Page **1** of **2**

### Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2020 8:33 am**

by **crawler**

Einstein said that events measured to be simultaneous in one inertial frame of reference cant be measured to be simultaneous in another inertial frame (if c is isotropic in all frames)(which we know it aint).

However Einstein is wrong, i mean wrong within his own theory. It seems to me that for frames moving along their xx axis any & all simultaneous events that are located in their yz plane will be simultaneous in the yz plane of every other frame moving along that xx axis, because all such events have the same xx coordinate (in each frame), & Einstein's length contraction & time dilation only apply if the relative xx distance is not zero.

In other words clocks in the yz plane of every frame once they are synchronised they remain synchronised for all time no matter what the speeds along the xx axis.

### Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2020 8:43 am**

by **paladin17**

An invariant quantity (under Lorentz transformations) in SR is spacetime interval. It includes squares of all coordinates (including time). Ergo, during the transformation even if only one coordinate changes, time also changes.

### Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:46 am**

by **crawler**

paladin17 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 8:43 am

An invariant quantity (under Lorentz transformations) in SR is spacetime interval. It includes squares of all coordinates (including time). Ergo, during the transformation even if only one coordinate changes, time also changes.

If i understand. In STR there is no transformation ever needed between points or events sitting in any yz plane (ie distance wise or time wise), therefore there is never any such time dilation in a yz plane.

### Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:51 am**

by **paladin17**

crawler wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:46 am

paladin17 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 8:43 am

An invariant quantity (under Lorentz transformations) in SR is spacetime interval. It includes squares of all coordinates (including time). Ergo, during the transformation even if only one coordinate changes, time also changes.

If i understand. In STR there is no transformation ever needed between points or events sitting in any yz plane (ie distance wise or time wise), therefore there is never any such time dilation in a yz plane.

Transformations apply between frames of reference, not points or events.

### Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:16 am**

by **crawler**

paladin17 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:51 am

crawler wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:46 am

paladin17 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 8:43 am

An invariant quantity (under Lorentz transformations) in SR is spacetime interval. It includes squares of all coordinates (including time). Ergo, during the transformation even if only one coordinate changes, time also changes.

If i understand. In STR there is no transformation ever needed between points or events sitting in any yz plane (ie distance wise or time wise), therefore there is never any such time dilation in a yz plane.

Transformations apply between frames of reference, not points or events.

Yes, so i daresay that a simultaneous pair of events at (0, 1,0) & (0,2,0) in a "stationary frame" (there is no such thing, but u know what i mean) will also be found to be simultaneous ........

(a) in every other frame moving with any uniform speed along a common xx axis, &

(b) in every other such frame having a yy offset but parallel xx axis, &

(c) including in (b) frames having a zz offset (upwards or downwards), &

(d) in every such frame as in (a)(b)(c) but with a non-uniform xx speed.

Actually wiki does accommodate that situation...

*According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space. If one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to the two events (the only exception being when motion is exactly perpendicular to the line connecting the locations of both events). *
But i don't know whether Einstein ever pointed that out.

### Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:43 am**

by **crawler**

But here above we have collided with another problem for Einstein.

Using Einstein's clock synchronisation method Einstein should have derived a yy-gamma for width contraction (& for zz height contraction), as well as yy time dilation (& zz time dilation).

His xx Lorentz gamma synchronisation involved a light signal from clock A to B, reflecting back to A, & using c-v & c+v in the equation.

Why didn’t Einstein do a similar synchronisation using a light signal from clock A to clock Y along a yy direction, which would give an equation based on the difference tween light going directly out & back along yy at speed c in frame k & light going out & back along an xy diagonal at speed c in the stationary frame K, ie it would involve the square root of cc + vv.

This yy gamma would be a little weaker than the standard xx Lorentz gamma, but would have the same sense. And it would apply even *when motion is exactly perpendicular*.

Einstein's postulates & principles & methodology invoked for his version of the longitudinal Lorentz gamma must also yield a transverse Crawler gamma. I have never seen this mentioned.

It would give a vector of time. My brain is starting to hurt.

So, why didn't Einstein consider two flashes of lightning hitting the near side & far side of a carriage?

And two flashes hitting the roof & floor?

I have never seen this mentioned.

### Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:40 am**

by **crawler**

We have an observer M' at midpoint on a train moving at V kmps (system k').

