Shannon’s View on Wheeler’s credo by Eckard Blumschein

Einstein conceived of local time and common time, following Poincare's simultaneity. This is wrong. Timing devices operate on a common time, which is why they are synchronised, otherwise the system is useless. In other words, the reference in timing is not the device, which just 'tells' the time, but a conceptual constant rate of change. So he created a non-existent 'extra' layer of time.

Reality is observed with the receipt of light. But Einstein had no observational light, nobody saw anything. He meant it to be, but failed. So, in effect, reality and the light based physically existent representation thereof were conflated. That is, he failed to identify the differential in timing of receipt of light. Which of course, is the same quantity as his 'extra' layer. So in effect, although he did not mean to, the relativity which is actually in the receipt of light, became a relativity of existence.

Whereas, what actually happens is that a sequence of realities occurs, one at a time, and definitively. Each event in this existential sequence is represented by light (forget the exact relationship, ie how light is created and then travels, it does not matter for this general point). The timing of receipt of this light fundamentally (ie forget environmental factors and the actual speed of the light) revolves around the relative spatial position of whatever is involved, both at the time that the event occurred, and at the time the light was received. In other words, whether there was any relative movement whilst the light was travelling. In respect of one reality and one light, it is just a matter of distance from source, ie time incurred whilst light travels. In respect of a sequence, alteration in that distance means that the sequence of lights, which represent the sequence of realities, will appear for the recipient to alter, ie the rate of change either slows or quickens, because the distance is either lengthening or shortening. Einstein's concern with rest frames/no relative movement is in respect of his belief that relative movement was caused by a differential in force incurred which also altered length dimension (again the relativity is being attributed to existence, although coincidentally, this effect could be true. But anyway, this factor had ceased to be a determinant by 1905 and was just explained away as a consequence).

Any given calibration has to be effected with respect to something, and any reference will suffice, so long as we understand the relationship between the reference and the other entity involved, because a calibration is a statement about that relationship, not reality. With more than one comparable calibration, we can then establish what is occurring. In simple language, if you are on the train with no other point of reference, then the closed system is the train. The people on it are moving with it, the light is independent of the train.

Events occur, each one being 'now', it is just, in the case of observation not existence, the time at which light generated as a by product of the events is received by any given entity capable of processing it (ie observing).

Paul

Eckard

I note your comment above about the first postulate. Can we please clear this up once and for all.

1 As always the best approach is to establish what was actually written first, before commenting on it!

Your translation is: ""The laws that describe how the states of the physical systems change do not depend on which of two coordinate systems we relate these changes of state if the two coordinate system are in steady motion relative to each other."

The standard 1923 translation is: "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

Can you please confirm what Einstein actually wrote re his first postulate.

2 On the basis of what he actually wrote, what is your comment on the forst postulate?

Paul

Dear Eckard,

Since I'm unable to respond to you in detail right now, I wonder if you could clarify something for me? Buyout final statement, you are a pure relativist. Then, in reference to your second last statement can you explain how the clocks of Albert and Henri in my essay could possibly tick at the same rate? How they could both describe the same sets of events as synchronous?

Thanks,

Daryl

Eckard/Daryl

Am I right in thinking that, leaving aside Einstein (see below, we are all saying the same thing (at least in general. That is, there is an occurrence (reality)which happened at a time, this causes light which is received later. Two or more occurrences were synchronomous if they occurred at the same time. Given an understanding as to how light works, then whast occurred can be extrapolated from the timing and substance of lights received from the occurrence.

Paul

Eckard

Unfortunately I wanted you to confirm what he wrote in 1905. The Wiki version looks more similar to your statement than the 1923.

Now, taking that (Wiki) version and your translation, there is nothing wrong with the statement, as written. The caveat of "in steady motion relative to each other" (yours) or "having a uniform translatory motion relative to each other" (Wiki) is just superfluous. There is, of course, an implication that if this condition does not prevail, then that statement does not hold. Which is incorrect. But literally it does not say that.

Either way, as I said , this is a statement of the obvious. Laws correspond with reality, and reality does not alter depending on which reference is utilised to calibrate it, the calibration does. I find it amazing that he had the pomposity to declare this simple truth the 'Principle of Relativity'.

