Eckard/Ben
I will tell you, in simple terms, what the mistake is.
How physical existence occurs is misunderstood, which has resulted in the reification of change (and hence time, which rates change). That is, a non existent variable has been introduced. Then in rationalising this, physical existence has been conflated with the photon based representational reality of that existence (ie reality and observation of reality have been confused). The time variance (which does not exist) is written off against a variance that does exist, ie the time observational light takes to reach an observer. The net effect of this is that light has become a design determinant in physical existence, which obviously, it is not. It is the physically existent mechanism which enables sight in sentient organisms. So we arrive at such nonsense as the concepts of mass and energy being related to the speed at which photons travel. Just precisely what has an effect in photons, and the speed at which it travels got to do with anything? Absolutely nothing. Other than, it is what enables sight.
Here are two paragraphs out of that paper I am writing (the quotes are from the book entitled 'why does E=mc2' by Cox & Forshaw):
21 In general, the situation is seen as (page 43): "In order for the clock to tick at the same rate as it does when it stands still the light must travel a little bit faster...but... applying Einstein's logic means that the light cannot speed up because the speed of light must be the same to everyone". And later: "...time ticks at different rates depending on how we are moving relative to someone else. In other words, absolute time is not consistent with the notion of a universal light speed". In between these two incorrect assertions, it is correctly stated that: "This has the disturbing consequence that the moving clock must genuinely take longer to tick, simply because the light has farther to travel, from the perspective of the".. [stationary observer]. Except that there is nothing "disturbing" about it, so long as the meaning is understood as written, ie the observational light has further to travel because the extrinsic observer remains at the start, whilst the intrinsic observer moves with the finish. This is a simple optical illusion which is explained in para X
22 The issues arising from this general overview are:
1 Light, as in observation, has been conflated the use of light as the beam.
2 Originally (1905) Einstein correctly postulated that observational light always had the same starting speed, and unless impeded would continue at that speed.
3 Existence, and observation of that existence, have been conflated.
4 The asserted dichotomy between light speed and rate of change is non existent.
5 Timing is misconceived. It actually involves quantifying the rate of change, irrespective of type, by comparing the number of changes over the same duration. Therefore there can only be one absolute reference for this measuring system. Indeed, the beam is the time reference, which is why it has an independent constant velocity. It should be differentiated from observational light speed, ie C and c respectively, since the only reason they are the same is because of the particular choice of a beam of light as the tick mechanism. Neither is time a timing device, that just 'tells' the time, and must be in accord with the absolute reference to be valid.
All Einstein's attempts at explaining the situation are incorrect. For example in his version of the train example he incorrectly asserts that a man walking on the train is the same as a ray of light. He even uses the word 'obviously' when stating this! Then incorrectly asserts that therefore the concept of the sum of velocities is invalid, and it is all to do with time. There is one 'wrinkle' in this mix, that is, the original conclusion from the M&M experiment by Lorentz & Fitzgerald that matter alters dimension as it is caused to change momentum, might be correct. Though the value attributed to it is highly likely to be incorrect, since as in other cases where gamma is valued, it is derived from a mistake.
On the subject of God. The key point is that it is scientifically correct to state that there is the logical possibility of a God (as indeed there is of my green giants with six heads). Any assertion that there is a God, is belief. Because the basis of proof is direct sentient experience, or hypothesis properly based on that.
Paul
