Jeff (Sandy) Alford, Dec 3, 1998

I read(skimmed-I have to be honest) your paper. I think my take on the Special Theory is similar to yours. I will try to state it briefly.

The Theory of Relativity is based on the assumption/requirement that the speed of light be the same in all reference frames. If it is assumed that space is absolute in any one of these frames(i.e."rigid rods"), the speed of light c can be sustained throughout the frame without threatening the absolute notion of time in this frame. Einstein uses this convenient assumption(that the absolute concepts of space and time can be sustained for all of a set of observers, at rest w/resp to one another) to reduce his project to comparing the scales of space and time between frames(between 2 observers).(I, personally, know, like you, that this assumption is not justifiable. I'm only trying to say what Einstein's logic prob'ly was).

He describes 3 relativistic modifications necessary to sustain the requirement of c for the type of motion considered in SRT. He takes these modifications to be cooperative. One major problem with his analysis is that he only considers a simple one dimensional, single event situation. As it happens, this linear(geometrically) restriction is identical to requiring that the Lorentz transformations be linear(mathematically).(If you are interested in what I am saying, I'll go into further detail about this).

Another major problem is that the 3 modifications are not cooperative, but rather alternative ways to reconcile the basic requirement.(You do not agree with me on this later problem, so I will state briefly-extremely briefly, in fact- how I arrived at this). That they are alternative can be seen by considering the following:Look at Einsteins train thought experiment. The light travels at c+v and c-v to the observer inside the train. Now draw the same light pulses but with the ground and outside observer moving instead. Its a reciprocity sort of thing for the simultaneity effect. But of critical importance is that we assumed equal scales of space and time. This is because, as it turns out, the transformations of space and time only come about when we require simultaneity(i.e. the locations of events and wavefronts) to be the same in each frame. That space and time are alternative can be very simply seen. c=d/t. To make c bigger we can increase d or decrease t. Key word:or. The derivations go wrong because one of the variables(either x and x' or t and t') is always eliminated first and then plugged into(x=vt) later. Minkowski's formulation works because the effect cancels itself out. This reduces the two event interval to merely be a reconciliation for observational delay. I also think(but I don't know) that the same is true in Terrel's paper. I think the paper only shows how an object will appear, without any relativistic effects, but, rather, with just a doppler shift type thing. But I've never really read the paper so I can't be too sure. Anyways , I agree with you about the reciprocity thing.

This is my take on it. Einstein saw that his theory, in order not to prefer one observer over another, said something like the following:My brother is shorter than I am and I am shorter than my brother, which can't be true. His only way out seemed to interprete the lorentz trans. so our analogy would read:I view my brother to be shorter than me and my brother views me to be shorter than him. I would enjoy hearing from you.

Response, Walter, Dec3, 1998

Response Jeff:, Dec 3, 1998
Thanks for responding. You can post what I said on your web page. In fact, I would appreciate it if you would. The summary I sent you was not too well thought out, so, at some point in the future, I will give you a more accurate description of my ideas. I have been trying to put together a paper, very similar to yours (in length, scope, and specific ideas covered), but I have not been happy with any of my products. I got a BA in Physics about 4 yrs ago, but I constructed all of my views on SRT(special relativity theory) over the past year. I would sort of like to put the ball in your court, for what you want to start discussing in detail (i.e.which axioms and so forth). I have printed out your paper and will be looking at it, in more detail, over the next few days. I will also be trying to put to words my take on SRT for you to reference.

In regards to our starting point for discussion. I can already tell that we have varying views of the first section of his paper. Basically, I consider the whole rods and clocks thing irrelevant. I consider it a flaw on Einstein's part to even include this in his paper. I see the whole rods and clocks thing a way for Einstein to try to reduce the concepts of space and time at the outset. More specifically, it is a way for him to confine the absoluteness of such concepts to a coordinate system. He knows that this will prevent less suspicion in his usage of a single observer to be representative of all observers in a given reference frame, when he makes the comparison between two observers(one from each reference frame). I've gone too far... If you would like this to be our starting point for discussion, I will send you a brief paper on my take on the whole rods and clocks thing.

Response, Walter, Dec 5, 1998
My apologies for the delay. Must admit I had some problems with this. When you think you've said it all (kinematically, that is), its difficult to find a new perspective or approach.

Suspect we should start with the Michelson-Morley experiment since it is the only physical evidence we have. This specifically confirms the constancy of light propagation in all inertial frames regardless of source. Therefore an observer on the train, equidistant from the endpoints will affirm that light emitted simultaneously, from there or centrally will reach him at the same time. The first postulate affirms that the same experiment works in precisely the same way in any other inertial frame. No problem.

The problem arises, of course, with the transformation. Here we have a number of options.We may say with respect to another inertial frame in realtive motion:
1. The speed of light (c) from OUR source is modified by the Galilean (c+/- v) to maintain c in that frame and time and space are constant.
2. Time dilates/contracts by the factor (c +/- v) and space and c are constant
3. Space dilates/contracts by that factor and time and c are constant
4. Time/space are modified proportionately (or otherwise; why not?) by the root of a squared term.
5. Synchronism between frames is modified and time is dilated/contracted (by acceleration(?)) by the same factor as above but thereafter maintains the same beat. That is, it is permanently out of sync with another.

In all of the above, regardless of dimensional considerations (2,3,4 or more) the transformation MUST reduce to and account for a LINEAR resolution of the difference in relative motion. Its source, however, need not be so.
From my paper, you will recognize that I have opted for (1.) (Occam's razor and all that). With respect to kinematics, I do not see where the geometry of space and time, or whether absolute or relative has any bearing on the problem (you agree, I believe) for the following reasons:
1. There is no conceivable experiment that can determine the geometry of space and/or time (At least not in space and time. It requires a preferred reference frame like Aristotle's unmoved mover or, by golly, the ether).
2. Absolute and relative: There is no conceivable experiment that will determine one or the other. The theory may arbitrarily assign this, but - given that one thing is absolute, all other things must vary. In this sense absolutes are absolute by definition.

I don't think I have much more to say about the kinematics. By Einstein's 3 modifications, I assume you are referring to space, time and speed (or synchronism). Since each of these is defined by the others, I don't know how one can be detached. You lost me on the train example. Will look forward to further elucidation.