The issue here is reconciling that truth, albeit somewhat 'dressed up' and over-conditioned, with his second postulate. As written, the only way out of that conundrum is SR, as defined by him, ie not what people presume it is. This is a state of 'stillness', nothing is happening. It is useless. He then proceeds to GR. However, as I have said many times, there is no observation, because there is nothing for observers to observe with. So the second postulate, as written, is irrelevant, because it was not deployed as written. The only light Einstein has is some form thereof which is used as a constant reference to calibrate distance and duration. Nobody sees with this light. So no reconciliation is necessary, neither does one need to consider observational light and its potential for being constant in order to explain Einstein.

Lorentz was concerned with the possibility of length alteration, which if it occurs makes referencing for the purposes of calibration more difficult. This is the reason for their concern with relative motion. But Einstein effectively ignored this in 1905. Based on Poincare's flawed notion of simultaneity (continuing someone's error does not absolve them from making that same error) he created an extra layer of time. In short, they did not understand how timing works. And with the lack of an observational (light) reality (which he failed to notice), the relativity was identified as being there.

I get the feeling that he meant to just say, there is a reality, which is independent, observation of it (ie receipt of light) will vary from recipient to recipient (ie reference). Which is obvious. But the simple fact is that whatever his intention, this is not what he in effect wrote, neither did he correct himself later, as it became clear that whilst the theory 'worked' (GR is different) there was something wrong. The point being that he shifted, in effect, the timing differential in receipt of light (which is where it occurs, but he did not have any) to a timing differential in the occurrence of reality (which does not occur).

Paul

PS: As I have said before, early on when people started quoting Einstein at me, I posted the first 24 paras of a condensed paper explaining his mistakes. They are elementary.

Eckard

Obviously. I find it stunning that anyone bothered to read past Part 1, section 1 1905. Here is a proper explanation of that specific mistake:

The misconception of time and timing (the AB example)

4 Einstein: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905), Section 1 Part 1, Definition of Simultaneity, is the reference.

5 The events 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 since they were therefore variables defined on the basis of different references with no known relationship.

6 Put another way, presuming that the times represented when the events occurred, then whether they were the same is potentially irrelevant. Any given event must occur at a specific time. Whether events happened to occur at the same time does not necessarily imply any physical significance. However the analysis involved the distance AB, and there cannot be a distance between something which exists and something else which does not. Therefore, A and B existed at the same time.

7 Yet another way of putting this is that establishing the timing relationship of A and B must involve another reference, so that the two can be compared and any difference identified. But this is what timing does, because the time shown on any device only has meaning if it is corresponds with the single reference to which all such devices are related, ie a conceptual constant rate of change. That is why they must be synchronised, otherwise the system is useless, allowing for the practicalities of so doing. That reference is not another time, but the time (in Einstein's terminology "common time"). Timing devices just 'tell' the time.

8 Hence the timing relationship which supposedly needed to be inferred, ie "local time" to "common time", was non-existent; a false distinction which resulted in a superfluous 'layer' of timing for which there was no justification. Presumption of the distance AB meant that A and B must have been existent at the same time anyway, although this, as with what is the reference for timing, was not understood. That is, t(a) must have equalled t(b), and there was no issue to resolve. This timing mistake reflects reliance on Poincaré's flawed concept of simultaneity.

9 Furthermore, the comparison of AB to BA was effected in terms of time incurred with consecutive, not concurrent, timings. This was also 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 that 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.

10 The quantification of distance in terms of a conceptual duration incurred was not an issue, had it been understood. Neither was the use of an example of light as the reference for calibrating distance and duration, with the condition that its speed be deemed constant, inherently a problem (although this was not observational light). Any method, involving any direction, and any constant, would suffice for measuring a distance, if properly calculated and represented. Leaving aside the failure to differentiate existent reality from the existent light based representation of it (see below), the errors, in this limited context, were assuming physical existence, and hence any artefact thereof (eg distance), continues to exist in the same physically existent state over time, and not understanding the reference used for timing.

The misconception of observation

11 It is argued that the AB example is explainable in terms of observation. 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. The physically existent occurrence, physically existent light, and physically existent observer, are all physically separate. Therefore, there will always be a delay whilst light, which is a physically existent representation of the occurrence, travels and, in a few cases, is received (ie is in the line of travel of, and interacts with) by an entity which can process the physical input available.

12 Introducing the differential between time of existence, and time of observation of existence, is irrelevant. As before, the timing devices must have been synchronised, otherwise the timings were meaningless, and since the distance AB is presumed, then A and B must have existed at the same time. If A and B did not exist at the same time, then there could not have been a distance AB to observe.

