Progress in space-time physics / ed.: James Paul Wesley. - Blumberg: B. Wesley 1987. 280 p.
Contributions by: T. G. Barnes, S. Marinov, F. J. Müller, W. Schmidt, J. P. Wesley, C. A. Zapffe u.a.
* 1987 ff Apeiron
Apeiron: journal of inquiry into infinite nature (later: studies in infinite nature) / [Ed., 1987:] Henrik Broberg, Toivo Jaakkola,
C. Roy Keys, David Roscoe. - Montreal, Quebec: C. Roy Keys Inc. 1987 ff.
1987-92 with current numbering all fascicles, afterwards yearly volumes. - The articles of all volumes are available on the internet. -
Contributions by the authors: P. F. Browne, R. L. Carroll, G. Galeczki, P. Graneau, P. Marquard, A. Martin, P. Marmet, C. I. Mocanu, C.
Monstein, H. A. Munera, T. E. Phipps, C. Renshaw, J.-P. Vigier, J. P. Wesley, H. E. Wilhelm, R. G. Zaripov. - Since 1990: “Apeiron is
indexed in PHYSICS ABSTRACTS.”
Introductory reading2006 G. O. Muelle 49 r: 95 years criticism SRT
1987 Beckmann, Petr
Einstein plus two / by Petr Beckmann. - Boulder, Colo.: Golem Pr. 1987. 212 p.
1988 ff. Physics essays
Physics essays: an international journal dedicated to fundamental questions in physics. - Ottawa: Dollco 1988 ff..
Contributions by the authors: J. D. Edmunds jr., G. Galeczki, H. C. Hayden, A. Heyrovsky, D. J. Larson, W. X. Li, S. Marinov, J. D.
Mitsopoulos, M. Molski, J. N. Perceval, T. E. Phipps jr., B. W. Schumacher, E. W. Silvertooth, H. E. Wilhelm.
1988 McCausland, Ian
The relativity question / Department of Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Toronto. - Toronto: Univ. of Toronto 1988. 75 p.
1989 Cohen, Michael
Simultaneity and Einstein’s “Gedankenexperiment” / Michael Cohen.
In: Philosophy. Journal of the Royal Inst. of Philosophy. 64. 1989, pp. 391-396.
1989 Rodrigues, Waldyr Alves, jr.
A comment on the twin paradox and the Hafele-Keating experiment / W. A. Rodrigues Jr., E. C. de Oliveira.
In: Physics letters. A. 140. 1989, No. 9, pp. 479-484.
* 1990 ff. Galilean electrodynamics
Galilean electrodynamics: experience, reason and simplicity above authority / [Hrsg.: Petr Beckmann (u.a.)]. - Boulder, Colo.:
Gal. Electrodyn. 1990 ff.
Web-site with Cumulative index: www.eternalchaos.com/galicont.htm - Contribtions by the authors: P. Beckmann, J. P. Claybourne, H. C.
Hayden, P. F. Parshin, Th. E. Phipps jun., L. H. Pobedonostsev (u.a.).
1990 Proceedings of the Conference on “Foundations of mathematics and physics”
Proceedings of the Conference on “Foundations of mathematics and physics”, 1989: Perugia, Italy, 1989, 27.-29. Sept. / ed.:
U. Bartocci, J. P. Wesley. - Blumberg, (Germany): B. Wesley 1990. 383 p.
11 papers with criticism on relativity.
1990 Hayden, Howard C.
If Sagnac and Michelson-Gale, why not Michelson-Morley? / Howard C. Hayden, Cynthia K. Whitney.
In: Galilean electrodynamics. 1. 1990, No. 6 (Nov.-Dec.), pp. 71-75.
1990 Moon, Parry
The Michelson-Gale experiment and its effects on the postulates on the velocity of light / Parry Moon, Domina Eberle Spencer,
Euclid Eberle Moon. - In: Physics essays. 3. 1990, No. 4, pp. 421-428.
1990 Müller, Francisco J.
Unipolar induction experiments and relativistic electrodynamics / Francisco J. Müller.
In: Galilean electrodynamics. 1. 1990, No. 3, pp. 27-31.
1990 Podlaha, M. F.
Notes about relativity and about liberty in science / M. F. Podlaha.
In: Physical interpretations of relativity theory. 2. 1990, London, 3.-8.9.90. Proceedings. British Society for Philosophy of