Response, Jeff, Dec. 5, 1998
Yes, you are correct. The 3 modifications I refer to are: I ) "the relativity of simultaneity", 2) the transformation of space, and 3) the transformation of time. I interprete that 1) implies that the same pulse of light will have two different locations per two different moving reference frames, at the same time; or, if you prefer, it will have two different times per two different frames, at the same location. This is in contrast to the simple galilean transformations(and common sense). I also interprete that 2) and 3) oppose common sense. This is because scales of space and time are created, not observed. This is identical to your last two statements in your previous email(l think). However, each of us has realized that such philosophical arguments against SRT, though perfectly legitimate, are unconvicing. Therefore, we have each opted to disprove SRT by showing that it is internally inconsistent (or cannot be rescuscitated to make sense).

My main argument is to show two things:
I ) that the 3 modifications are alternative, rather than cooperative, and
2) that the Iinear (mathematically) time and space transformations rely on a particular Iinear (geometrically) setup of two observers, one event, and one or two points on the wavefront, which cannot be appropriately generalized to all the observers within the reference frames.
It seems as though you are tending toward the first of these in your list of 5 things. It seems as though you are tending toward the second of these things in your next paragraph. Let me use this opporunity to also say that in your paper, when you derive each of a dilation and a contraction of time, it might not refer to opposite observers. I interpret that the dilation/contraction amt. relies on the direction of the light pulse considered. By restricting the transformation to linear(mathematically) solutions, all points of the wavefront, except for two, are effectively erased from consideration, since they don't have Iinear(mathematically) solutions. The two points remaining are the points in the line defined by the motion of the two observers. It is for the point on the positive x-axis that I think you get a spatial contraction, and for the point on the negative x-axis, that you get a spatial expansion. Just as spatial transformations depend on the direction of the light pulse, so does time transformations. This reqires defining "directional" time.
About the train experiment, let me ask you a question. Usually, the train is always seen to be moving on paper. Further, the light pulses are seen to hit the observer on the ground at the same time and the observer on the train at different times. Do you, or do you not, think that the same situation can be drawn on paper with the ground observer moving and the train standing still? If so, how do you think the light pulses would be drawn?

I am asking you this question because I can't quite interprete precisely if we maintain similar views, from what you said in your last email. I think that the same situation can be drawn with the ground observer moving and the train at rest. I think that such a choice makes it convenient to draw the light pulses to travel isotropic to the train, and not to the ground. Such a drawing would imply an observed simultaneity for the train observer, but not for the ground observer. Let us call this the train picture, and call the other, more conventional picture, the ground picture. I interpret that the ground picture reveals the propogation of the pulses only for the guy on the ground. I interprete that the train picture reveals the propogation of the pulses only for the guy in the train. Therefore, the distorted simultaneity, revealed by the anisotropic pulses, relative to the train observer in the ground picture, and the ground observer in the train picture, represents only the VIEWED simultaneity by the other observer. Please tell me if you agree with this.

In reading your paper, I am having trouble with discerning your second "possibility" from your first. Please tell me precisely how the second "possibility" differs from the first, and why you have opted to even mention it in your paper, if, as you later say, "It is evident that Dr. Einstein has chosen the first possibility". Again, I think we have our biggest difference in opinion regarding the rods and clocks thing. I regard this as an irrelevant part of SRT. But this idea is somehow central to your argument because you say, "In a nutshell, if you can prove that you can synchronize clocks in different frames, then you can measure time and space". I will be sending you a paper on my views soon.

Response, Walter, Dec. 6, 1998
Its difficult at any time to determine what Einstein means. In his original paper (translated), he uses the term "Universal Constant" for light. This would imply that any motion relative to light in any frame would be detected as c-v or c+v depending on the the direction of the beam. But he also says light speed is constant in the "stationary" system regardless of whether or not the source is moving. This means that you cannot detect motion relative to light in an inertial system (The Michelson-Morley experiment). I have no idea which one he means at any time (this is why I call it an implied ambiguity) and you are right in assuming it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he says
1. You cannot synchronize clocks, time dilates, space contracts. I show that you can synchronize. (If you could not, physics as a whole would be suspect). That if you can, you can COMPARE (no need for measurement) distances and times and they are the same!. Notice that the geometry is also irrelevant unless you assume it is different for anything in motion relative to the fixed stars (the usual substitution for "absolutes" before Minkowski) Also, absolute and relative distinctions disappear since any frames in (relative) motion that presumably contract are reciprocal and cannot be detected because of the first postulate. You need a preferred reference frame.
Then whether the train is moving or the ground makes no difference. Measurements relative to the direction of propagation definitely do! Look under DIMENSIONAL CONSIDERTIONS where I say that objects must expand as well as contract and that there is no logical way out of the 1 dimensional asymmetry between frames. Also, the transformation equations may be solved for time or space (independently) and are asymmetrical. I think this is what you are saying with respect to alternative rather than co-operative.

Check out also the Observed Effects which resolves the appearance business. The crucial and most interesting part of all of this is point 1. in my last email which is the equivalent of saying that the wave has different locations in each frame. Being a logical animal, I am forced to this conclusion since it is a direct extension of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Response, Jeff Dec 7, 1998
I see no "implied ambiguity" that you see. When Einstein speaks of the speed of light as being a universal constant, he just means that all light will travel at the same speed c relative to all observers. In your third sentence of your last email, you spoke of "detecting motion relative to light". Am I reading that sentence correctly? There is no such thing as "relative to light". If you really want to think of it that way, then let me tell you how we must interpret the motion of a mass, relative to a given light pulse. Einstein would say that every mass moves at the speed c relative to a given light pulse. This is because the given light pulse must move at the speed c relative to any given mass(or observer).

About the motion of light relative to an emitting body. Einstein detatches the motion of light from that of the emitting body. The motion of sound is detatched from that of the emitting body too, but in a different way. The isotropy and limiting velocity of sound is purely dictated by the mechanical medium(air) through which the sound waves propogate. In contrast to this, the isotropy and limiting velocity of light is purely dictated by the motion of the mass or observer of consideration. But where there exists only one medium for the case of the sound waves, there exist a many different observers. Each observer can be viewed to have their own "medium of rest, throughout space" through which the light waves propogate. This medium is at rest to them. We can then consider the propogation of the light waves on a familiar basis(i.e.similar to the sound waves). We can continue doing this for a set of observers, at rest to the given observer. Problems occur, though, when the observers move relative to one another.