13 In the context of observation then, assuming a simplification of the real conditions, these timings must represent the time at which light was received, and any difference could only have been a function of the time delay for light to travel from B to A, or vice versa. That is, again there is no issue to resolve. The difference in timing would have been because these were observations of reality (ie receipts of light), not the occurrence of reality. However, there was no observational light in Einstein's theories anyway, just a constant, which happened to be an example of light.

14 There is always a distance and therefore a delay whilst light travels. Indeed, what was the spatial relationship between the observer and the light as at the time of occurrence and the creation of that light, could alter whilst it is travelling. Neither is physical existence, either in terms of the occurrence, or the representation of it (eg light), affected physically by observation (eg receipt of light) and the subsequent processing. Because that was not existent subsequently, which is a necessary condition for any physical effect to occur. The physically existent representation of the reality just ceases to exist in that physical form upon receipt, as it would if the interaction had been with an inanimate entity. One of the physical features of light, as in what is physically existent and can be processed by a sensory system if received, being that it persists in the same (or nearly so) physical form over time.

15 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 have been 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 have been: c = 2AB/2(t(a) - t(b)). Or simply, as considering either direction is irrelevant, c = AB/(t(a) - t(b)).

16 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. Apart from which, what this actually means in the context of physical existence needs to be understood, ie since there is no duration as such, it is a conceptual expression of a spatial quantity. Duration being concerned with differences between physical existences, ie the rate at which turnover occurs. And c was not the speed of observational light, it was just a constant which happened to be defined in terms of an xample of light.

17 A key statement in 1905, section 1, part 1, Definition of Simultaneity is:

"But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an "A time" and a "B time." We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the "A time" t(a) from A towards B, let it at the "B time" t(b) be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" t(a). In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if t(b)-t(a)=t'(a)-t(b)."

18 In the context of a proper differentiation between reality and the light based representation thereof, this thinking is, essentially, correct. Recipients of light representing the same physical occurrence, will receive those lights at different times because they are in different spatial locations (ignoring any vanishingly small differences there might be between those lights). Fundamentally, comparing these times and distances will reveal the time at which the occurrence happened.

19 But Einstein did not differentiate reality and the light based representation of it, so there was no observational light. In actuality, his 'local time' must have been the time of receipt of the light based representation of the occurrence, but he deemed it to be the time of occurrence. At the 'local' level this mistake was rationalised with the notion that they were the same if in the "immediate proximity". Which is incorrect, as there must always be a time delay whilst light travels.

20 Beyond the 'immediate proximity' (which could never be defined because it cannot be a correct concept), he effectively asserted, ie by virtue of his mistakes, that the time at which the occurrences happened is a function of light, and particularly its speed, which is obviously incorrect. The time of receipt of the light representation of the occurrence is a function of light speed, not the occurrence. The actual relationship between any physically existent state (ie occurrence) and the light (ie representation thereof) created as it occurs, is a function of their physical attributes and hence the way they interact. But any such actual differences/complexities involved do no impact on this generic argument.

21 The critical point being that the light Einstein referred to was not observational light. He was using an example of light as a conceptual reference constant against which to calibrate duration and distance. In other words, the fact that it was light, was irrelevant, it could have been any constant. His light was just a dissassociated "ray of light", with an entity referred to as an "observer", and the concept of "frames of reference" (later examples used lightening). All of which can leave the reader with the impression that observation had been accounted for.

22 But he only invoked a constant, so the 'observer/frame of reference' is just the reference used for comparison in order to identify difference. It has nothing to do with observation, because there was no observational light. The determining factor being what he did, not what he said he would do. Which means that the second postulate as defined is irrelevant, because he did not deploy it as defined. Therefore all the ensuing attempts, including his own, to reconcile a presumed constancy in light with a rate of change in reality, are pointless, because the issue is non-existent.

23 In sum, Einstein shifted the time differential from the finish of the physical process, where it does occur and relates to the time of receipt of the physically existent representation of existence (eg light), to the start, by deeming it, incorrectly, to be a characteristic of physical existence itself.