Lightning flashes hit both ends of the train simultaneously (front F')(rear R').

M' sees that the flashes are simultaneous.

Observer M is standing on the platform in the stationary system K, & is standing next to M' when both M & M' see the flashes at that instant, & the flashes appear simultaneous to both M & M'.

M confers with observers R & F. Clock R & clock F show that the two flashes happened at the same time in K.

M' confers with R' & F', & clock R' & clock F' show that the two flashes happened at the same time in system k'.

Thusly the two flashes were seen & timed to be simultaneous in two systems, contrary to Einstein's STR principle that events timed as being simultaneous in one inertial system cant be timed as being simultaneous in any other inertial system.

Einsteinians will of course claim that, from the view of observers in K, clock R' is not synchronous with F'.

Einsteinians will claim that, using light signals from R' reflecting from F' back to R', to synchronise R' & F', will result in clock F' being slightly delayed compared to clock R', from the viewpoint of observers in the stationary system K, the synchronisation being carried out in the moving system k'.

And Einsteinians will claim that using light signals from F' reflecting from R' etc will result in clock R' being slightly advanced (ie the same result as for R' to F').

And that using a light signal from M' to R', in combination with a light signal from M' to F', gives the same result.

Hencely Einsteinians will claim that, whereas occasionally two events might be visually simultaneous in more than one system (due to the extra delay for light reaching the eye from the more distant event), two events cant be timed as being simultaneous in more than one system.

Except of course for simultaneous events located in the yy or zz directions (ie in the yz plane), which Einsteinians must say will always be found (timed) to be simultaneous in every system (as mentioned by me in a previous posting)(& which was never mentioned by Einstein)(Einstein didn’t mention it because it wasn’t ever mentioned by Voigt, nor by Cohn)(& hencely when Einstein plagiarised Voigt & Cohn he didn’t have the wit to figure it out himself).

Except of course that events in the yz plane are affected by the zy-gamma which i explained in my previous posting.

But there is no need for observers in k' to synchronise their clocks whilst moving, or whilst moving past K.

The clocks in system k' could easily have been synchronised when stationary in system K when the train was stationary at say the previous station, or when stationary a year ago (ignoring the Earth's orbit & spin etc). Because perfect clocks synchronised in an inertial system remain synchronised for ever (ignoring nearby mass). And this eternal synchronisation is not affected if the train accelerates or goes in circles etc, as long as all clocks on the train suffer the same history.

Therefore the whole of Einstein's silly derivation of his version of the Lorentz gamma doesn't get to first base, if the clocks that are now in system k' were synchronised whilst stationary (ie whilst in system K) at any earlier date (or at any later date if u like).

### Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2020 2:52 am**

by **crawler**

Further to above. What if the clocks on the moving train in system k' are synchronised by the slow transport of two clocks S1' & S2' synchronised with clock M' whilst sitting at M'. S1' is moved slowly to R' & gives its time to R', & slowly back to M' where it compares its time with M'.

Lets accept that there will be a difference in time when S1' is back at M', ie the speed of transport slows the ticking of S1'. This slowing might be due to the Lorentzian gamma, ie it might be in accord with the Larmor/Poincare equation, or it might be in accord with a different theory & different equations (which is my belief). The exact theory & equation etc is not very important. All theories will i think agree that the slower the transport then the lesser the error.

Anyhow, this difference in time is halved & R' is then advised of the need for a correction, ie clock R' needs to be advanced by that halved amount, compared to the time transferred to R' during S1's transport. Likewise for S2' going to F' & back.

This slow transport method is i think simpler than Einstein's light signal method. Although i suppose that in a thought experiment simplicity doesn't much matter.

However Einsteinians are likely to say that from K's stationary view the speed of S1' in k' is V-v when going to R' & V+v when going back to M', & that the time difference cant be simply halved.

Here Einsteinians would be correct. The exact effect of any such V-v or V+v would depend on the theory, ie on their STR theory, or perhaps aether theory (my preference), or something. But in any case i reckon that slow transport is ok, & halving is ok (most references to slow transport don’t bother with any correction of that halving kind at all)(they are content with a simple one-way transport, albeit very slowly).