Einstein uses the tools of events and wavefronts to detatch light from the emitting body. It's like this. Take out two pieces of paper. Draw out some observers standing still on each piece. The observers on one sheet of paper are going towards the sun at a constant velocity. The observers on the other piece of paper are going towards saturn at a certain velocity.(Assume that the velocity is great enough to render insignificant the elliptical motion of the planets and all that). We can identify events arbitrarily on each sheet of paper. The motion of the mass, from which the event was defined in space, is irrelevant. The events will just sit there still on each piece of paper, at rest to the observers. The wavefronts will be spherical, on each sheet of paper. So far, no problem. But now try to put all this on one piece of paper. It can't be done. But we can try. Einstein tried. We choose one event common to both papers and consider the wavefront it creates. I have gone a little further than I want to with my ideas. The point of this email was to tell you that I think I strongly disagree with your statement that there is an implied ambiguity in Einsteins paper. I don't even see what the second "possibility" is.

On a different note, shouldn't there be a negative sign on the left side of the unreferenced equation equation which appears after (7) and before(8)? Also, I don't see how you drop all the other terms to get it.

Response, Walter, Dec. 7, 1998
Will only deal with this point for now. The MM experiment was to prove that light was constant with respect to a specific reference frame; the ether. It proved the opposite. Had it proved otherwise there would have been a difference in the time required for the beam to traverse a distance with or against the direction of travel eg. c+v, c-v. It is in this sense that I use it and I think, stated so. Further, I do not say that there is an implied ambiguity merely because of Einstein's terminology, but his ambivalent USE of the terms. My source is the Dover translation of the original paper indicated in the reference.
Under (2) On the Relativity of Lengths and Times: (this is a precis) He allows synchronizing clocks in one "fixed" frame of reference and synchronizes clocks in a moving frame with them, stating "these clocks(moving) are therefore synchronous in the stationary system" In the moving frame, a light beam is reflected at one end to the other (source). Then he says "Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that times [Ta and T'a] show a difference of: Tb -Ta = Rab/c-v and T'a-Tb= Rab/c+v TO THE MOVING OBSERVER
Now, if light has a constant velocity (c) in each frame as the MM confirms you can be certain that there would be no difference in the above times and the clocks would be synchronous in the moving frame. The above is in unequivocal contradiction with the experimental evidence. Further, it is stated under the time-space heading which deals with a proportional attenuation of time-space which is the root of the product of the above and in no way agrees with either c+ or c- (v) in a LINEAR comparison. If the asynchronous aspect is defended by any attenuation of space (for example) I direct attention to equations 1,2,3 where I use Einstein's/Lorentz's own equations to prove that l and l' are equal. The same holds for t' and t.
You are right on the equation between 7 and 8 - it should be negative.(bad copy job) Thanks for pointing it out. The reductions come about by substitutions. Will review it at some later time but am sure they are correct since they reduce to initial terms.

If my attack on the theory is attacked, it will only succeed if :
a. It can be proven that times are truly asynchronous and progressively so.
b. Space is indeed attenuated
c. Time is dilated.
Otherwise, as the munchkins say, not only is relativity dead, but it is really, really dead.

Incidentally, of the five points in my previous correspondence, 2,3,4 are refuted by the equivalence of time and space except for observational considerations. 5 is alive and quite probable to some quantity since acceleration will have an effect on a mechanical/vibratory device.
If you have a theory on point 1 (or any other point) as your comments suggest and wish to add it to the the website as your specific theory I would be pleased to do so. We can also add our correspondence if you have no objection.

Response Jeff, Dec. 12, 1998 I just wanted to let you know that I will get back to you soon. I have been working on creating that paper which describes the summary of my views. I think it will make our discussions more productive. Yes, you can post our discussions up if you want to. Also, could you please tell me precisely how you interpret Einstein's train thought experiment(i.e. do you think that the light pulses are only those seen by the outside observer? do you think that the distorted simutaneity for the inside observer is only how the outside observer views the light pulses to hit the inside observer? What you think Einstein was trying to say, in regards to these questions too.) and whether or not the same situation(i.e.same two events) can be drawn with light moving isotropically relative ot the inside observer, instead? If you do think it can be drawn the other way, can you tell me what you think the drawing looks like and how you interpret this reversed picture and what Einstein would think about it or if Einstein would even allow for it?

Response, Walter, Dec. 14, 1998
Re: The train experiment, as requested. The two postulates are assumed throughout as explicitly stated. Space is considered isotropic in classical and relativity theory in all the interpretations I have read. This is always implied if not made explicit. I am going to use an interpretation of the train experiment since Einstein's explanation of simultaneity is rather vague, at least in the original paper). You cannot tell who is doing the viewing. I'll use Eisberg-Resnick's Quantum Physics, appendix A. (They are all pretty much the same.) What I will try to show is that all expositions use arbitrary interpretations and concepts to justify the theory.

A-5 Simultaneity
This states there is no problem in determining simultaneity at approximately the same location but there is a problem (the key problem!) in determining it at separated locations. It then limits the determination to the transfer of light signals.
Comment: No reason for this since mechanical means are at least theoretically possible, but no problem either.

Then follows Einstein's definition of simultaneity (paraphrased) "If light signals emitted from points equidistant from an observer arrive simultaneously then the events are simultaneous.
Comment: This does not require a "definition" since it is a direct (linear) result of the MM experiment (and the traditional concept of simultaneity) and is the sole basis for the second postulate.
This is followed by the comment "Note that in Einstein's theory simultaneity in time does not have an absolute meaning, independent of location in space as it does in the classical theory. The definition intimately mixes the times and space co-ordinates."
Comment: Simultaneity has always meant AT THE SAME TIME and is in no way more or no way less dependent on space in Einstein's theory than it is in classical theory. You obviously have to measure in either if the events are separated by a distance.
Comment: The statement that "simultaneity in time does not have an absolute meaning" sounds very impressive but is absolutely meaningless for the following reason:
There is absolutely nothing absolute in the classical concepts of space and time. For example, space or time may well contract/expand or tie itself into a Cartesian lemniscate with motion but the first postulate guarantees you will never be able to discern the change UNLESS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE FRAME OF REFERENCE. That's what Newton said and that is what the MM and the ether (absolute is the same as preferred) was all about! If someone seeks to modify space and time it can only be identified against something that does not change and then the first postulate is nullified. If everything changes, nothing changes.
Comment: I am emphatic because this is an example of how concepts are misused. Something is being anticipated or implied here that is not contained in any of the statements so far. We will see this again in what follows.