Paul

Eckard

Unfortunately, I do not understand the phrase: "However, different perspectives must not be taken at a time", so I am not sure what your objection is to what I am saying. Perpectives/calibrations/mearurements/whatever, are all irrelevant in the sense that reality occurred, and it was a definitive, discrete, physically existent state of whatever comprises it, ie there is only one at a time. So the first postulate, even with the superfluous caveat, is a statement of the obvious. A law is a generic valid representation of reality. And reality occurs independently, and the physical circumstance thereof is not affected by observation, etc. Then whilst any 'co-ordinate' can be utilised as the reference, the resulting calibration is not reality, but a calibration thereof. Establishing reality involves the comparison of a range of such calibrations.

So the essential point with postulate one is that physical existence is not affected by which co-ordinate/reference is utilised to calibrate it (forget the superfluous caveat about motion). Postulate two is about the constancy of light. How then to reconcile the two postulates, because we know there is a timing difference? This is why in introducing the second postulate he writes that it is "only apparently irreconcilable" with the first.

His reconciliation is SR, which, as defined by Einstein, involves:

-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary

-only fixed shape bodies

-only light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed

It is special because there is no gravitational force (or more precisely, no differential in the gravitational forces incurred).

Nothing is happening in this circumstance, so the two postulates will reconcile. He then moves on to GR. But the point is he did not deploy the second postulate as defined, there was no observation. Another point is that in 1905, light is in vacuo, whilst everything else is not, so the two cannot physically co-exist. In SR (as defined by him) everything is in vacuo, and then in GR, everything is not.

Re simultaneity:

Simultaneity: Lorentz and Poincaré

18 The misconception of time and timing, which is effectively the formalisation of the ontologically incorrect way in which reality is perceived generally, arose through the flawed conceptualisation of simultaneity.

19 Following Voigt and Doppler, Lorentz starts to use the concept of local time:

Lorentz, 1895, section 3:

"The form of this expression suggests to introduce a new independent variable instead of t...the variable t' can be regarded as a time, counting from an instant that depends on the location of the point. We can therefore call this variable the local time of this point, in contrast to the general time t. The transition from one time to another is provided by equation (34)...In a point that moves together with the luminous molecule-and thus also for an observer who shares the translation... We can also examine, with which frequency these values in a stationary point are changing their sign. This frequency causes the oscillation period for a stationary observer...The "observed" period of oscillation is thus...is in agreement with the known law of Doppler. If the law, as it is usually applied, should be given, it must of course still be assumed, that the translation does not change the actual period of oscillation of the luminous particles. I must abstain from giving an account of this hypothesis, since we know nothing about nature of the molecular forces that determine the oscillation period. The case that the light source is at rest and the observer progresses, allows of a similar treatment...We most conveniently describe the perception of motion by means of a co-ordinate system, which shares the translation ...of the observer... from which it is given for the "observed" period of oscillation..."

Lorentz, 1895, section 5:

"We want to call the two states of motion-in the stationary and in the moving system of bodies...corresponding states. Now, they shall be mutually compared more precisely.

a. If in a stationary system the magnitudes (69) are periodic functions of t with the period T, then in the other system the magnitudes (70) have the same period with respect to t', thus also with respect to t, when we let x, y, z remain constant. When interpreting this result, we have to consider, that two periods must be distinguished in the case of translation (see paras 37 and 38), which we accordingly can call absolute and relative period. We are dealing with the absolute one, when we consider the temporal variations in a point that has a fixed position against the aether; but we are dealing with the relative one, when we consider a point that moves together with ponderable matter. The things found above can now be expressed as follows: If a state of oscillation in the moving system shall correspond to a state in the stationary system, then the relative oscillation period in the first mentioned case must be equal to the oscillation period in the second mentioned case.

b. In the stationary system, no motion of light may take place at an arbitrary location... so that at this place the motion of light is missing as well."

20 Comment: although the analysis overtly states an incorrect presumption, ie that there is a local time (ie instant at a specific spatial location), which is different from a common time (ie some form of general time), in practice, and without commenting on the quantifications attributed to the various effects and the precise detail, the underlying concepts are correct. That is, following on from Voigt and Doppler, timing is being related to oscillation/frequency, ie sequence over time. Existence, and the receipt of an observable representation of that, are being differentiated; even the fact that any hypothesised effect on matter will include the same effect on an observer is noted. The overall conclusion being that the actual rates of change (frequency) will remain the same, ie perception does not affect reality, and that the perceived rate of change will not vary if there is no variance in spatial position. Lorentz acknowledges a lack of precise understanding of how the physical process involved happens.

