Einstein merely assumes the validity of local clocks in his thought experiment and proceeds from there. As absolute time was universally recognized as being the common sense approach to time before relativity, then the burden of proof clearly lies on the shoulders of Albert concerning the notion and use of time. If Albert merely assumes time is only a local phenomenon, then he must begin his theory, by assuming time is not in any sense absolute and therefore regular, unchanging an universal. This is quite a large step to take. I have analyzed Einstein’s paper – on the electrodynamics of moving bodies and found many problems with his understanding of time.
•
[quote]
We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the ``time of the stationary system'' at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore ``synchronous in the stationary system.''
The ``time'' of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock. [/quote]
Comments – This is only true if the clock at the event is the same as the prime of common clock, but this assumes the classical understanding of time as absolute and universal to be true, which AE’s theory denies. His statement implies a contradiction. Further arguments concerning the apriori assumption of absolute time will be given below.
Also he still has not defined time. He tries to avoid the problem by appealing to “The ``time'' of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock” and hence confuses time with a measure of time.
He also has another problem whereby because he has rejected the classic understanding of time, he cannot tell us which clock is the specified stationary clock in the real, or how this is done in his example. He cannot establish a uniform rate that is applicable to A and B because A only knows a particular measure of time at A and B at B whereby there is no relationship between the two.
There is also the problem concerning what constitutes the relationship between times at the “place of the event” and other places not at the event. He simply ignores the notion of place as having any definite meaning and then assumes the observer, who is also not defined, cannot obtain any information beyond the undefined places of A and B respectively.
He does not determine the nature of the relationship between the two other that to use the speed of light and the concluding maths equation which he uses to define his sole criteria for the determination of synchronization. But this is to reduce the synchronization to
1. two clock rates,
2. the notion of stationary
3. the notion of the observer
4. the notion of the speed of light
Which is to
Define according to quantity without having first proven quantity is the manner in which synchronization is to be properly defined. Which is an error.
Define synchronization assuming the notions of rate, stationary, observer and speed of light are all without error and are the appropriate manner in which these notions are to be used. We have seen that both assumptions are false.
Define synchronization, assuming causation is true and correctly understood by his theory. Yet causation arrives at the conclusion that time is determined from the nature of bodies and as the nature of bodies is not restricted to any particular body or any sum of individual bodies, then time is also not determined by any individual body. Time is then not from a clock, but a clock is only a particular numerical measure of a predetermined rate from a physical phenomena such as a vibrating atom.
Define synchronization according to an arbitrary bench mark which is the speed of light as quantified over a particular distance. This is to assume time traveled over a path between clocks determines time to equate at the two clocks when the difference is zero and to be different times at the clocks when the differences are not zero. He therefore assumes time at each clock is dependent on light speed and velocity between clocks and never demonstrates that this assumption is correct.
Other problems -
Who is this universal observer who can see the two events at one “time” to enable his example to function? AE does not tell us. Essentially AE is using a psychological trick whereby the reader, who psychologically uses the classical understanding of time, can observe outside his A-B clock example to determined that the time at A and B are the same and that the light ray passes from A to B via the classical laws of time.
Another version of this problem is which observer determines the experiment to have occurred? It cannot be A or B, because they both do not know anything outside the immediate place of A and B. It can only be the third, inferred observer who exists outside the experiment, who must be . . . Albert himself!!! Albert becomes the universal bench mark to determine what a uniform rate is, the relationship between the two clocks, whether the experiment occurred and any definition whatsoever he requires for his new version of time to be determined. Albert becomes the
If a light is emitted from A, how does A know the light is bounced back from B? Really if we are to take AE’s definition of time according to what is known in the “place of the event”, then the event not in that place cannot be timed, for only what occurs at the place of the event can be observed.
As the A-B clock example requires a light particle to be beamed from A to B to A, there is required a causal relationship that has the classical understanding of time as an a-prior assumption. For to have an effect, requires that the cause be at least occurring at the same time or even before the time of the effect. But AE attempts to derive a theory whereby the time is not known in the classical sense, which destroys the cause-effect relationship as measured by time.
