Anonymousse
Einstein
What view of time (standard or otherwise) in SR? All I know about SR is what Einstein defined it as, which was a theoretical circumstance involving no gravitational force, and hence involving only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion, fixed shape bodies, and light which moved at a constant speed in straight lines. [If you disagree with this I can post a selection of quotes which prove it]. Which is correct as such, but of no value. This being his theoretical construction to extricate himself from his perceived, but not real, paradox of the two postulates ("only apparently irreconcilable" 1905), as effected in section 7 1916. The irony here being that since he did not use light, just a constant which he named as light, there was nothing to reconcile. The first postulate being that any physical law must pertain in any circumstance, which is true, but a statement of the blindingly obvious. The second postulate is irrelevant, because he failed to differentiate the physically existential sequence from the physically existent reality of light which represents it, and is what we receive. So he can speak of observers, but an entity only becomes an observer if they receive light. Having a disassociated ray of light, or a bolt of lightening, or whatever, is not the equivalent of observational light.
His view of time is misconceived, it copies Poincaré (simultaneity). Here is the argument, which is using 1905 section 1 part 1 as the reference:
1 A and B were each attributed a time (local) of existence, ie t(a) and t(b). Either there was a relationship between these timings, or not. If there was a relationship, then there was no timing issue to resolve. If there was no relationship, then nothing further could have been discerned from this information since they were therefore variables defined on the basis of different references with no known relationship.
2 So there must have been a presumption that the timing devices were synchronised (ie working properly), even though this was not recognised. That is because the reference for timing was not understood, it being a conceptual constant rate of change, ie not timing devices which just 'tell' the time, and are only valid if related to this reference (ie synchronised), within the realms of practicality. This must be so, otherwise the timing system is useless.
3 Hence the timing relationship which supposedly needed to be inferred, ie "local time" to a "common time", was known already, and was a false distinction implying a extra layer of timing for which there was no physical justification. Presumption of the distance AB meant that A and B must have been existent at the same time, ie t(a) equalled t(b). Had the times been different, then A could not have been compared to B, and distance established, because they were not existent at the same time.
4 The comparison of AB to BA was effected in terms of time incurred with consecutive, not concurrent, timings. This was incorrect. Not only is there no duration in a spatial circumstance, but AB cannot be compared to BA on the basis of subsequent timings. Because such timings cannot be presumed to relate to AB, as either A and/or B could have altered over time, and therefore the distance could have altered. The measurement can only represent whatever was deemed to constitute A and B, and therefore AB, at a specific time.
5 The quantification of distance in terms of a conceptual duration incurred, was not an issue, had it been understood. Neither was the use of light to do this, with the condition that its speed be deemed constant, inherently a problem. Any method, involving any direction, would suffice, if properly calculated and represented. The errors were assuming physical existence, and hence any artefact thereof (eg distance), continues to exist in the same physically existent state over time, and a misunderstanding of the reference used in timing.
6 It is argued that the AB example is explainable in terms of observation. So time of existence, and time of observation (ie receipt of light), were asserted by Einstein to be the same if whatever was involved was in the "immediate proximity". This is correct as an approximation, though would need definition. But in reality there is always a difference, which is fundamental to highlighting the flaw in his argument.
7 Introducing the differential between time of existence, and time of observation of existence, is irrelevant. As before, the timing devices must be synchronised, otherwise these timings are meaningless, and if the distance AB is presumed, then A and B must have existed at the same time. Alternatively, if A and B did not exist at the same time, then there could not be a distance AB to observe.
8 Therefore, in the context of observation, assuming a simplification of the real conditions, any difference in these times could only be a function of the time delay for light to travel from B to A, or vice versa, and not a reflection of some other variance. That is, again there is no issue to be resolved. The difference in timing would have been because they were observations of reality (ie receipts of light). However, there was no observational light in Einstein's writings and theory anyway.
9 Physically, there is always a distance and therefore a delay whilst light travels; and there must always be light in order to observe. Indeed, what was the spatial relationship between the observer and the light as at the time of existence and creation of the light, could alter whilst the light is travelling. Neither is physical existence affected by observation, because it occurred before that, and involved no physical interaction with it. That interaction being with the physically existent representation of that reality (eg light), which then just ceases to exist in that physical form, in the same way as it would if the interaction had been with an inanimate entity.
10 By substituting c for v, ie a specific velocity for a generic one, c was asserted to be: 2AB/(t'(a) - t(a)). Which was wrong because that time involved duration incurred from subsequent timings, apart from being deemed an elapsed time in both cases anyway, which it is not. Assuming the quantity is doubled, it should be either twice A to B or B to A, or the sum of A to B and B to A incurred at the same time. So it should be: c = 2AB/2(t(a) - t(b)). Or simply, as considering either direction is superfluous, c = AB/(t(a) - t(b)). Which, although correct, is a statement of the obvious. That is, the velocity is a ratio of total distance travelled to the time taken to do so, ie the definition of velocity.
So, with two fundamental counterbalancing flaws, he derives a concept of relativity in physical existence, which is summarised in the following quote: Einstein para 4 section 9 1916:
"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. Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, ie that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in section 7) disappears".
In short: unless in the "immediate proximity" (1905), every state of existence has its own time. This is nonsense. Physical existence occurs at a time, and then alters over time. The rate at which alteration occurs being what timing calibrates. The real timing difference is in the receipt of light from the same physical existence by differently spatially located observers. Einstein has shifted that timing differential from the end of the physical process, where it belongs, to the start, ie it is deemed to be a characteristic of physical existence.
General
I started looking into this consequent upon finally reading Stephen Hawking. It was an intellectual exercise to see if I could discern what the errors were. As I had no background, and with the Net was able to read all the original key documents, I was unencumbered by 'learning' and found the problem easily solvable. I have no desire, or need, to read a string of people all with their own false ideas. It is boring and depressing. A statement is either correct or not, intrinsically. It does not need to be couched in a lot of extraneous references.
To take the example you mention and what you say at face value. This view is rubbish. Can you please explain, on behalf of the writer/thinker(!) you refer to, how the output of sensory/brain processing can have a physical effect on physical existence. You have a number of problems to overcome: 1) the output of the processing is not physical, physical existence is, so how do these two physically interact, 2) what is processed has already physically existed, it has to have been for it to be received in the first place, so how does a subsequent act affect an already previously existent one, 3) finally(!) the interaction (ie sensing) involves a physically existent representation of physical existence, so how does one process physically affect another, when, apart from pont 1 & 2, the two do not even interact.
In other words, somewhat obviously, what we think/etc is irrelevant to physical existence, it is not defined by this process. Put another way, if all sentient life was wiped out at 16.00GMT, physical existence would continue. Another way of expressing this is that the physical input received (say light-as opposed to noise, vibration, etc) is the same whether received by a brick or an eye. The physics is the same. The only difference is that, consequent upon evolution, a somewhat new development, that physical input receivd can be processed.
Paul