21 Later, Lorentz continues:

Lorentz, 1899, para 6:

"We shall now show how our general equations may be applied to optical phenomena. For this purpose we consider a system of ponderable bodies, the ions in which are capable of vibrating about determinate positions of equilibrium. If the system be traversed by waves of light, there will be oscillations of the ions, accompanied by electric vibrations in the aether. For convenience of treatment we shall suppose that, in the absence of lightwaves, there is no motion at all; this amounts to ignoring all molecular motion... an extremely small quantity, because the diameter of the ions is a very small fraction of the wave-length. This is the reason why we may omit the last term...if the displacements are infinitely small, the same will be true of the velocities and, in general, of all quantities which do not exist as long as the system is at rest and are entirely produced by the motion...We may therefore omit the last terms...In the system without a translation...would be, in all points of an ion, the same functions of t', i. e. of the universal time, whereas, in the moving system, these components would not depend in the same way on t' in different parts of the ion, just because they must everywhere be the same functions of t. However, we may ignore this difference, of the ions are so small, that we may assign to each of them a single local time, applicable to all its parts...we must add the equations of motion for the ions themselves. In establishing these, we have to take into account, not only the electric forces, but also all other forces acting on the ions. We shall call these latter the molecular forces and we shall begin by supposing them to be sensible only at such small distances, that two particles of matter, acting on each other, may be said to have the same local time."

Lorentz, 1899, para 8:

"In what precedes, the molecular forces have been supposed to be confined to excessively small distances. If two particles of matter were to act upon each other at such a distance that the difference of their local times might not be neglected, the theorem would no longer be true in the case of molecular forces that are not altered at all by the translation. However, one soon perceives that the theorem would again hold good, if these forces were changed by the translation in a definite way, in such a way namely that the action between two quantities of matter were determined, not by the simultaneous values of their coordinates, but by their values at equal local times.

If therefore, we should meet with phenomena, in which the difference of the local times for mutually acting particles might have a sensible influence, and in which yet observation showed the above theorem to be true, this would indicate a modification, like the one we have just specified, of the molecular forces by the influence of a translation. Of course, such a modification would only be possible, if the molecular forces were not direct actions at a distance, but were propagated by the aether in a similar way as the electromagnetic actions."

22 Comment: pursuing his hypothesis about the effect of movement on molecular forces, Lorentz suggests how several effects which are either neglible in themselves, or at least when the system is at rest, can be discounted. Again, the point is not so much about whether the detail of this argument is correct, but that it generated, and gave substantiation to, the concept that 'local time' differences could be ignored when considering certain distances (ie "excessively small distances"). As a simplification, this is correct. But unless it is understood to be a simplification, and what has been simplified is known, then its inadvertent reification subsequently can lead to significant errors. That is, in physical existence, by definition, there is always a spatial difference, which means there is always a time delay whilst that light travels. Consciously ignoring this when it has minimal effect for practical reasons, is not the same as asserting that it does not exist.

23 The thoughts of Poincaré on the subject of time and timing, expressed concurrently with those of Lorentz above, are as follows:

Poincaré, 1898, para 1:

"So long as we do not go outside the domain of consciousness, the notion of time is relatively clear. Not only do we distinguish without difficulty present sensation from the remembrance of past sensations or the anticipation of future sensations, but we know perfectly well what we mean when we say that of two conscious phenomena which we remember, one was anterior to the other; or that, of two foreseen conscious phenomena, one will be anterior to the other. When we say that two conscious facts are simultaneous, we mean that they profoundly interpenetrate, so that analysis can not separate them without mutilating them."

Poincaré, 1898, para 2:

"Think of two consciousnesses, which are like two worlds impenetrable one to the other. By what right do we strive to put them into the same mold, to measure them by the same standard? Is it not as if one strove to measure length with a gram or weight with a meter? And besides, why do we speak of measuring? We know perhaps that some fact is anterior to some other, but not by how much it is anterior. Therefore two difficulties: (1) Can we transform psychologic time, which is qualitative, into a quantitative time? (2) Can we reduce to one and the same measure facts which transpire in different worlds?"

Poincaré, 1898, para 3:

"The first difficulty has long been noticed; it has been the subject of long discussions and one may say the question is settled. We have not a direct intuition of the equality of two intervals of time...When I say, from noon to one the same time passes as from two to three, what meaning has this affirmation?... To measure time they use the pendulum and they suppose by definition that all the beats of this pendulum are of equal duration. But this is only a first approximation; the temperature, the resistance of the air, the barometric pressure, make the pace of the pendulum vary."