The train experiment is:
Assume an observer at rest relative to the ground at point O and two explosive charges eqidistant from him at points A and B per the above definition. Assume the exact setup on a train moving in the direction A to B with primed coordinates. Assume O sets off charges at A and B which explode when O is directly opposite O'. Assume the charges create light pulses simultaneous with the explosions. In the O frame these will reach O simultaneously per above. However in the O' frame (moving at very high velocity, the light beam from B will reach him before the beam from A simply because he is moving in the direction of B. Since the explosions occurred at points equidistant from O' and the light signals were received asynchronously he must conclude that in his frame of reference the explosions were not synchronous.
Comment: This directly contradicts the definition. You cannot see light in any frame but your own. If O' sees them at all, beams will travel from points A and B in his frame at (c) and the explosions will be simultaneous for O' as well. Remember that O' is no closer to B at the time of the explosion and light travels at (c) regardless of the motion of the light source or the observer. He can calculate that light is travelling in the frame of O at c-v and c+v if he has never heard of the MM experiment. He can calculate that (c) is constant in the fixed (for him moving) frame if he assumes that space expands for O from A to O and contracts from B to O (this is what he sees. See my Visual Appearance business). He can do the same for time. What he cannot do is apply the Lorentz transformation since the modifications from A to O and from B to O are asymmetrical. He can state light in the moving frame is travelling relative to HIM at c+v or c-v (point 1 in one of my emails). There is nothing in this thought experiment as presented that consitently agrees with the definition. (Your last paragraph in the first email summed it up nicely).

Comment: But again, this bogus experimental result is used in an astonishing way! I quote; "The simultaneity disagreement will also cause the two observers to disagree concerning the rates of clocks fixed in their respective frames of reference." This is unsupported. Then follows "Time Dilation and Length Contraction". This is the exact reverse of Einstein's original paper where he states (unsupported by anything previously stated) that lengths are different in fixed and moving frames and then goes on to simultaneity. There is a circular argument being used in either case, where one condition is made explicit and the other is always implied. If you want to prove lengths are equal, you will find the argument that you cannot synchronize clocks. Proving synchronism becomes impossible because time and space vary.

But in fact you can do these things as my paper shows. The lengths are guaranteed to be the same because of the first postulate; times are the same, (click at the same rate) and there is no problem with synchronism. Furthermore, I make no unsupported assumptions. Each point is proven; first synchronism, then lengths, then times. All statements are consistent with the MM experiment and all those since that confirm it. That about covers it. I hope I haven't missed anything. Its been many years since I wrote this stuff or thought about it. Hopefully you will use the paper's demonstrations rather than some implied meaning in the terminology as some of the other respondents have done.

Response: Jeff, Jan1, 1999
I am reading your train thought experiment interpretation and your paper. I agree that Einstein's train thought experiment is based on two events defined to occur equidistant from each observer, at the time that the train observer passes the ground observer. It seems obvious to me that the ground observer is preferred in this thought experiment, simply because the light is assumed to travel isotropically with respect to him, rather than the train observer. Please look at my paper and tell me if you interpret the experiment the same way.

I don't like the approach you use in your paper. This is because you try to apply the conclusion of contraction(and expansion) of each of time and space, within the confines of the simultaneity distortion. I believe, however, that the simultaneity distortion, in and of itself, is all screwed up. It has a whole mess of flaws. I try to show these flaws in Einstein's train thought experiment. I try to treat the "observed" versus "real" crap on a different level. Einstein knew that his transformations implied a paradox(see paper), but he took this to mean that he only needed to state that the transformations must be taken as observed, rather, than real. The paradox is then allowable. "To say the dilation-contraction effects are merely observed and not real is to deny physical reality to any derived (dynamic) results" is your quote. I agree. But I also think it's ludricrous to try to change "real" space and time in any way. But people believe this crap. I did. But this is philosophy. And you can't argue philosophy, as we all know. I wish you would accept the necessity having to discern between real and observed, simply because this simple statement has kept Einstein's theory alive for 93(wait, um, 94) years. Your argument that l=l' does not say anything new.It comes about from a paradox. That is known. I believe that Einstien's train thought experiment is entirely based on classical mechanics, where light isotropy is entirely defined by the ground.

Response Walter, Jan 1, 1999
1. I think you are trying to make sense out of something that makes no sense. First and foremost, there is no concept in physics that has more consistently proven itself than the first postulate. This forbids a preferred reference frame. This means that there CAN BE NO DIFFERENCE in viewing or calculating events from the train or the ground. Einstein adopts the first postulate, then blatantly refutes it. This is not paradox. This is contradiction flat and simple. There is enough paradox in physics without manufacturing it. Take for example, probabilism v/s determinism. One says that something is true because it works; the other, it works because it is true.
2. To cover a logical contradiction with a totally subjective artifice; that of VIEWING, and then not identifying HOW it is to be viewed merely serves to obfuscate. I mean no disrespect here. I think his instincts are very good but his physics leaves much to be desired. He is not purposely confusing us, he is a subtile man and confuses himself. What is viewed, and what is consistent with the MM experiment is covered explicitly in my paper. If MM and subsequent experiments are proven wrong then I am wrong. I am defending nothing; merely extending the MM experiment to its logical conclusion. His analogy is the electro-magnetic fields of a moving charge. This is the equivalent of identifying time and space with electric and magnetic fields which may well be correct! Deriving a consistent kinematics in this manner is a no-brainer. I worked this out years ago. The dynamics is another problem and requires a unified field theory. This was what I was working on.
3. His use of asynchronous clocks accounts for the full (c+/- v). There is absolutely no need for shrinking space or dilating time. But when viewed! Look again at what I say is viewed and you will find the clocks are asynchronous, depending on distance. Time dilates and space contracts in magnificent fashion where observation is involved. As for my use of asynchronism and space-time, I am merely extended the transformation equations to their logical conclusion. (There is a tendency in contemporary physics to use an aspect of an equation to justify a point of view and discard the balance. This ad hoc treatment is very close to subterfuge, or complete disregard for or lack of understanding of mathematics.) I am mixing nothing here, but repeating over and over what is evident throughout; that SR falls apart using simple syllogistic arguments.
4. As to philosophy, I spent 40 years studying it and generalizing it and I assure you that physics has no business in manufacturing ontologies or teleologies. Through its dramatic successes in the last and early part of this century, it has usurped a field that does not belong to it. As a result, we have an excessively qualitative, and blatantly mystical outlook that makes counting angels dancing on the head of a pin appear to be the soul of logic. All matter compressed in an infinitesimal space? The state of the universe a nanosecond after creation? Ten or eleven dimensional strings?.
5. I have no doubt that acceptance of the prevailing philosophy or fashion in physics leads to a very comfortable existence. God knows that no one in their right mind would ever challenge a 94 year old theory. However, you must make up your mind to think for yourself or let others do your thinking for you.

