Rob
Your post 24/2 15.58, re Einstein. Whilst this is repeating a post above (to Ananymousse), the only way I can respond to this is with the same paragraphs, the reference is 1905 section 1 part 1:
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 the 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 was not involved in that interaction. That 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.
11 A key point is that the light Einstein referred to was not observational light anyway. He was using it as an example of a conceptual constant reference against which to measure time and distance. There was just a dissassociated "ray of light", an entity referred to as an "observer", and the concept of "frames of reference", which can leave the reader with the impression that observation has been accounted for. Whereas, in fact, he only invoked a constant, the determining factor being how he deployed that in the narrative/equations, not what he called it. A timing/spatial reference is by definition, a constant, while in practice observational light approximates to a constant, which further disguises the mistake.
12 Einstein failed to differentiate physical existence from the physical representation of it (eg light). He equated the reality of light with physical reality, so there was no observation (ie receipt of light), and the time delay which does occur between time of existence and time of receipt of light, was consequently eliminated. This was counterbalanced by his failure to understand the reference for timing, which followed the flawed concept of simultaneity by Poincaré. In sum, Einstein shifted the time differential which does occur, from the finish of the physical process to the start, deeming it be to a characteristic of physical existence.
One point to add to this (which is obviusly an abstract), which has arisen in a subsequent post, is that if physical and light reality have been conflated, and c was not actually light speed anyway, but just a constant. Then the apparition of c, as in light speed, in so many equations and explanations of physical existence is incorrect. For example, how does the speed of the phenomenon which enables sight have a physical impact on energy?
Paul