Anyhow, using slow transport synchronisation in the moving system k' would mean that the whole of Einstein's silly derivation of his version of the Lorentz gamma doesn't get to first base. His derivation involves two lightning flashes & moving train -- but more critically it involves his silly light signal method of synchronisation, it is this that gives us his STR.

In addition, slow transport could be used to synchronise clocks in the stationary system K, instead of Einstein's light signals (which has a built-in bias in the real world).

If there is an aether & an aetherwind then Einstein's light signal method guarantees that in the real world there will be a big error in clock synchronisation in any & all inertial systems. And depending on the methodology there is a risk that this automatic error will (once again) make a road that is merely another version of his quirky math-trick that once again leads to an Einsteinian version of the Lorentz gamma, or very nearly.

### Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:01 am**

by **crawler**

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES – 1905 -- Einstein said that…

*.........If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be tvv/2cc second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock [7] at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions........ *

[7] Not a pendulum-clock, which is physically a system to which the Earth belongs. This case had to be excluded.

[7] was added by the English editor. [7] aint in the original German……….

*……..Man schlieBt daraus, daB eine am Erdaquator befindliche Unruhuhr urn einen sehr kleinen Betrag langsamer laufen mu6 als eine genau gleich beschaffene, sonst gleichen Bedingungen unterworfene, an einem Erdpole befindliche Uhr………*

Why did Einstein specify a balance-clock?

Did the editor think that a pendulum clock wouldn’t go slower at the Equator?

The two synchronous clocks at A can i think be any kind of clock, including a pendulum clock, because all moving clocks (according to Einstein's STR) lose time compared to all stationary clocks. Then at the last second Einstein feels the need to restrict his Equator/Pole Thought-X to a balance-clock only. Why?

I think that Einstein wanted to exclude gravity. Back in 1905 Einstein knew that a pendulum clock was affected by Earth's gravity g, ie by altitude, & he didn’t want that to complicate his Thought-X.

Nowadays this Thought-X is usually interpreted as being carried out at a theoretical sea level, ie on Earth's geoid, hencely pendulum clocks are back in the game.

In fact the geoid has g=9.780 at sea level at Equator, & 9.832 at sea level at the Poles, ie ) 0.5% more at Equator. Therefore the slowing of a pendulum would be even more so at the Equator. Which confirms that Einstein was correct in restricting his Thought-X to balance-clocks, because that would emphasise his "moving clocks run slower" theory.

But nowadays we know (from Einstein's GTR)(& proven by Shapiro Delay) that the speed of light is affected by the presence of mass (ie by gravitational potential). Therefore, for various reasons (which i wont go into), the ticking of stationary clocks & moving clocks can be affected by the presence of mass. But Einstein didn’t know of this in 1905.

### Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:10 am**

by **crawler**

**What kinds of clocks did Einstein use in his STR? **

He didn’t say, i think he was happy to use any kinds, makes & sizes, as long as they kept perfect time when stationary. And if they kept perfect time when stationary then they would be ok for when moving, after all, his equations principles & postulates etc, & his light signal method of synchronisation, do not have any variables or constants relating to kind make or size of clock.

Some authors say that Einstein's time dilation (in STR) has nothing to do with time, it has to do with ticking, in particular the rate of ticking of clocks when stationary compared to when moving.

Some authors say that STR is not about any kind of real time or even real ticking, it is about apparent time or apparent ticking.

Anyhow re Einstein's clocks they were/are all wrong.

Larmor's time dilation might be ok. He referred to the affect of V on the electromagnetic forces & orbits in electrons & of electrons or something. I haven’t studied Larmor's stuff but i suspect that his ideas related to atomic clocks, & we know that atomic clocks behave ok in relation to Earth's gravity (GTR) & almost ok in relation to satellite orbital V (GTR & STR). But Einstein is wrong re the roll of clocks in his STR.

Apart from atomic clocks, the ticking of a clock does not change in accordance with the Lorentz gamma when a clock changes velocity.

Velocity affects the real dimensions of clocks, & thusly a change in dimension can affect the ticking.

But the change in ticking will depend of the rolls of the three dimensions (L W H) in the equation for ticking for that clock. And every kind of clock will have a different equation. And every equation will depend on the orientation of the clock.