Response: Jeff, Jan1, 1999
Point number 4 of your last email is music to my ears. Yes, yes, and yes again. There is a good reason why the branch of philosophy has been seperated from the branch of physics. Because real physicists(like you and me) think parallel universes and all is bull----. To put it bluntly, I am 99 and 9/10 percent classical physicist. I'm not 100 percent because I think Newton's third law may need removal and because I believe that the notion of mass is a macroscopic(molecular level and above) effect of E&M. I think that a particles charge decreases as it collects more light, allowing it to live longer. As for the velocity of light, I think it just travels like sound, macroscopically. I don't think the notion of energy is fundamental, but rather the conservation of energy is evidence of mathematical creativity. I believe all of this can render Relativity bogus, and provide for new interpretations in QM. I only say this so you know where I'm coming from.

I agree with you on point number five. We both are challenging Einstein's relativity theory. But we still disagree with each other on some issues. Your first statement in point number one is a very good point. But I don't think relativity makes any sense.It is true that I attempt to sustain relativity, but to no avail. But isn't that how the theory should be questioned: by giving Einstein the benefit of the doubt, until no internally consistent interpretation can be sustained? Even to look at the theory in the first place, we have to give Einstein the benefit of the doubt that rigid rods can define absolute space(which they don't). Also, you make innumerable reference to the first postulate(the equivalence of inertial frames) and to the MM experiment and to clock synchronization. I don't .

Contradiction with Einstein's first postulate is only Einstein's first flaw, which he believes can be remedied by declaring that the transformations be interpreted as "observed" transformations. You say this is to deny physical reality and stop there. I give Einstein the benefit of the doubt again and try to go on. As for the clock synchronization procedure, I consider it equivalent to The train thought experiment. In each case, absolute time and space is assumed. This last sentence defines where we disagree most. I think Einstein's TTE(train thought exp.) is just a classical mechanical picture. It does not even suggest that simultaneity is relative.

In your second point you said, "identifying time and space with electric and magnetic fields.. may well be correct". What did you imply by this? I don't want a detailed explanation. I only want to make sure that you are not inferring that time and space might really be modified in our world. I hope you're not inferring this, because I hope we can agree on the clasical mechanical notion that space and time are concepts. They do not exist in time or in space, but in mind( I sound like Rod Serling). Scales of space and time are created by us, not absolutely defined by measuring rods and clocks. I'm sorry. I'm getting too philosophical. But my point is that scales of space and time are merely humanly chosen for convenience.

I believe that we both agree that the time and space transformations are independent of one another. I believe it is because of the following: Consider 3 cars on a freeway. 1 is parked. 2 is going 30 mph. 3 is going 60 mph. Cars 2 and 3 pass 1 at the same time. Ordinarily, car 3 would go 30 mph to car 2. But we require that 3 go 60mph w/resp. to both. We can do this in one of three ways. Way one: we can let car 3 also travel 90mph on the freeway. We can say that the 90mph versin of car 3 "exists only for" car 2, while the 60mph one "exists only for" car 1. This is "relativity of simultaneity". Einstein never employs this reconciliation method, because he never lets light wavefronts or events have displaced existences in the same picture. Way 2: We say that the freeway contracts for car 2(so that the 60mph car travels the same distance in the same time).Way 3:We say that the watch runs slower for the guy in car 2( so that the 60mph car goes a shorter distance in a shorter time).

I'm not sure if we both agree on the directional dependence thing. You say that I try to make sense out of something that doesn't make sense. This is true. But by showing some of the blunders of Einstein's logic, the theory looks less convincing. It is a blunder that the derivations of the transformations don't take into account all of the points on the wavefront. It's just one of the several errors Einstein makes. And I'm just trying to fit as many blunders in that I can.

This is the way I see Einstein's extension of the notions of absolute space and time from one observer to all observers at rest with respect to the one. He says that a ruler, at rest with respect to them, defines space for them. Then, since t=x/c, we get absolute t, because c is assumed absolute, and because we just said x was absolute. The way he puts it is, clocks can be synchronized via isotropic light, where the clocks are at rest to the observers. The funny thing is, he uses scattered clocks. Galileo assumed one clock. Yes he did. He didn't speak of it but he assumed it in order to draw motion on paper. What he assumed was that clocks would progress on the right side of the paper as fast as they do on the left side of the paper.

Jeff: Jan3, 1999
When we look up at the night sky, we see a whole lot of stars, in different locations, at the time our watch says 10pm(say). This is our percieved, "coincident" view, which can be deceiving, because it is coincidental(dependent on where we are located, relative to the stars). If we were supplied with the velocity of light, from each star to us, we could deduce the actual time corresponding to the location we saw. "Simultaneity" corresponds to the actual locations of all the stars, at a specific time. The distinction between the notions of "simultaneity" and "coincidence" became necessary once it was learned that light didn't travel infinitely fast. Einstein just points these terms out as an introduction to his SRT.

Einstein chose for an event to mark the actual location in time and space of an occurance, rather than the percieved location, simply because it is a more absolute notion than the latter. (The latter depends on the distance away from the event that the observation is made). The assumption can be made that light travels at c, with respect to each of two observers, moving with respect to one another, without comparing the 2 observers, via light propogation. However, the reconciliation for the assumption, requires that we compare the 2 observers, via light propogation. Einstein uses events and wavefronts(light pulses) to serve as references for comparing the scales of space and time, between such observers, in order to reconcile the assumption. However, reconciliation can be made without modifying spatial and temporal correspondences, between the observers. Rather, we can simply alow for simultaneity to be different between the observers. Consider the wavefront corresponding to the event defined as when and where observers S and S' pass one another. The assumption can be reconciled by merely allowing for the wavefront to occupy two displaced locations in space, centered at each observer, without modifying the ordinary Galilean transformations.