As the AB clock experiment requires synchronisation of the clocks to be regulated by the light ray, then the uniform rate of the clocks becomes impossible to establish, for before the light ray hits B and returns to A there is no apriori way to synchronise the clocks at both A and B, without accepting apriori, he classical understanding of time, that it is universal throughout all space. One could attempt to answer this by saying the clock could be synchronised before the experiment by placing A next to B, then moving the two clocks apart. But even with this example, the classical understanding of time is assumed a priori and the light ray regulation becomes irrelevant.
The real conclusion so far is that the AB clock thought experiment fails to establish AE’s new understanding of time without assuming apriori that the classical understanding of time is true. His proof is self defeating and fallacious through implicit contradictions.
Further, the A-B clock experiment is that the experiment arrives at a descriptive definition through the use of empirical sciences of physics (notions such as clock rate, length and speed of light are physical properties used in the thought experiment) and maths. But this has the following problems –
The use of physics arrives at only a descriptive definition of time. But, descriptive definitions can be dependent upon either the proper or common accidentals. If through proper accident, such as quantity of a body, then the descriptive definition is based upon, and only describes observable empirical signs, that are not derived from the essence of the thing being defined. This means that the descriptive definition does not tell us anything about the essence of the thing defined, whereby the essence is not presented to the senses, but can only be known through the intellect via abstraction. In this manner, definitions derived from philosophy, determine the nature of the thing defined from the nature of the philosophical properties that immediately flow out from the underlying essence. The difference between these manners of defining are illustrated below according to the descriptive philosophical manners in which time is defined.
According to natural philosophy we can determine the nature of bodies that must have quantity sealed by primary matter as its cause of individuation of bodies (united with substantial form and being), to cause bodies to exist. From quantity as the foundational accident that resides in substance, we can determine the notions of before and after from location or place that flows from the accident of a body as quantified. Any change or movement can then be measured by a number (which is a mental being), via a relationship towards before and after. This accident as it is a relationship, or a be towards another, is the measure of movement according to before and after, known as time. Time is then defined as numbered movement according to before and after.
In summary, the philosophical definition of time is determined from the following argument.
1. Body is a substance caused from a combination of essence and being. Then,
2. Body is cause from a unity of substantial form (SF as prime principle of determinacy in the order of substance) and primary matter (PM as prime principle of indeterminacy in the order of substance) combined as an essence, plus being. Then
3. Body is caused as it is limited or individuated in the real as SF+PM+be+quantity, whereby quantity is the foundational accident dependent upon substance and through which all other accidents are also dependent.
4. Place is dependent upon quantity and before and after in place, are manners in which location is known in place.
5. Movement is from place to place as it is from before and after.
6. Movement is measured according to before and after via a number, whereby the number is a mental being that has a real relationship to before and after. The number as a measure of movement is founded upon the real, but is of itself a mental being.
7. This accident of numbered movement is known as time, which is determined in the real according to before and after.
8. Therefore time is defined as numbered movement according to before and after.
As a corollary of this definition, because number is of itself a mental being, it is then indifferent to the real, and is independent of any change of rate. As the number cannot be fast or slow, neither time can be fast or slow in the real.
The empirical definition is derived as follows.
We observe some things move with a constant rate. But rate is assigned a number and number is associated with the before and after of the movement occurring in the rate observed. A movement of uniform rate is known as a clock and the quantified movement according to before and after is known as time. Therefore the empirical definition for time is - Numbered movement as measured by a clock according to before and after.
Now if we take an observer distant from a real clock we can then define time as observed relative to the clock according to this manner of defining.
We use the above empirical definition and notice that an observer distant from the clock is dependent for his knowledge of time upon
§ The time or number measured by the clock
§ The distance from the clock
§ The speed of light
§ Velocity between the observer and the clock.
We then say that the observers definition of time, or time as known is - Numbered movement as measured by a clock, as it appears to the observer, who is dependent upon relative velocity, according to before and after. (A corollary of this definition is that the empirical definition is dependent upon the philosophical definition. ) This definition is contracted to read – clock rate observed as it is dependent upon relative velocity. This is close to the definition used by AE, whereby time is derived from the clock and can vary dependent upon the location and relative velocity of the observer.