For example, look at a system k' moving along the xx axis, & k' has many balance-clocks along the xx axis. If they were all standing upright in the yz plane, ie with their faces facing their destination, then the clocks would all be thinner (in the xx plane) than when stationary, but their diameters (in the yz plane) would be the same as when stationary (according to STR), in which case i feel sure that the equation for their ticking would tell us that in that orientation their ticking is not affected by any change in xx speed.

Atomic clocks might be affected by speed, ie orientation might not be critical, but that would depend on the exact design etc. I think that some atomic clocks have a defined fixed plane of vibration or something, in which case their ticking (when moving) might be affected by orientation.

But getting back to our balance-clocks moving along in system k'. If these clocks are drawn orientated in the standard fashion, ie all standing in the xx plane, facing the reader (ie the reader sees them as being circular), then in fact due to xx contraction they will be elliptic, & should be drawn elliptic.

I don’t know the equation of ticking for a balance-clock, but xx contraction would i think give the drive wheel a lesser inertia, whilst giving the spring more stiffness, giving the elliptic clock a faster rate of ticking as speed increases. The opposite of what Einstein reckons with his silly STR.

### Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:25 am**

by **crawler**

Crothers says that Einstein only ever mentions one clock in the moving system k', & only ever shows this lonesome clock at the origin x=0 (where it shows the same time as the stationary K clock at x=0), because Einstein knew that a proper application of the Lorentz transform requires that k' clocks at x=1, 2, 3 etc must show

delays of say 7.5, 15, 22.5 sec, whilst all of the corresponding K clocks as usual show t=0 sec (ie their second hand is vertical), whilst Einstein's light signal synchronisation method & his STR requires thems k' clocks to show

advances of 7.5, 15, 22.5 sec.

And it gets worse. A proper application of the Lorentz transform requires that k' clocks at x=-1 & x=-2 & x=-3 etc must show

advances of 7.5, 15, 22.5 sec, whilst all of the corresponding K clocks show t=0 sec, whilst Einstein's light signal synchronisation method & his STR requires thems k' clocks to show

delays of 7.5, 15, 22.5 sec.

Engelhardt explained that Einstein invoked a third postulate, when Einstein wrote...

*.........We assume that this definition of synchronisation is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:--........*

Engelhardt wrote.....

*...... we found that his 'third postulate' ..... cannot be satisfied........ by the Lorentz transformation........ Einstein resolved this problem by sketching only a single clock in the moving system.*
Crothers wrote that......

*........ Einstein defined time by means of his clocks. However clocks do not define time....... By defining time by means of his clocks, Einstein detached time from reality.*

.... I investigate Einstein's tacit assumption and prove that it is false by firstly explicitly constructing a system of stationary observers consistent with Lorentz Transformation, proving that these observers cannot be clock-synchronised. I then explicitly constructed a system of clock-synchronised observers consistent with Lorentz Transformation, proving that these observers cannot all be stationary. Therefore Einstein's tacit assumption is proven false, rendering his theory logically inconsistent and therefore invalid.......

....... I proved there that systems of stationary observers consistent with the Lorentz Transformation observe length extension, not length contraction.......

..... Thus the moving rod is longer than the stationary rod.......
Reply to 'Critical comments on the Paper "On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity" ' – Stephen J Crothers – 2018.

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinfo ... erid=85392
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/JAMP_2018062015031505.pdf
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/C ... a9636fa044
viXra 105 papers by Stephen J Crothers, many concerning Einstein's STR & spacetime.

https://vixra.org/author/stephen_j_crothers
In particular i like……

Galilean and Einsteinian Observers – 2017 – Stephen J Crothers.

https://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0150v1.pdf
Stephen J Crothers – On the Logical Inconsistency of Einstein's Length Contraction – 2017.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c55f/0 ... 1577326532
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d76c/3 ... 1577326532
Stephen J Crothers – On Einstein's Time Dilation and Length Contraction – 2017.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e619/2 ... 1577326532
Stephen J Crothers – Einstein's Anomalous Clock Synchronisation – 2017.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1208/0 ... 1577326532
Also i like Engelhardt's papers………

W W Engelhardt – Einstein's Third Postulate.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/WW ... ion_detail
W W Engelhardt – On the Origin of the Lorentz Transformation.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5309
https://ijsrm.humanjournals.com/on-the- ... formation/
http://ijsrm.humanjournals.com/wp-conte ... lhardt.pdf

### Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:13 pm**

by **crawler**

email from Stephen Crothers to University of Pennsylvania: Regarding the University's propaganda re......