Unfortunately, this reconciliation procedure doesen't work out too well since an event can be defined as a point on a wavefront, rendering no justification for stating, initially, that an event is defined as when and where observer S and S' pass one another. But we don't need to worry, because Einstein always assumes absolute simultaneity between moving observers. This is evidenced by the fact that he never allows for a single event or wavefront to occupy displaced locations in space, in the same picture. Rather, he misinterprets that the coincident views in his Train thought experiment(TTE) suggest a "relativity of simultaneity", when they really only suggest a "relativity of coincidence", which is no big deal. But this isn't his only problem with the TTE. He also considers that it somehow reconciles or employs his assumption. But it doesn't. This is evidenced by the fact that light travels at c+v and c-v with respect to the train observer. Furthermore, the TTE prefers the ground observer, in regards to light isotropy. The reason for all of this is because the TTE is just a Galilean picture. Time and space are assumed to be absolute. Simultaneity is assumed to be absolute.

Response: Walter, Jan. 3, 1999
More or less agree with your comments of the 3/3 email. But my view is that physics should forget about Einstein's SRT kinematics and attempting to reconcile his views with reality, (He has been proven wrong.) and concentrate on resolving the "singular anomaly" of waves occupying two different points in space. Without getting into detail, I think this problem can be resolved in analogy with electro-magnetic fields. I say analogy since a direct application requires resolution of the unified field problem. Consider that the dynamics of e/m and classical mechanics have some remarkable similarities (e.g. the Bohr atom). E/m has the useful properties of both involute and evolute geometries, (no doubt equilibrating at Euclidean.) conservative and kinetic energies, fields extending to infinity and a host of other attributes that make it the logical candidate. But enough of that. You have covered a lot of ground in your 1/1 email. Needless to say, if you prove any of them you have made your mark.

With respect to some of the dangling threads in our discourse: I believe that classical physics will remain virtually unchanged since it has proven itself over the centuries. What is likely to happen is that it will be seen as a specific in a more generalized theory. The operative word here is generalized, not changed. Time and space are concepts, constructs, that derive their meaning from a particular theory. It is the theory that provides the meaning and nothing ultimate is implied in them. Einstein needs no apologetics for SRT since it has a proven historical significance and I think a generalized dynamics will confirm some of his intuitions, if not the interpretations.

Response: Jeff, Jan4, 1999
You said you think physics should forget about Einstein's SRT kinematics. I agree. But then you say he has been proven wrong. I disagree. In your mind he has, and in my mind he has, but for most of society, I don't think he has. Your interests primarily lie outside the scope of Einstein's SRT kinematics, as do mine. This is simply because we both believe it is erroneous. However, I think we are both interested in convincing other people that Einstein was wrong. I believe that this can be most efficiently accomplished by merely considering Einstein's SRT kinematics. Apparently, you agree, as evidenced by the context of your paper. Unfortunately, neither of us have been successfull in this attempt. I don't expect to be successfull, but I would like to try to see eye to eye with you, in regards to why Einstein was wrong.

You also said that physics should concentrate on resolving the problem of waves occupying two different points in space. Does that mean that you do or don't think waves occupy different locations in space? Further, do you think SRT suggests so? I don't think they do. Nor do I think that Einstein's misinterpreted train thought experiment suggests so. I believe that only quantum mechanics suggests this. But I believe that Max Born made a mistake when he declared that the Schrodinger function should be associated with the "probability" of a particle's location. I would like to restrict our discussions to the kinematics of Einstein's SRT, for the time being.

I sort of feel we need to return to some of the fundamental concepts. I believe:1)A single object(particle, light pulse, event) occupies a single location at a single time, period. 2)Only a single scale correspondence(between paper distance and real world distance, or between paper time and real world time) should be assumed, to accurately describe a situation, period. 3)Observers play no fundamental role in physical phenomenon, period. Let us call these the three axioms. I am waiting for your response on the above question to see if we agree on axiom one. We do not agree on axiom two. You said you believe that time and space are concepts. I agree. As concepts, we each probably agree that the scales of space and time are created arbitrarily, which disagrees with Einstein who believes that scales are defined by measuring rods at rest to observers and clocks synchronized by isotropic light. However, you believe that somehow warping scales, in a manner similiar to Einstein, should also be considered as viable description of physical phenomenon. I don't. I think warping scales just confuses things, when they can be much more easily explained by assuming a single scale correspondence. Further, I think that what you said about expansion and contraction happening together is evidence that the warping method cannot even be employed. I try to go over this in the light direction part of my paper. As for the third axiom, I'm not sure where you stand.

At first, I thought Einsteins theory needed to just be generalized. I thought this could be accomplished by introducing the notion of directional time. But it was ludicrous for me to even think of the idea. I'm sure that I have probably spoken out of turn for you, in regards to where you stand on these three axioms, but to the best of my knowledge, this is what I interpret you are trying to say. I also have a couple more questions for you. In what way do you think Einstein blatantly refutes the first postulate?

Response: Walter, Jan. 4, 1999
Einstein doesn't refute the first postulate. He affirms it then contradicts it in the train experiment and in his original paper where he synchronizes clocks and then in a moving frame (because of the c+/- v) declares them asynchronous. He does not believe a wave front has a dual position. His whole theory is to reconcile the two inertial frames with one wave front position and does so by space/time modifications with asynchronism thrown in for good (bad) measure.

I agree with all three of your axioms to the extent that I can visualize their application. That is to say, I affirm classical physics but strongly believe a generalization will incorporate your three axioms as special cases within a theory that encompasses all geometries, forces, fields. I think paradoxes such as the apparent or real dual position of a light front may lead to the generalization. Covering it over with a psuedo-scientific theory obscures the problem and makes a solution all the more difficult. SRT must be cleared away first. If you do not believe his kinematics has been disproven then we are back to square one.

Think of a light wave as a disturbance in both inertial frames (2 carriers) and you quickly resolve the problem. Is this the only solution? No. Its difficult to address some of these questions within the narrow context of kinematics. Hope this covers your last.

Response to Jeff's update, Jan. 20, 1999
1. I think your "Alternative Transformations" is right on the money. Although I show that the transformation equations can be solved for either time or space, I do not think I ever entertained the idea that they were necessarily exclusive. This is an important point. If simultaneity is taken as Einstein describes, no transformation is necessary. If space or time, ditto! But not together. For example, lack of simultaneity does not allow a cumulative dilation of time as does the presumed time aspect of the equations.
2. We differ on the train experiment, but I think it is only that Einstein uses it and the transformation equations ambiguously. I see the train thing as his defence of lack of simultaneity between frames only.
3. The Transformations section I read as the necessity of including directional considerations and agree.