Poincaré, 1898, para 4:

"All this is unimportant, one will say; doubtless our instruments of measurement are imperfect, but it suffices that we can conceive a perfect instrument. This ideal can not be reached, but it is enough to have conceived it and so to have put rigor into the definition of the unit of time. The trouble is that there is no rigor in the definition. When we use the pendulum to measure time, what postulate do we implicitly admit? It is that the duration of two identical phenomena is the same; or, if you prefer, that the same causes take the same time to produce the same effects."

Poincaré, 1898, para 13:

"To conclude: We have not a direct intuition of simultaneity, nor of the equality of two durations. If we think we have this intuition, this is an illusion. We replace it by the aid of certain rules which we apply almost always without taking count of them.

But what is the nature of these rules? No general rule, no rigorous rule; a multitude of little rules applicable to each particular case. These rules are not imposed upon us and we might amuse ourselves in inventing others; but they could not be cast aside without greatly complicating the enunciation of the laws of physics, mechanics and astronomy. We therefore choose these rules, not because they are true, but because they are the most convenient, and we may recapitulate them as follows: "The simultaneity of two events, or the order of their succession, the equality of two durations, are to be so defined that the enunciation of the natural laws may be as simple as possible. In other words, all these rules, all these definitions are only the fruit of an unconscious opportunism."

24 Comment: this simplistic analysis of time and timing is fundamentally flawed. But it was this thinking that lead to the incorrect definition of simultaneity, and the consequent attribution of a local time to everything. Timing devices only 'tell' the time, ie they are not the time. That is, as far as is practicable, they are a representation of the actual reference, which is a constant rate of change. Duration is as measurable, and subject to the same practical issues in doing so, as any other quantity, contrary to his assertion. Poincaré concentrated on time in the sense of, at the same time, because he failed to understand the true nature of the reference, what timing devices represent, and that timing over a duration actually involves comparing numbers of changes, irrespective of type, in order to calibrate rates of change. Neither is consciousness or intuition relevant, this only applying to a subjective evaluation of time and the relative timing of occurrences, which is not a physical issue.

25 Later, Poincaré continues:

Poincaré, 1900, page 20:

"It is the case that, in reality, that which we call the principle of relativity of motion has been verified only imperfectly, as shown by the theory of Lorentz. This is due to the compensation of multiple effects, but:...2. For the compensation to work, we must relate the phenomena not to the true time t, but to a certain local time t' defined in the following fashion.

Let us suppose that there are some observers placed at various points, and they

synchronize their clocks using light signals. They attempt to adjust the measured

transmission time of the signals, but they are not aware of their common motion, and

consequently believe that the signals travel equally fast in both directions. They perform observations of crossing signals, one travelling from A to B, followed by another travelling from B to A. The local time t' is the time indicated by the clocks which are so adjusted. If V = 1/√Ko is the speed of light, and v is the speed of the Earth which we suppose is parallel to the x axis, and in the positive direction, then we have: t' = t − v x/V2."

Poincaré, 1900, page 22:

"Suppose T is the duration of the emission: what will the real length be in space of the perturbation?...The real length of the perturbation is L = (V - v')T. Now, what is the apparent length?...the local time corresponding to that is T(1-vv'/V2). At local time t', it is at point x, where x is given by the equations: t ' = t − vx/V2,

x = v'T + V(t - T), from which, neglecting V2: x = [v'T + V(t - T)](1 + v/V)...The apparent length of the perturbation will be, therefore,

L' = Vt' - (x - vt') = (V - v')T(1 +v/V) = L(1 + v/V)."

26 Comment: although the Michelson experiments had a null result, the concept of light travelling at different speeds with respect to earth, depending on their relative movement, is still maintained. As two moving entities, this must be so. Leaving aside actual variations in real conditions, the calibrated speed of light is dependent on a reference. In this circumstance, since the earth also has been attributed with a movement, then the reference is 'space'. Which is deemed, by virtue of being the reference, to be 'stationary'. Deeming an entity as the reference means it is, conceptually, stationary. That is the essence of measuring, ie identifying difference by comparison with a constant reference.