Science. Sunderland, UK, 1990, Vol. 2, pp. 222-230.
1992 What physics for the next century?
What physics for the next century?: prospects for renewal, open problems, “heretical” truths; proceedings of the International
Conference, Ischia, Italy, 29.5.-1.6.1991 / Ed.: G. Arcidiacono, U. Bartocci, M. Mamone Capria.
Bologna: Andromeda 1992. 410 p. - (Inediti.)
Italian title: Quale fisica per il 2000?
1992 Hatch, Ronald R.
Escape from Einstein / Ronald R. Hatch. - Wilminton, CA: Kneat Kompany 1992. 232 p.
1992 Janich, Peter
Euclid’s heritage: is space three-dimensional? / Peter Janich. - Dordrecht: Kluwer 1992. 227 p.
(University of Western Ontario series in philo-sophy of science. 52.)
Introductory reading G. O. Mueller: 95 years criticism SRT 50 2006
1992 Wilhelm, Horst E.
Explanation of anomalous unipolar induction in corotating conductor-magnet arrangements by Galilean electrodynamics / H.
E. Wilhelm. - In: Apeiron. Montreal. No. 13. 1992 , June, pp. 17-23.
1993 Fundamental questions in quantum physics and relativity
Fundamental questions in quantum physics and relativity: collected papers in honor of Louis de Broglie / ed.: Franco Selleri.
- Palm Harbor, FL.: Hadronic Pr. 1993. 184 p. - (Hadronic Press collection of original articles.)
4 contributions with criticsm on relativity.
* 1993 Collins, Harry M. / Pinch, Trevor
The Golem: what everyone should know about science / Harry Collins, Trevor Pinch.
Cambridge: Univ. Pr. 1993. 164 p. - Second edition, with important appendix:
The Golem: what you should know about science / Harry Collins, Trevor Pinch. 2.ed.
Cambridge: Univ. Pr. 1998. 192 p.
1993 Graneau, Peter
Newton versus Einstein: how matter interacts with matter / Peter Graneau and Neal Graneau.
New York: Carlton Pr. 1993. 219 p. - (Hearthstone book (A).)
1993 Sachs, Mendel
Relativity in our time: from physics to human relations / Mendel Sachs. - London (usw.): Taylor & Francis 1993. 162 p.
1993 Stephenson, Lawrence
A review of Einstein’s relativity / Lawrence Ste-phenson; forew.: C. W. Kilmister. - Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex: Bucke
Acad. Publ. 1993. 80 p.
1993 Tolchelnikova-Murri, Svetlana A.
The Doppler observations of Venus contradict the SRT / Svetlana A. Tochelnikova-Murri; transl. from Russian
by Petr Beckmann. - In: Galilean electrodynamics. 4. 1993, No. 1 (Jan.-Feb.), pp. 3-6.
On the motion of the solar system with respect to the ether / Svetlana A. Tolchelnikova-Murri; transl. from
Russian by Petr Beckmann. - In: Galilean electrodynamics. 4. 1993, No. 6, pp. 109-112.
1993 Xu, Shaozhi
Systematical scrutiny into special relativity / Xu Shaozhi and Xu Xiangqun.
In: Chinese journal of systems engineering and electronics. 4. 1993, No. 2, pp. 75-85.
* 1994 Frontiers of fundamental physics
Frontiers of fundamental physics: proceedings of an International Conference on Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, Olympia,
Greece, 27. - 30. Sept. 1993 / ed. by Michele Barone, Franco Selleri.
New York (usw.): Plenum Pr. 1994. 601 p.
Further contributions have been published in a second volume titled: Advances in fundamental physics. 1995.
1994 Galeczki, Georg
The incompatibility between Lorentz transformations and the inertial frame of reference / G. Galeczki.
In: Chinese journal of systems engineering and electronics. 5. 1994, No. 1, pp. 77-80.
1995 Advances in fundamental physics