Response Jeff, Jan 21,1999:
You said that you think the "Alternative Transformations" thing, in my paper, is right on the money. But then you went on to interpret that I meant they were necessarily exclusive. I don't think they need to be excluded from one another in order to reconcile the constant velocity of light, but I think they are excluded from one another whenever Einstein uses them. You said something before in a previous email about "time/space are modified proportionately(or otherwise;why not?) by the root of a squared term" as being another way to reconcile the speed of light(or I thought that's what you meant). Anyways, I agree. For example, with regards to the freeway thought experiment in my paper, we could only contract space(half as much as necessary) and dilate time(half as much as necesary), together, in order to reconcile for the constant speed of 60MPH of the car. However, I think this just complicates things. There are an infinite amount of proportions we could come up with, to get the same effect.

You said you read the transformations section as the necessity of directional consideration and that you agree. We need to talk about this more, because I think this is the most powerful tool against relativity.

You said you consider the Train Thought Experiment only as Einstein's defence of lack of simultaneity between frames. I think I see what you mean. You mean that as he was constructing the theory, he found out that he had to come up with ways to make the theory more ambiguous, else the reciprocity thing would kill it, and so he came up with relativity of simultaneity, and then tried to defend it. I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but if it is, then I pretty much agree. I'm not saying that he did this on purpose. He just got confused.

There is something that disturbs me. You said that Einstein's "whole theory is to reconcile the two inertial frames with one wavefront". But then you said another time "Physics should...concentrate on resolving the 'singular anomaly' of waves occupying two different points in space". The well-known physicist/philosopher Hans Reichenbach says "The theory does not say that the wave surfaces in the two systems consist of same point-events"(The Philosophy of Space and Time, pg 202). As mentioned in my paper, I believe that the fact that the equation pertaining to S' must reduce to S, is evidence of absolute simultaneity. By this I mean that events and wavefronts are absolute. On paper, there is only one wavefront, not one displaced in space. Do you agree? Do you believe that either events or wavefronts or light or objects can exist in two places at one time. I don't think so. Why? Simply because then it would be two objects(i.e. contradiction with definition). With regards to Quantum mechanics, I think that the problem evolved from Born's probability interpretation of the Schrodinger function. I consider this to be a big flaw by him, and he is one of my favorite physicists.

About rigid rods and clocks. You say in your paper that there is no reason that they should be synchronized by light. I agree. But tell me this. Rods decay, and clocks break down. Isn't this a valid argument against his use of rods and clocks? Ideal rods and clocks do not exist in our physical world.

I have flooded you with a lot of things at one time. For that, I apologize. But I must ask you one last question. Besides myself, how many people have you found that agree with you on even just a portion of your interpretations of the theory?

Response: Walter, Jan. 22, 1999 Other than you and an archaeologist, no-one has agreed that Einstein is wrong. I suspect they also believe the world is flat, but I may be getting cynical. Check out the arguments posted and you will find that they erroneously seized on some small thing that cannot even be supported and totally disregard the basic arguments. Klauder says time dilates because of ACCELERATION! and does not realize that it would not be cumulative even though I say so. He says the cesium clock experiment proves Einstein. As we discussed, this is probably due to acceleration but it isn't cumulative, so this probably disproves Einstein. Stuart says you can't drop the denominators on the transformation equations, even though you are COMPARING lengths and it would make no difference whether you divide by x or x-thousand. Toll says relativity cannot be understood using simple a priori logic. (I have never heard of complicated logic. And he apparently never heard of Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica)

The direct logical result of the MM experiment is that the wave has different fronts for different observers. There are a number of ways this can happen. Think about it. Isn't a carrier like in sound the simplest answer? Also, light is composite. We know that the frequency changes with speed of observer. Why not have different speeds for different packets (frequencies) within the same wave? I can probably think of a few more ideas to explain it and am not advocating any of them, but the last thing I would think of is changing time and space (the means used to measure) to maintain one front. I read the whole of the kinematics of special relativity as an attempt to reduce it to one front. With all due respects to Hans, if relativity theory has more than one front, why bother with it? There are far too many apologists for relativity.

Re: Alternative transformations, you are right, they are not exclusive. I was thinking of the simultaneity thing which doesn't require space/time changes and got carried away.

I don't think it matters what is used for determining simultaneity. My problem with any of them is that speeds are so minute compared to light that there is always a chance that the experiment gives a bogus result. Even with MM, (if I recall) it was the lack of interference fringes not the direct measurement of speed. However, I do think it was correct. But no one is using anything but thought experiments for simultaneity. Anything you use is perfect in thought.

I think people generally take the path of least resistance. An accepted theory will be accepted by everyone until crisis arises that requires its modification or elimination. No appeal to logic will suffice.

One thing about simultaneously modifying space and time is that you must PRE-SUPPOSE it. There is nothing in the transformation equations that necessarily require it and it cannot be derived from the equations. Just a thought.

Response Jeff: Jan 22, 1999
Forgetting relativity for the moment, do you, or do you not, personally believe that a single event creates a single wavefront of light? Please give me as clear of an answer as possible. Also, please tell me how you think I would answer this question.

Response Walter: Jan 22, 1999
I believe a single event produces a single wave front in one frame of reference. In another in uniform motion relative to the first, I believe it has another wave front. That is the direct interpretation of the MM experiment. It cannot travel at c in both frames of reference unless this is so. How it does this is the question. I can think of a number of ways but do not know which is correct.

I definitely do not believe there is a carrier, like ether, and do not believe a supra-ordinate dimension is required.

My personal belief is that any inertial frame of reference, containing anything, has an e/m field which, even though neutral,( i.e. in equilibrium, undetectable) responds to the disturbance of a light wave (It is less neutral or fluctuates). If you think about it, you will conclude that a charged particle in motion would carry the disturbance with it and the disturbance would travel at c. I think this opens a whole new perspective in theories about particle interaction. Remember that you heard it here first! (There is an analogy in chemistry about solutions in equilibrium that I want to study.)

I read you as believing there is only one wave front for all observers, and this is why you are having difficulty abandoning all of SRT. If you try to transpose frames upon one another, you will only succeed by superimposing an antithetical universe on this one, such as an active/reactive anti-matter universe. My guess is that after this was accomplished you would be back to the above, and would have come up with a unified field theory in the bargain.