27 The notion of dimension alteration, which was hypothesised by Lorentz and Fitzgerald as an explanation for that null result, manifests here in the context of perturbation. This also may be correct. But the key point is that all the variables are now identified, and when taken out of context/applied incorrectly, this results in the fundamental mistake, which involves reifying time by presuming that there is duration, as in elapsed time, in distance. The example also involves the other fundamental mistake of conflating observational light with light used for the purpose of timing. The light beam is a timing mechanism ("they synchronize their clocks using light signals"), and is therefore a constant, its actuality as light is irrelevant. Light is being used to drive a timing device, ie as opposed to (say) crystal oscillation. Whereas observational light is the moving physical entity which enables sight, and does therefore vary in actual speed, depending on environmental conditions encountered, but more importantly, calibrated speed depending on the reference.

28 Following on from this, Poincaré develops the notion that 'everything is relative':

Poincaré, 1902, para 77:

"Hence, our law of relativity may be enunciated as follows: The readings that we can make with our instruments at any given moment will depend only on the readings that we were able to make on the same instruments at the initial moment. Now such an enunciation is independent of all interpretation by experiments. If the law is true in the Euclidean interpretation, it will be also true in the non-Euclidean interpretation."

Poincaré, 1902, para 90:

"...that treatises on mechanics do not clearly distinguish between what is experiment, what is mathematical reasoning, what is convention, and what is hypothesis....

1. There is no absolute space, and we only conceive of relative motion; and yet in most cases mechanical facts are enunciated as if there is an absolute space to which they can be referred.

2. There is no absolute time. When we say that two periods are equal, the statement has no meaning, and can only acquire a meaning by a convention.

3. Not only have we no direct intuition of the equality of two periods, but we have not even direct intuition of the simultaneity of two events occurring in two different places.

4. Finally, is not our Euclidean geometry in itself only a kind of convention of language? Mechanical facts might be enunciated with reference to a non-Euclidean space which would be less convenient but quite as legitimate as our ordinary space; the enunciation would become more complicated, but it still would be possible.

Thus, absolute space, absolute time, and even geometry are not conditions which are imposed on mechanics."

29 Comment: this analysis represents the culmination of what has gone before, and is incorrect. Legitimate concepts have been taken out of context and misinterpreted, in order to infer a physical existence that has no independent existent definitiveness. It is then asserted that this improved conceptualisation highlights the flaw with the previous (classical) stance. Whereas in fact, Poincaré failed to understand the functionality of measuring systems, the devices utilised to effect calibration, and the actual references underpinning those systems. All of which lead to the erroneous conclusion that 'everything is relative', ie there are no absolutes. This erroneous analysis encapsulates the essence of relativity.

30 Finally:

Poincaré, 1904, page 6:

"The most ingenious idea is that of local time. Let us imagine two observers, who

wish to regulate their watches by means of optical signals; they exchange signals,

but as they know that the transmission of light is not instantaneous, they are careful

to cross them. When station B sees the signal from station A, its timepiece should

not mark the same hour as that of station A at the moment the signal was sent,

but this hour increased by a constant representing the time of transmission. Let

us suppose, for example, that station A sends it signal at the moment when its

time-piece marks the hour zero, and that station B receives it when its time-piece

marks the hour t. The watches will be set, if the time t is the time of transmission,

and in order to verify it, station B in turn sends a signal at the instant when its

time-piece is at zero; station A must then see it when its time-piece is at t. Then

the watches are regulated."

"And, indeed, they mark the same hour at the same physical instant, but under

one condition, namely, that the two stations are stationary. Otherwise, the time

of transmission will not be the same in the two directions, since the station A, for

example, goes to meet the disturbance emanating from B, whereas station B sees

before the disturbance emanating from A. Watches regulated in this way, therefore,

will not mark the true time; they will mark what might be called the local time,

so that one will gain on the other. It matters little, since we have no means of

perceiving it. All the phenomena which take place at A, for example, will be

behind time, but all just the same amount, and the observer will not notice it since

his watch is also behind time; thus, in accordance with the principle of relativity

he will have no means of ascertaining whether he is at rest or in absolute motion."

31 Comment: this is correct, until the caveat: "but under one condition, namely, that the two stations are stationary". By definition, synchronised watches are synchronised, they do not cease to be so because of movement. Neither do they, unless they are malfunctioning, depict any other time than the "true time", within the realms of practicality, which is not the point being made anyway. The practical difficulty of ensuring all timing devices are synchronised is an issue which needs to be resolved, otherwise timing devices are useless.