Advances in fundamental physics / ed. by Michele Barone and Franco Selleri.
Palm Harbor, Florida: Hadronic Pr. 1995. ca. 480 p.
1995 Hatch, Ronald R.
Relativity and GPS [Part 1-2] / Ronald R. Hatch.
In: Galilean electrodynamics. 6. 1995, No. 3, pp. 51-57; No. 4, pp. 73-78.
Introductory reading2006 G. O. Muelle 51 r: 95 years criticism SRT
1996 New frontiers in relativities
New frontiers in relativities: Proceedings of the International Workshop on New Frontiers in Theoretical Physics,
Monteroduni, Molise, Italy, August 9-12, 1995 / Ed.: Tepper G. Gill. - Palm Harbor, FL, USA: Hadronic Pr. 1996. 450 p. -
(Series on new frontiers in advanced physics / Istituto per la Ricerca di Base, Monteroduni, Italy.)
1997 Jefimenko, Oleg D.
Electromagnetic retardation and theory of relativity: new chapters in the classical theory of fields / Oleg D. Jefimenko.
Star City, West Virginia, USA: Electret Scientific 1997. 306 p.
1997 Marmet, Paul
Einstein’s theory of relativity versus classical mechanics / Paul Marmet.
Gloucester, Ontario: Newton Physics Books 1997. 200 p.
1997 Whitney, Cynthia Kolb
The twins, the mesons, and the paradox / Cynthia Kolb Whitney.
In: Apeiron. Montreal. 4. 1997, Nr. 4, Oktober, pp. 104-109.
* 1998 Open questions in relativistic physics
Open questions in relativistic physics: [Proceedings of an International Conference on Relativistic Physics and Some of its
Applications, 1997, June 25-28, Athens] / ed. by Franco Selleri. - Montreal, Quebec: Apeiron 1998. 375 S.
Review by Assis: Apeiron. 6. 1999, No. 1/2, p. 122. - 38 contributions by some 40 authors.
1998 Múnera, Héctor A.
Michelson-Morley experiments revisited: syste-matic errors, consistency among different experiments, and compatibility
with absolute space / Héctor A. Múnera.
In: Apeiron. Montreal, Quebec. 5. 1998, No. 1-2 (Jan.-April), pp. 37-54.
2000 Guala Valverde, Jorge A.
More on time-keeping and GPS Satellites / Jo. Guala-Valverde, J. Tramaglia.
In: Galilean electrodynamics. 11. 2000, Nr. 1, S. 17-18.
2000 Pavlovic, Milan R.
Einstein’s dilatation of time and contraction of space - reality or illusion? / Milan R. Pavlovic. 4., rev. and suppl. ed.
Belgrade: B-print 2000. 233 p.
Download on the Internet: http://users.net.yu/~mrp/index.html.
2002 Bjerknes, Christopher Jon
Albert Einstein - the incorrigible plagiarist / Christopher Jon Bjerknes. - Downers Grove, Ill.: XTX 2002. 408 p.
Contents: 1. The priority myth. - 2. Space-time, or is it “time-space”? - 3. “Theory of relativity” or “pseudorelativism”?- 4. Hero worship. -
5. E=mc² - 6. Einstein’s modus operandi. - 7. History. - 8. Mileva Einstein-Marity. - 9. Politics and anecdotes.
2002 Magueijo, João
Faster than the speed of light: the story of a scientific speculation / João Magueijo.
Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Publ. 2002. 279 p.
2002 Wesley, James Paul
Selected topics in scientific physics / James Paul Wesley. - Blumberg, BR: Wesley 2002. 402 p.
2003 Marmet, Paul
GPS and the illusion of constant light speed / Paul Marmet. - In: Galilean electrodynamics. 14. 2003, No. 2, pp. 23-30.
2003 Van Flandern, Tom
What the Global Positioning System tells us about the twin’s paradox / Tom Van Flandern.
In: Apeiron. Montreal. [Internet-Datei.] 10. 2003, No. 1, Jan., pp. 69-86.
2004 Galeczki, Georg
SRT’s Achilles’ heel: units of measurements / George Galeczki. - In: Galilean electrodynamics. 15. 2004, No. 1, pp. 16-19