We now have three definitions whereby the second and third definitions are dependent upon the prior definitions as follows –
1. Numbered movement according to before and after
2. Numbered movement as measured by a clock according to before and after.
3. Clock rate observed, as it is dependent upon relative velocity
We then use a clock experiment like AE’s thought experiment to determine the validity of his assumptions and conclusions and to find the experiment is deficient in several manners, the chief of which is that he confuses 3 with 1 as indicated above.
Under the title of “On the relativity of times and lengths”, synchronous time is then compared to time measured in a moving system. In the stationary frame the rod is of length L where clocks A and B at either end of the rod synchronise according to the equation given above. Then -
[quote] We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time4 tA, let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time t’A. Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that
tB- tA= rAB/(c-v) and t’A- tB = rAB/(c+v)
where rABdenotes the length of the moving rod--measured in the stationary system. Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous. [/quote]
Again this seems like a compelling argument for length contraction/time dilation, yet there is a fallacy in the conclusion, for time is to be understood in two manners according to
1. Time, as measured by the clocks A and B (call this clock face time at Clocks A and B).
2. Time, which is the duration for the light to travel from clock A to B and back again.
The difference between the stationary and moving examples is evidently the time taken for the light to travel between the clocks (duration), which concludes to a mathematical difference of clock synchronisation between the stationary and moving examples. AE’s example, as expected, has the time (duration) differences change as the c+v and c-v are used as denominators in his equation. Yet the problem is that the equation is based on differences in times derived from both clock face time and duration. But clock face time and duration are based on two different realities, the former on the clock face position and the later on the speed of light.
For the moving clocks A and B, the face rate does not change according to the movement of the rod, as the light traveling from clock A to B cannot change the clock speeds. Therefore ontologically the clocks A and B will always be synchronized regardless of the rods speed.
Further, the equation equivocates the two notions of time, which then contradicts the ontological reality that, according to the principle of identity, the duration at both clocks is the same duration for the light to travel between the clocks, yet AE wants us to believe it is different.
Also AE never establishes that clock face rate is associated with rod movement, nor can he possibly do this without equivocation. Another way of putting this is that the clocks A and B measure a uniform rate of motion, whereby the numbers indicated on the clocks have a reference to this rate according to before and after. This rate and the numerical measure of this rate is unaffected by the motion of lack of motion of the clocks, which concludes to the times measured by the clocks are always synchronised regardless of the existence of motion of the rod or not. AE’s synchronisation equation is misleading to say the least, and his use of the equation to later derive equations for time dilation and length contraction ignore the reality of time synchronisation that is independent of the speed of light of motion between clocks.
Later, AE then states
[quote] So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system. [/quote]
This is to be distinguished as follows.
Clocks A and B will always be synchronised ontologically for the rods speed has no ontological effect on the clock rates. The times at A and B will always be simultaneous regardless of a stationary or moving clock. This may be expressed by the following equation to represent ontological simultaneity, which is simply this
tA= tB
Which is always true regardless of the reference frame, and regardless of the velocity of the rod.
However an important point is to be made as well that shows AE has made a correct conclusion in one respect. There is an apparent lack of simultaneity in the clock times due to the clock time differences not coinciding for the examples of stationary and moving rods. Yet this difference is a difference of light speeds only and has no effect on the clock speeds or clock synchronisation. The apparent clock difference is based on the real light speed difference between clocks A and B and is only apparent, based on a visual aberration caused by the varying light speeds. Time however does not ontologically change rate and this is the point both AE and many relativists miss.
Conclusion – The apparent change in time differences cannot be used to demonstrate a real change in rod length as such a change would be ontological. AE thinks he can, so relativity is invalid.
[quote]
Section 3 of ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time. [/quote]
The question arises concerning homogeneity, which we attribute to space and time. If time is homogenous then one wonders how AE will later claim time can dilate?
Later AE establishes a system of coordinates to define the place and time of a system k.
[quote]
If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. We first define as a function of x', y, z, and t. To do this we have to express in equations that is nothing else than the summary of the data of clocks at rest in system k, which have been synchronized according to the rule given in § 1. [/quote]
We’ve already seen above that the equation of synchronisation requires distinctions to be carefully made to allow the real consequences of the equation to be known. We have made the distinction between the notions of time classically understood and the two manners in which AE uses the notion of time. We’ve also seen that the equation was derived based on some errors previously exposed.