32 The explanation of the caveat is revealed by the phrase: "Otherwise, the time of transmission will not be the same in the two directions". That is, the statement really is being made in the context of light reality, and observational light has been conflated with the mechanism used for timing. The allusion to relative movement resulting in some physical effect is therefore spurious. So, in that context, the statement is correct. But not for the reasons implied. The difference between entities involved in a constant spatial relationship, and being in one that is altering, in the context of receiving light, was explained in para 15 above. That is, the rate of change of a sequence will appear to alter if the time delay for the receipt of light is altering.

33 Obviously, movement, ie alteration in spatial relationship, whilst observational light is travelling, will result in different timings for the receipt of an observable image of an event (ie "goes to meet the disturbance"). And assuming all other factors to be equal/neutral, this will be a function of distance. But, when he writes of: "the time of transmission", the reference is to the light signal being used as a timing mechanism, which is different, and by definition, a constant. So relative movement is being attributed with some effect which is non existent, it being, in the context of observation, an optical illusion. Neither is the identification of movement relative to any given reference dependent on timing. So while the logical point is correct, ie that it is impossible to discern what is 'actually' moving and what is not, that is irrelevant, since the reference for calibrating relative movement is spatial position, not timing.

Paul

Eckard

There are no paradoxes if you understand what Einstein actually did, as opposed to what he said he was doing, and everybody (including himself believed he was doing).

The answer to your question is:

-because people do not read what was written. I am just lucky because I am able to read all the players involved on the net, and have no baggage

-because people do not understand how reality must occur, ie one physically existent state at a time

-because of egos, money, jobs, etc

-because I am a nobody, so whilst at best people will engage in the first place, once they get stuck, they then give up thinking that he must be wrong but cannot spot it, as the professors and everybody else obviously knows best.

I will look at these references.

Paul

Eckard

I am not sure I understand you, because obviously one can have as many 'perpectives' (or better phrasing is calibrations with respect to a reference) as are possible. It makes no difference to the reality, ie the physically existent state of whatever comprised it at that time, being calibrated. There is no such thing as 'birds eye or divine'. We are within a closed system, therefore the only way to discern what that constitutes is from within it, and involves comparing 'perspectives', and on the basis of understanding how they were established, extrapolating what occurred (within the confines of the closed system). The rule is to ensure comparability of references, ie converting all to a common denominator.

Paul

Eckard

"Is there a naturally privileged location/perspective in space?"

No. By definition, any judgement is made with respect to some specific reference, and assuming it has been effected properly it is correct wrt that reference. But that is not necessarily reality.

"Is there a natural point of reference?"

Yes, reality, ie what actually occurred. But one needs to correlate specific judgements and reconcile their individual references to find out what that was.

Obviously timing is common, that is the whole point of it. That is why timing devices are, within the realms of practicality, synchronised. In other words, all functioning wrt the same reference (ie a conceptual constant rate of change). 10.25 GMT is in effect meaningless, it is just a point on the scale. In just the same way that whatever point in time is chosen (which in order to isolate a reality would have to be far more definitive) is in effect zero. Which is the same as when one designates an entity as the reference for momentum, and is therefore, in effect, deeming it to be 'at rest'. It is reality which is determining all this, because it occurs in one physically existent state at a time, which means there is a turnover rate of realities as the sequence progresses.

Paul

Eckard

The synchronisation method that Einstein used does not work because it is the wrong conception of how timing works, and it was meant to apply to the receipt of a light based representation of reality, which would have been correct, but it did not, because there was no observation in Einstein as there was nothing to observe with. So the differential in effect was deemed a characteristic of reality itself. Einstein thought it would not be so when there was relative motion because they thought that what causes this motion also causes length alteration.

Leaving aside the nuance of the first postulate which you have, for me anyway, highlighted by quoting the original words, the whole spirit of it is that reality, and hence any law depicting it, do not alter depending on the reference used to calibrate it (forget the superfluous 'no relative motion' caveat). Which is obviously true, it is the calibration which alters as a function of what is used as the reference to effect the calibration.

It has nothing to do with timing devices. They just tell the time as best thy can. Physical existence is a sequence of realities, each one being a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever comprises it. Time is the rate at which that sequence alters.

I have not read that paper yet, as I now set off to renovate my son's flat, and most evenings just fall asleep on return.

Paul