 

[Tach]

How about them? Christopher Bjerknes? Galilean Electrodynamics? Apeiron? Van Flandern? Dingle? The kook's "who's who" gallery.

Did you understand that one experiment is sufficient to falsify your kook ideas?

 

[quantum_wave]

Yes.

Cute.

I don't see the reference to how given light rays, no matter what their source, are being measured from two different frames of reference and found to be traveling at c, or at c in one frame and not at c in the other. You have not resolved the issue as I see it. Please state the issue that was resolved in your examples, and if you can do that, then explain for us laymen how it is resolved.

 

[Tach]

Cute.

I don't see the reference to how given light rays, no matter what their source, are being measured from two different frames of reference and found to be traveling at c, or at c in one frame and not at c in the other.

Tough

 

[quantum_wave]

Ouch.

 

[DonQuixote]

You are assuming that transporting the clocks at identical speeds wrt M will maintain synchronization (slow clock transport). In "MD's world", this is not the case since the "absolute speeds" of the two clocks wrt some "absolute" frame are not the same. you need to study MD's world for a while. Then, you will understand why Pete gave up.

Actually, I am curious as to how both gentlemen will respond to this. It is true that the clocks could be transported slowly, although I'm not sure this matters, as long as the movement is symmetrical. My rationale was simply that MD considers M to be at absolute rest, while Pete says that M has the right to consider himself to be at rest.

Maybe one or both won't agree to this setup. I'd rather not at this point say what I expect their answers to be.

But from reading this thread, I'm pretty sure they would argue their points without resorting to personal attacks, and without spamming this forum with quotations. That is really not helpful guys.

DonQuixote

 

[Pete]

Hi DonQuixote, thank you for the encouragement.

I think it's not so much that the train observer has the right to consider himself at rest, but that his measurements are consistent with him being at rest, and that he is frustrated by the rules of the universe that prevent him from measuring his absolute velocity, and also that the embankment observer similarly can not prove that the embankment is at rest.

Yes, in this exercise I'm starting with the assumptions of time dilation and length contraction, without explanation. They're fundamental features of this model. I find it an interesting contrast to the historical approach, where Einstein started from the assumption of the frame independence of the speed of light, and derived time dilation and length contraction.

The synchronizing of clocks by slow separation was examined in [post=2753794]post #393[/post]. The result was that the train observer's clocks were not actually synchronized according to embankment clocks. In fact, it gave him the same result as Einstein's synchronization method would have.

I have exams coming up in a few weeks, so I can't afford to dedicate any more time to this at the moment. I might arrange a more formal discussion with MD in the debates forums afterward.

 

[quantum_wave]

Hi DonQuixote, thank you for the encouragement.

I think it's not so much that the train observer has the right to consider himself at rest, but that his measurements are consistent with him being at rest, and that he is frustrated by the rules of the universe that prevent him from measuring his absolute velocity, and also that the embankment observer similarly can not prove that the embankment is at rest.

Yes, in this exercise I'm starting with the assumptions of time dilation and length contraction, without explanation. They're fundamental features of this model. I find it an interesting contrast to the historical approach, where Einstein started from the assumption of the frame independence of the speed of light, and derived time dilation and length contraction.

The synchronizing of clocks by slow separation was examined in [post=2753794]post #393[/post]. The result was that the train observer's clocks were not actually synchronized according to embankment clocks. In fact, it gave him the same result as Einstein's synchronization method would have.

I have exams coming up in a few weeks, so I can't afford to dedicate any more time to this at the moment. I might arrange a more formal discussion with MD in the debates forums afterward.

Given Einstein's postulates, MD cannot prove Einstein is wrong and no one can prove Einstein's postulates, not even Tach. Postulates are assumed to be self-evident or necessary truths from which other theory dependant truths are derived; truths like time dilation and length contraction as you point out. There is supporting evidence as Tack points out (I think) but no way to prove the postulates themselves. That is why this debate has been going on for so long.

Given MD's postulates, you are taking on the mission to prove he is wrong and he is claiming to be able to prove himself right. Sorry if other members have derailed you and there is the exams. Good luck.

Somebody always comes along to try to prove Einstein wrong which cannot be done, and there always is a someone at hand who is convinced Einstein is right and so it doesn't matter to them that he cannot be proven right.

I guess the debate is worth waiting for Pete, but do you disagree with my summation?

 

[Motor Daddy]

1. Light travels at a constant speed in space during a duration of time.
2. Objects can travel in space during the same duration of time.

Does everyone agree?

 

[Tach]

Given Einstein's postulates, MD cannot prove Einstein is wrong and no one can prove Einstein's postulates, not even Tach. Postulates are assumed to be self-evident or necessary truths from which other theory dependant truths are derived; truths like time dilation and length contraction as you point out. There is supporting evidence as Tack points out (I think) but no way to prove the postulates themselves. That is why this debate has been going on for so long.

Postulates cannot be proven. They can only be disproved. Experimentally. In 106 years no one has managed to disprove the SR postulates.

 

[quantum_wave]

1. Light travels at a constant speed in space during a duration of time.
2. Object's can travel in space during the same duration of time.

Does everyone agree?

I agree, and not to nit pic but I am sure you agree that the speed of light depends on the medium so you are correct if you say that light travels at a constant speed in an unchanging medium. Sorry, I guess it is a nit pic. I agree with you.

 

[quantum_wave]

Postulates cannot be proven. They can only be disproved. Experimentally. In 106 years no one has managed to disprove the SR postulates.

You represented your "evidence" as if it proved Emil and MD are wrong. I couldn't see how it did and you waved off the challenge. Now you make an obvious statement and I am getting the impression that you challenge one of the strengths of science, that of tentativeness. Do you yearn to say that the postulates are true because they cannot be falsified .