Another distinction also needs to be made concerning what it is that defines the coordinate system. The values of x,y and z are mathematical coordinate points that locate a point in place. But as place is a continuum, these coordinates are a manner in which the location of a point within a continuum is to be determined. The fourth term, t, which is a measure of time, is also part of a continuum.
Continuum is distinguished according to the following-
Permanent continuum is where the parts of the continuum coexist, such as a line, surface or volume, which are divisible according to 1, 2 and 3 dimensions respectively. A mathematical continuum is a quantitative continuum, whereby all the quantities, or parts of the continuum are had potentially within the continuum. For example a mathematical continuum of a cube defined by the coordinates to have a 1x1x1m cubed volume, the parts of ½, ¼ and so exist potentially within the cube. As the mathematical continuum is quantitative, its parts are divisible infinitely.
A physical permanent continuum is a continuum had “in the concrete”, where the parts of the continuum coexist, but the parts cannot be divided infinitely. Such as a continuum of steel requires a minimum width, a continuum of water requires a minimum molecule size. A physical permanent continuum has parts that are determined to have a minimum size according to natural minima derived from the physical property of quality of the substance, whereby the minima parts are distinguished according to parts had according to different modes.
For example, parts exist in the continuum, yet the parts exist in different modes according to location, some existing within the continuum, while others located at the termination or end of the continuum. The physical permanent continuum exists in act as a whole, with its parts existing in potency, whereby parts of the whole exist through division of the whole. Such a continuum in the real is a natural extended body, which determines that the physical permanent continuum can only be of three dimensions (and no more or less).
The mathematical continuum is an abstract continuum whereby the dimensions had as directly represent dimensions had in the real. Mathematical continuums consist of lines, surfaces and volumes, that reflect edges, surfaces and solid bodies respectively had in the concrete. The mathematical continuum may consist of one, two or three dimensions when directly representing the real. The dimensions quantified directly represent the dimensions known through imagination. For example, a cube of 1m3 is a quantity containing quantified lengths, breadths and heights that directly represent the lengths, breadths and heights had in a real cube of say marble.
There is also another mode of mathematical continuum whereby the dimensions as quantified only indirectly represent the dimensions known through imagination, and in this mode of continuum, there can be any number of dimensions. Such mathematical continuums are later used in relativity by others such as Minkowski.
AE’s example uses four coordinates of x,y,z and t. Coordinates x,y and z are used to locate parts within a permanent mathematical continuum and t is used to determine the time at which the event occurs within a fluid continuum. As the theory now proposed involves the mixing of two contrary continuums, AE should have demonstrated how these can be harmonised from the very natures of continuum, place, and time.
We note that he does not do this, which shows he does not understand the nature of the continuum and from this error, he arrives at a notion called the space-time continuum that contains several contradictions such as
1. A continuum that contains both permanent parts (space) and non permanent parts (time).
2. A continuum that contains quantities that are derived from lengths and not from lengths (quantities of time are derived from movement).
3. A continuum that contains quantities that are local (non universal length) and quantities that are universal (the common number assigned to universal time).
4. A continuum that contains quantities that can change, such as length and position, with quantities then cannot change according to a universal rate as determined from the nature of time.
5. A continuum when applied in the real has parts in bodies that cannot be divided infinitely due to a natural minima of bodies, and parts in time that can be divided infinitely according to the nature of number as a measure of time.
There is also the problem the continuum contains several contrary notions of time, such as universal time, clock rate and duration. Also in his theory above, he uses time, t, as a clock time or a variable to define a coordinate system, which he intends to use to derive maths equations to establish his theory. But as maths is indifferent to existence in the real, the variable t, needed to firstly be established from the definition of time and not from its measure according to a clock. This error also permeates his theory.
There is a side note also as follows - The lack of knowledge concerning the notion of continuum within the science community has shown that the notions of a mathematical continuum and a physical continuum are routinely mixed up. A mathematical continuum may be valid according to it numerical derivation (relativity is not this), and yet it can be misunderstood to reflect of indicate the existence of a real physical continuum. Relativists consistently exchange the former for the later, which is the non sequitur fallacy.
Conclusion -
It is very evident from the many errors so far encountered with the derivation of the theory of relativity, that the theory is fundamentally flawed in many ways and can never be reconciled with reality. Therefore, relativity theory needs to be abandoned by science and in its place, a new theory be substituted, based on the reality of moderate realist philosophy, scientific facts obtained through observation and the God revealed cosmology of geocentrism.
