Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672230

Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized.

Show all headers | View raw

HenryWilson wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 17 Aug 26 23:22:15 +0000, Python wrote:
> 
> > Le 18/08/2026 à 01:15, Henry Wilson a écrit :
> >
> >
> > He is relating the readings of two synchronized clocks.
> >
> > He is not claiming that one clock simultaneously advances by two
> > different amounts.
> >
> > Your question
> >
> >     "Does clock A advance by one amount or by two different amounts?"
> >
> > therefore has a simple answer.
> >
> > Clock A advances by exactly one amount:
> >
> 
> >
> >     "another reading of clock A".
> >
> > Those are different physical quantities.
> >
> > Once that substitution is made, the paradox is created artificially.
> >
> > Notice that Einstein's entire Section 1 is devoted to defining what it
> > means for spatially separated clocks to be synchronized.
> >
> > If there were only one clock A, there would be no synchronization
> > problem to solve, and Section 1 would be almost pointless.
> >
> > Your interpretation effectively removes clock B from Einstein's
> > construction, while continuing to use the symbol tB as if it were
> > another reading of clock A.
> >
> > That is not what Einstein wrote.
> 
> I think the reason for your inability to understand the paradox is that
> Einstein did not describe his experiment very well. A principle feature
> was that clocks A and B were synchronized with the stationary C clocks and
> were therefore deemed to be correctly synchronized in the stationary
> frame.
> 
> So, after generating equation3, ...showing that the opposite travel times
> were different, the stationary observer could confidently assume that the
> reading on any stationary clock C advanced by two different numbers during
> the opposite transits. Since clock A behaved identically, its readings did
> the same. Meanwhile the moving observer had no difficulty in claiming that
> clock A's corresponding readings must be identical numbers.


This is not physics; it’s a confused amateur word salad that collapses
under the first application of Lorentz transformation and reveals total
ignorance of what Einstein actually wrote.


    You invent a non-existent “equation 3” and then pretend it settles
the issue.
    Einstein’s 1905 paper never produces “opposite travel times” that a
stationary observer can simply read off as different advances on
co-moving clocks while a moving observer magically declares them
identical. The light-signal synchronization procedure already forces the
one-way times to be equal by definition in each inertial frame. Your
claim that the stationary observer “confidently assumes” different
numbers is pure fiction; the math shows the coordinate times differ
precisely because the clocks are desynchronized in the other frame.
    “Clock A behaved identically” is an empty slogan.
    Identical to what? In which metric? Proper time along A’s world-line
is invariant; coordinate time is not. You switch between them without
ever writing a single interval \(ds^2 = -c^2 dt^2 + dx^2\). That switch
is the entire content of the “paradox,” and you paper over it with the
phrase “behaved identically.”
    You treat synchronization as a one-time event that survives a change
of frame.
    Once clocks A and B are synchronized with the C-network in the lab
frame, they are not synchronized in the moving frame. The relativity of
simultaneity is not an optional interpretive layer; it is the direct
geometric consequence of the invariance of (c). Your entire argument
presupposes that the synchronization relation is frame-independent—an
assumption Einstein explicitly discards on page 2 of the paper.
    The moving observer does not “claim” the readings are identical
numbers; the Lorentz transformation requires it.
    When the same pair of events is described in the primed coordinates,
the time stamps on A differ by \(\gamma(1-v/c)\) factors that exactly
cancel the apparent asymmetry. Your text treats this cancellation as a
psychological preference of the moving observer rather than a coordinate
fact. That is not an argument; it is anthropomorphism of the Minkowski
metric.
    No calculation is ever performed.
    You gesture at “generating equation 3” and then leap to conclusions
about readings. Without the explicit transformation
    \[ t' = \gamma\left(t - \frac{vx}{c^2}\right), \]
    every subsequent sentence is free-floating rhetoric.


You silently assume that “correctly synchronized in the stationary
frame” remains meaningful after a boost. You assume that proper-time
increments on a single clock can be compared across spatially separated
events without a simultaneity convention. You assume Einstein’s
description was incomplete rather than that your reading of it is
incomplete. None of these are stated; all are load-bearing.


Anyone who has actually graded relativity exams has seen this exact
pattern: students who cannot write the Lorentz transformation invent
narrative work-arounds that let them keep absolute simultaneity while
still mouthing the words “relativity.” The incentive is to avoid the
discomfort of discarding Newtonian time. Peer review, textbook authors,
and every working physicist have zero incentive to entertain the
workaround because it predicts the wrong radar-echo delays, the wrong
muon lifetimes, and the wrong GPS corrections.


At laboratory speeds the effect is already measurable (Hafele–Keating,
muon storage rings). At \(v = 0.6c\) the desynchronization term
\(vx/c^2\) is tens of percent of the light-travel time across any
macroscopic baseline. Your story predicts that both observers should see
symmetric clock advances; the actual null results of one-way light-speed
experiments and the asymmetric aging of clocks on aircraft falsify that
prediction at the level of parts in \(10^{12}\). The idea does not
survive contact with a single GPS satellite.


The entire conceptual scaffolding—treating synchronization as
frame-invariant, equating “identical behavior” with identical coordinate
readings, and substituting verbal narrative for the Lorentz
transformation—must be discarded. Nothing is salvageable by minor
clarification; the premises are the error.


Nothing. The text contains no correct quantitative statement, no valid
inference, and no recognition of the actual geometry.


You have not resolved a paradox; you have demonstrated that you never
understood the postulate that made the paradox inevitable.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HGW <henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 06:55 +0000
  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 07:08 +0000
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 09:28 +0200
      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 07:36 +0000
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 09:41 +0200
          Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 07:42 +0000
            Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 09:50 +0200
              Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 07:52 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:03 +0200
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 08:04 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:07 +0200
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 08:11 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:17 +0200
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 08:18 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:26 +0200
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 08:30 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:33 +0200
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 10:54 +0200
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HGW <henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 09:28 +0000
      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 12:45 +0200
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 13:03 +0200
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 13:04 +0200
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 12:00 +0000
          Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-18 17:55 +0200
            Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 18:24 +0000
              Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-18 12:36 -0700
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 23:58 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-18 22:39 -0700
              Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-18 23:15 +0200
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 23:45 +0000
      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 15:04 +0000
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 23:15 +0000
          Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 23:22 +0000
            Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 01:10 +0000
            Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 18:49 +0000
              Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-18 22:51 -0700
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 12:11 +0000
  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 10:54 +0200
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HGW <henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 09:45 +0000
      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 12:45 +0200
  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-08-18 02:47 +0200
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 01:32 +0000
  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-18 11:56 +0200
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 12:14 +0200
  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-08-18 12:45 +0200

csiph-web