 

[Tach]

You represented your "evidence" as if it proved Emil and MD are wrong. I couldn't see how it did and you waved off the challenge. Now you make an obvious statement and I am getting the impression that you challenge one of the strengths of science, that of tentativeness. Do you yearn to say that the postulates are true because they cannot be falsified .

No, what I'm saying is that you don't have a clue what I'm saying.

 

[arfa brane]

1. Light travels at a constant speed in space during a duration of time.
2. Objects can travel in space during the same duration of time.

What if: 1. light travels at infinite speed instead? And 2. Objects don't?
Does it make any difference? (Einstein states that, no, it doesn't change the outcome of synchronous measurements).

And: So What?

 

[quantum_wave]

No, what I'm saying is that you don't have a clue what I'm saying.

Your quite wrong, and I suspect that is a trait.

 

[James R]

quantum_wave:

From chapter 9: “Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.”

Suggested rewording:
Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment do not appear to be simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity).

Einstein's derivation (summarised above by me) has nothing to do with appearances. It concerned what actually happens. Thus, your re-wording would be to misunderstand and to misrepresent Einstein's reasoning.

Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own time delay relative to events in every other frame of reference (co-ordinate system). Time delay is defined as the length of time it takes light to travel the distance equal to the relative motion that has taken place.

The relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with delays due to light travel time from one place to another.

Unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, no time delay can be calculated. If we know the reference-body (co-ordinate system) that marks the operative time, an event in that system can be assumed to have a time delay in every other reference-body (co-ordinate system). Estimates of that time delay can be made but there is no method yet to perform actual measurements to prove the exact time delay.

If you want to time how long light takes to go from one place to another, just get yourself a clock. That's a good method.

A reference "body" is not the same as a reference frame. It is important that you understand the difference.

Given Einstein's postulates, MD cannot prove Einstein is wrong and no one can prove Einstein's postulates, not even Tach.

Technically this is true, but 100 years of solid experimental evidence supports Einstein's postulates and completely refutes Motor Daddy's posulates. So, while Einstein has not been "proved" correct, Motor Daddy has certainly been proved wrong, over and over again. And there's not a single experiment that suggests Einstein was wrong.

Postulates are assumed to be self-evident or necessary truths from which other theory dependant truths are derived; truths like time dilation and length contraction as you point out. There is supporting evidence as Tack points out (I think) but no way to prove the postulates themselves. That is why this debate has been going on for so long.

There is no debate about this among scientists. The only debate is from amateurs on internet forums. And the reason for that is not lack of evidence. The reason is that the amateurs who believe Einstein was wrong don't understand Einstein's theory 99.7% of the time. About 78% of those never bother to take time to actually learn about it. (And 56% of all statistics are made up on the spot.)

Somebody always comes along to try to prove Einstein wrong which cannot be done, and there always is a someone at hand who is convinced Einstein is right and so it doesn't matter to them that he cannot be proven right.

Einstein can't be proven right in the same way that it can't be proven that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

You represented your "evidence" as if it proved Emil and MD are wrong. I couldn't see how it did and you waved off the challenge.

Tach's evidence is sound, but Tach is lousy at presenting this kind of thing. He didn't bother to give the source of his evidence list, and he didn't explain what values like "k" mean in the brief descriptions he listed. He expects people to somehow magically know what he means. He's a bad explainer. Frankly, I don't know why he bothers if he doesn't actually want to communicate anything.

 

[Pete]

Given Einstein's postulates, MD cannot prove Einstein is wrong and no one can prove Einstein's postulates, not even Tach. Postulates are assumed to be self-evident or necessary truths from which other theory dependant truths are derived; truths like time dilation and length contraction as you point out. There is supporting evidence as Tack points out (I think) but no way to prove the postulates themselves. That is why this debate has been going on for so long.

Given MD's postulates, you are taking on the mission to prove he is wrong and he is claiming to be able to prove himself right. Sorry if other members have derailed you and there is the exams. Good luck.

Somebody always comes along to try to prove Einstein wrong which cannot be done, and there always is a someone at hand who is convinced Einstein is right and so it doesn't matter to them that he cannot be proven right.

I guess the debate is worth waiting for Pete, but do you disagree with my summation?

MD's position is that Einstein's postulates aren't compatible with reality.
My 'mission', I suppose, is twofold: to help MD recognise that compatibility; and to help him recognise the role of actual experiments in testing models.