Comments continued concerning Alberts document - ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
A mathematical consequence of AE’s version of time.
We have shown that there are innumerable problems with the time synchronisation thought experiment that AE uses to develop his theory of relativity. For his experiment to be valid it has to
1. Assume time is universal, absolute and uniform, and
2. His experiment then only works for the stationary scenario
Which concludes to an equation where t’=t. But this removes all his transforms to nothing and reduces his theory to that of the classical physics of Newton.
For AE’s times determined from his A-B clock thought experiment, the two clocks are simultaneous when at rest in K’
t’A- tB = tB- tA –(1)
Using this definition of time as
Time is that which is regulates distant clocks by light rays
He arrives at equations 2 and 3, when moving at v in K relative to K’, AE arrives at the following-
tB- tA = AB/ (c-v’) (2)
t’A - tB=AB/(c+v’) (3)
Where c is the velocity of light. Equations 2 and 3 do not satisfy 1 and consequently as we have already seen on another post
[quote]
So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system. [/quote]
Later in section 5 § 5. The Composition of Velocities, he examines the situation whereby two systems moved relative to each other, one with velocity w and the other u, The velocity of one system relative to the other is then, when moving in the same direction according to x’=w+u and according to x’’=w-u, he arrives at the equations
x’= (w+u)/(1+(uw’)/c2) (4)
x’’= (w-u)/(1-(uw’)/c2) (5)
Using AE’s own equations 4 and 5 where w=c and u=v then
x’= (c+v)/(1+(vc)/c2) (6)
x’’= (c-v)/(1-(vc)/c2) (7)
which reduce to
x’= c (8)
x’’= c (9)
And substituting back into equations 4 and 5 we conclude to
t’A- tB = tB- tA (10)
Which is the same equation as 1 above. We see that from AE’s definition of time and synchronisation, that when times are synchronous in one reference (inertial) frame, they are synchronous with all other reference (inertial) frames, which is an absolute. But this is contradictory to his theory, where he says “we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity”, which and shows relativity to be in error. Therefore using AE’s own principles, relativity is invalidated.
Comments continued concerning Alberts document - ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
Another invalidation of Relativity
The classical understanding of time has units by which the number of time is to be measured, which is typically seconds or a variation thereof such as 60 seconds equals a minute. This unit of measure is to be understood as universal and absolute. However, AE’s understanding of time we can ask what is the common unit for time calculation?
From AE’s A-B clock thought experiment, each clock is measured by each observer, independently of any other clock. As each clock runs independently of any other clock, there can be no common time unit.
AE briefly infers a reference to time unit where he says immediately before he presents his clock experiment
[quote] But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought [/quote]
The phrase “as we know from experience” means he is using an example that is foundational to his theory, whereby time is known independently of any other clock.
Now an equation is developed whereby a light ray is moved from A to B and then back to A which equates to
2AB/(t’A - t’A) = c (1)
Which is universal constant whereby his clock experiment could occur at any point in the universe, therefore his equation must also hold true throughout the universe. (Which in itself is an absolute and which contradicts his understanding that time synchronisation cannot be understood in any absolute manner).
With the above equation (1), a question comes to mind – what are the units to be used for t and t’? To answer this we need to see that AE’s clock example assumes that in a stationary frame, the light speed has a constant value derived or at least implied by the equation
c=d/time (2)
where d is the distance between clocks A and B. From AE’s clock example which is given below for reference
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. 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'' tA from A towards B, let it at the ``B time'' tB 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
tB - tA = t’A- tB (3)
But this equation that AE uses to define time can only be true if the light ray has the same properties it had from A as it has from B. But if the time unit between A and B changes then the light ray has different properties between A and B that it has from B to A, which means that the light ray from A to B is not the same as the light ray from B to A. To vary time according to t and t’ then breaches the principle of identity that says the above equation (2) requires the units of time for A to B to be the same from B to A.
Or according to equations for light speed from A to B
c=d/time A-B (4)
where d is the distance from A to B and time A-B is the time taken from A to B which has units determined from clock A. We can assume the time units from A are A-seconds for the sake of clarity.