*Where math meets physics.*

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/where- ... hvQpwN2WrY

“I think we are ahead of the curve, and I think we’ll stay ahead of the curve.” Pantev

“A physicist comes to us, asks, ‘How do you prove that this is true?’ and we immediately show them it’s false,” says mathematician Ron Donagi.

[Crothers says]...

The evidence says otherwise. Here is a simple counter-example.

Consider Einstein's expanding spherical wave of light (1905). With c = 1 and v = 0.9 the projection of Einstein's spherical wave of light in the x-y plane is a circle with the equation:

x^2 + y^2 = c^2t^2 = t^2

and the Lorentz transformation is (beta = 2.294):

x' = 2.294(x - 0.9t)

t' = 2.294(t - 0.9x)

y' = y

Set t = 1, then

x^2 + y^2 = 1

and the Lorentz transformation is:

x' = 2.294(x - 0.9)

t' = 2.294(1 - 0.9x)

y' = y

Transform the (x,y) points (1,0), (0,1), (-1,0), (0,-1) to get the corresponding (x',y') points and associated times t', thus:

(1,0) gives (x' = 0.229, y' = 0), t' = 0.229

(0,1) gives (x' = -2.065, y' = 1), t' = 2.294

(-1,0) gives (x' = -4.359, y' = 0), t' = 4.359

(0,-1) gives (x' = -2.065, y' = -1), t' = 2.294

The (x',y') points above describe an ellipse, not a circle. Now using the corresponding times t' for each x' confirm that x'^2 + y'^2 = c'^2t'^2 = t'^2 (since c = 1). Thus, the Theorem of Pythagoras is form-invariant under Lorentz transformation, but Einstein's circle is not mapped to a circle, but to an ellipse, hence his spherical wave of light mapped to an ellipsoidal wave of light. So Einstein's argument that x^2+y^2+z^2=c^2t^2 under Lorentz transformation is x'^2+y'^2+z'^2=c^2t'^2 means form-invariance of his spherical wave of light, is false. Therefore his Theory of Relativity is false.

The full analytic proof is here:

Crothers, S.J., Special Relativity and the Lorentz Sphere, Physics Essays, V.33, No.1, p.15, 2020,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1911.0013v2.pdf
Here are two more very simple counter-examples:

Crothers, S.J., Einstein's Pseudotensor - a Meaningless Concoction of Mathematical Symbols,

http://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0499v1.pdf
Crothers, S.J., The Landau-Lifshitz Pseudotensor - Another Meaningless Concoction of Mathematical Symbols,

http://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0531v1.pdf

### Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:07 am**

by **crawler**

crawler wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:43 am

here above we have collided with another problem for Einstein.

Using Einstein's clock synchronisation method Einstein should have derived a yy-gamma for width contraction (& for zz height contraction), as well as yy time dilation (& zz time dilation).

His xx Lorentz gamma synchronisation involved a light signal from clock A to B, reflecting back to A, & using c-v & c+v in the equation.

Why didn’t Einstein do a similar synchronisation using a light signal from clock A to clock Y along a yy direction, which would give an equation based on the difference tween light going directly out & back along yy at speed c in frame k & light going out & back along an xy diagonal at speed c in the stationary frame K, ie it would involve the square root of cc + vv.
This yy gamma would be a little weaker than the standard xx Lorentz gamma, but would have the same sense. And it would apply even

*when motion is exactly perpendicular*.

Einstein's postulates & principles & methodology invoked for his version of the longitudinal Lorentz gamma must also yield a transverse Crawler gamma. I have never seen this mentioned.

It would give a vector of time. My brain is starting to hurt.

So, why didn't Einstein consider two flashes of lightning hitting the near side & far side of a carriage? And two flashes hitting the roof & floor? I have never seen this mentioned.

My reasoning coloured red is wrong, & the remainder of the wordage can therefore be ignored. Yes there would be a difference in times for the yy light signals & the y'y' light signals as seen by K, but the time taken for the signal going out would nonetheless be the same as the time taken for the signal returning, as seen in both system K & k', hencely Einstein's synchronisation method gives true synchronisation in the yy & zz directions & in the yz plane (in both K & k'). Hencely there is no need for any yz kind of gamma.

### Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:54 am**

by **crawler**

A Break in the Pioneer Case --

http://milesmathis.com/pion.html -- by Miles Mathis. Mathis says......

*........For some uses, gamma will be replaced by the simple transform above: 1/[1 – (v/c)].*

In other uses it will be replaced by

t/τ’ = c2 - v’v’’ / (c – v’)(c – v’’)

In energy equations it will be replaced by

ET = moc2{1 + [(v2 + cv)/(2c2 – 4cv)]} or

ET = moc2[1 + (v’/2c)] / [1 – (v’2/c2)]

This last equation shows why gamma works so well in accelerators, despite being incorrect. The extensions of Relativity allowed by the new corrections allows us to show that it is v’ that is limited at c. The variable v is actually limited at c/2, so we must read the new equations accordingly........

.........In the corrected derivation, it is found that there must be a v and a v’ from the very beginning. Einstein assigns only a v (the velocity of the object relative to the observer as measured by the observer), but v’ is also assignable as the velocity of the object relative to the observer as measured by the object. Note that this is not the same as saying the velocity of the object relative to the object, which is of course absurd. The object can measure its own velocity, Einstein was just never interested in this variable........
I like MM's idea that speeds are limited to c/2 or some fraction of c (perhaps c/2^0.5 appeals to me more). The c/2 limit (or c/2^0.5 limit) is based on an electromagnetic field having a speed of c.

However i believe that an EM field has a speed of much more than c in the near-field of an atom, say 10c km/s. And that a body's length contraction with speed is described by an equation with a gamma that is much different to the Lorentz gamma, but giving a body a similar LC at low speeds. I might start a new thread re this.

### Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.

Posted: **Mon Mar 09, 2020 4:44 am**

by **crawler**

https://vixra.org/author/stephen_j_crothers
Stephen J Crothers – Einstein's Anomalous Clock Synchronisation – 2017.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1208/0 ... 1577326532
Crothers says………

*…………It has recently been proven by Engelhardt [1] that Einstein’s method of synchronising clocks in his Special Theory of Relativity is inconsistent with the Lorentz Transformation. Although Engelhardt’s proof is deﬁnitive, it can be extended to show that for any time t > 0 in Einstein’s ‘stationary system’ there is always a place ξ in Einstein’s ‘moving system’ where the time τ therein is zero, despite t and τ being synchronised according to Einstein’s method………. *

…………..Thus, for every t> 0 of the ‘stationary system K’ there exists a point ξ≠0 in the ‘moving system k’ where τ= 0. However, according to Einstein’s synchronisation method this is impossible. Einstein’s synchronisation method is inconsistent with the Lorentz Transformation………

For sure it is a silly scenario if there is a zero time in every moving system, at all times. But if so then it seems to me that Lorentz transforms & Einstein's (supposedly identical) version of thems transforms are both unrealistic.

So, we now have no good transformation for LC (due to velocity) in existence. The new transform will need a suitable equation for a gamma for length contraction. Length contraction must be true, & i wouldn't rule out a width contraction. The velocity to be used will be based on the aetherwind, two velocities actually, to allow at least two applications of gamma (for the two observers or bodies or clocks or events in question).

A transformation for ticking will be difficult. For some kinds of atomic clock the new TD gamma might be similar to the new LC gamma.

But for other kinds of clocks there will be no such gamma for TD. What we will have is various equations that take into account the LC of the critical components of the clocks in the xx yy & zz directions (plus some other factors that i wont go into). And each kind of clock will need a peculiar form of the equation (eg pendulums, tuning forks, balance-clocks etc). I suppose that each of these equations will be a gamma of sorts, but what i mean is that it wont look anything like the old gamma that we presently use.

What this all means is that Einstein's notion of time & ticking being affected by speed is complete krapp. Einstein reckoned that TD due to speed applied to all kinds of clocks. Apparently there is a possibility that the old equation for gamma might be goodish for atomic clocks, in which case this supports Larmor's ideas re the ticking of atoms etc at a micro-level. Lorentz gets to walk free here, but i don't know why he fell into line with the silly ideas of Voigt & Poincare, at least Lorentz never considered TD to be real. But he should have resisted the Einsteinians. The Einsteinian Dark Age is largely Lorentz's fault.