The equation for light speed from B to A is
c=d/time B-A (5)
where d is the distance from A to B and time A-B is the time taken from A to B which has units determined from clock B. We can assume the time units from A are B-seconds for the sake of clarity.
But as the units of A-seconds are not B-seconds, then light from A to B is not the same light from B to A. But the units in the equation three given below according to
tB - tA = t’A- tB (3)
require the units of time at A and B to be the same, otherwise equation 3 becomes a meaningless bundle of numbers, each with different units. It would be like saying the time frame A-B is 10 seconds and from B-A is 12 quasi seconds, where seconds and quasi seconds have no relationship to each other, because each unit is determined by clocks A and B independently of each other.
As relativity breaches the laws of causation and makes the fundamental equations of relativity meaningless, relativity is invalidated.
A secondary conclusion of this invalidation is that the statement – light has a speed of 300,000km/s is meaningless.
Comments continued concerning Alberts document - ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
The classical understanding of time has units by which the number of time is to be measured, which is typically seconds or a variation thereof such as 60 seconds equals a minute. This unit of measure is to be understood as universal and absolute. However, AE’s understanding of time we can ask what is the common unit for time calculation?
From AE’s A-B clock thought experiment, each clock is measured by each observer, independently of any other clock. As each clock runs independently of any other clock, there can be no common time unit.
AE briefly infers a reference to time unit where he says immediately before he presents his clock experiment
The phrase “as we know from experience” means he is using an example that is foundational to his theory, whereby time is known independently of any other clock.
Now an equation is developed whereby a light ray is moved from A to B and then back to A which equates to
2AB/(t’A - t’A) = c (1)
Which is universal constant whereby his clock experiment could occur at any point in the universe, therefore his equation must also hold true throughout the universe. (Which in itself is an absolute and which contradicts his understanding that time synchronisation cannot be understood in any absolute manner).
With the above equation (1), a question comes to mind – what are the units to be used for t and t’? To answer this we need to see that AE’s clock example assumes that in a stationary frame, the light speed has a constant value derived or at least implied by the equation
c=d/time (2)
where d is the distance between clocks A and B. From AE’s clock example which is given below for reference
But this equation that AE uses to define time can only be true if the light ray has the same properties it had from A as it has from B. But if the time unit between A and B changes then the light ray has different properties between A and B that it has from B to A, which means that the light ray from A to B is not the same as the light ray from B to A. To vary time according to t and t’ then breaches the principle of identity that says the above equation (2) requires the units of time for A to B to be the same from B to A.
Or according to equations for light speed from A to B
c=d/time A-B (4)
where d is the distance from A to B and time A-B is the time taken from A to B which has units determined from clock A. We can assume the time units from A are A-seconds for the sake of clarity.
The equation for light speed from B to A is
c=d/time B-A (5)
where d is the distance from A to B and time A-B is the time taken from A to B which has units determined from clock B. We can assume the time units from A are B-seconds for the sake of clarity.
But as the units of A-seconds are not B-seconds, then light from A to B is not the same light from B to A. But the units in the equation three given below according to
tB - tA = t’A- tB (3)
require the units of time at A and B to be the same, otherwise equation 3 becomes a meaningless bundle of numbers, each with different units. It would be like saying the time frame A-B is 10 seconds and from B-A is 12 quasi seconds, where seconds and quasi seconds have no relationship to each other, because each unit is determined by clocks A and B independently of each other.
As relativity breaches the laws of causation and makes the fundamental equations of relativity meaningless, relativity is invalidated.
A secondary conclusion of this invalidation is that the statement – light has a speed of 300,000km/s is meaningless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further conclusions regarding the A-B clock experiment
1. The time unit is unknowable
2. The light ray outside the vicinity of either A or B is unknowable to A or B, making the light ray inconceivable along the flight path between A and B.
3. As the time constantly changes between A and B, or time between A and B is unknown to either A or B, then an equation for the flight path between A and B in not possible to derive with any real meaning.
4. The constant velocity of light applies only to the observers in their own immediate reference frame, meaning that the light velocity is unknown from one reference frame to the other.
5. As the time unit is unknowable, then relativity invalidates the famous equation E=mc2, but this equation has been validated, so relativity is invalidated.