Response:Jeff, Jan. 23, 1999
You are right. I do believe that there is only a single wavefront for all observers. This is because of a higher axiom that I believe in. A single thing(whether it is an object we are talking about or events or wavefronts or any single thing) cannot occupy two locations in space period. This is because, if it did occupy two locations in space, it would be two things, not one. I also believe that two objects cannot be in a single location at a single time, because then they would just be one object. To me, this is a classical concept, and I believe in it, despite the probability thing in quantum mechanics, and despite Einstein's declaration that an event might happen at two different times for two different obsersers.

You said that this is a direct interpretation of the MM experiment. I strongly disagree with you. I don't really know much about the MM experiment, but I have read that there are many different ways to explain this experiment, without requiring that a single wavefront(I call it a single wavefront because it corresponds to a single event) split into two wavefronts, for the different observers. Please tell me why you think this is a direct result of the MM experiment.

You said that you thought the fact that I believe in a single wavefront keeps me from wanting to abandon all of SRT. You are wrong. I want to abandon the Theory of Relativity, in its entirety. You and I have both interpreted that the space and time transformations presume a single wavefront. But Einstein neglects to state this. I believe that Reichenbach was right that the theory doesn't require the wavefront be in one location. I believe that this is an inevitable consequence of Einstein's declaration that an event need not happen at the same time between two observers.

I think you are the one who is having difficulty abandoning all of SRT. This is beacause you believe that a wavefront, corresponding to a single event, can be in two different locations, at the same time, for two different observers. You believe that an entire frame should be connected with an object, like Einstein, for more than just mathematical convenience. I don't. I believe, like Galileo, that reference frames were only attatched to objects for mathematical purposes. When we say that the laws of physics remain valid in all inertial frames, it is just a consequence of Newton's first law. I don't consider the absolute velocity of light a law of physics.

I would like to abandon the term "observer". I would like to abandon the requirement of physical measuring apparatus' as necessary to define a system of space and time. I would like to return to absolute space and absolute time and absolute simultaneity. I consider absolute simultaneity to be equivalent to saying a single event is a single event, period, and a single wavefront is a single wavefront, period. When I say I want to abandon Relativity, I really mean I want to burn it all so that not even the ashes remain.
I think I'm going to try to write a paper defining relativity.

Response: Walter, Jan. 23, 1999
If a "fixed" frame of reference measures the speed of light as c and another moving relatively measures light from the same "source" as c then you must have two positions for the wave front. That is the direct result of the second postulate which IS the logical result of the MM experiment. If you (or Hans) are saying that multiple wave fronts are a result of lack of simultaneity then this is turning relativity on its head. Anyway, we have proven that simultaneity exists so this argument is useless. Whether the second postulate is right or not is not the point. Any theory that adopts it must apply its results in a logical manner, and multiple positions for a wave front is a direct result unless, like Einstein, you modify time and space.

You see a wavefront as a physical entity. I see it as composite; a disturbance, (like sound in air) a perturbation of the e/m field(s). I think that is the difference in our outlooks. If you think it is particulate, you will have to reconcile your theory with the MM experiment - or disprove it. My approach explains it without having to bend time and space or set clocks back. It also fits with the classical definition of all types of waves. There are problems with it, (the null field) but these are not insurmountable.

All objects at rest relative to one-another comprise a frame of reference. This is a definition and it has no physical existence . The physically important point is that there is no relative motion.

Jeff: Jan 23, 1999
I disagree with you about what the MM experiment reveals. Basically, the apparatus remains at rest on the ground of the earth. Two beams traverse paths of equal lengths. The paths are perpendicular to one another. The experiment revealed that it took the same amount of time for the light pulses to traverse each of the two paths. In other words, the experiment showed that when light is emitted from a source which is at rest on the ground of the earth, the light will travel isotropic to the earth and the air.

Where do you get that a fixed frame of reference measures the speed of light as c, and another moving relatively measures light from the same source as c.

Walter: Jan 24, 1999:
The MM experiment was to establish the reality of the ether; the presumed carrier of light waves. It was assumed that the earth was in motion relative to it, and that the speed of light would vary if a beam was split to travel with, and perpendicular to the orbital velocity. All experiments (there have been many) concluded that there was no difference in the speed. Experiments using the sun as a light source produced the same result.

Jeff: I completely agree with all of this. (In fact, I have to commend you on your good explanation).

Walter: The conclusion was the second postulate; that the speed of light was constant at c in all frames regardless of the speed of the source or the observer.

Jeff: Why must this be the conclusion? The MM experiment revealed that light travel isotropically to the air and earth, also. Michelson and Moreley just happened to be at rest with respect to the earth and air. It is with respect to them(observers) that Einstein's theory applies. Couldn't we also conclude, from the MM experiment, that light travels isotropic to the medium it propogates in, just like sound does?

Walter: Certainly can be as you say, but you then have two wave fronts. Propagation in the medium is also is my contention. I say it is a null e/m field but it is open for any conjecture. An observer moving relative to a light source can only see the light in his reference frame and will measure the speed at c. An observer in the same frame as the light source would also measure the speed at c. This is Einstein's second postulate.

Jeff: I understand this. I don't believe this. And, as I stated above, I don't know why you think the MM experiment requires this conclusion. The only observers that the light in the MM apparatus travelled isotropically with respect to, that we can be sure of, were observers at rest to the apparatus. The only theory this experiment proves wrong is the ether theory. It does not prove ballistic theories wrong, nor does it prove that light doesn't propogate isotropically with repect to the homogeneous medium it is travelling through, like sound does.

Walter: I don't know how they assumed it is independent of the source unless they did the sun experiment. But whether it is right or not, or whether you agree with it, is not the point. I use the postulate as stated to show Einstein's contradictory use of it. That is why I said it is not my interpretation in response to your question "Where do you get that a fixed frame of reference measures the speed of light as c, and another moving relatively measures light from the same source as c". This is explicit, cannot mean anything but the above and NOT my interpretation.

Jeff: I don't understand this sentence.

Walter: I didn't come up with the 2nd postulate or its interpretation, but I use it as above. If light has a different speed in either frame then MM would not have a null result.

Jeff: I disagree. The MM null result is only due to the light travelling isotropically with respect to the earth. There is a single reference frame attatched to the apparatus. Do not get confused by the ether notion and misinterpret that there are two frames considered(i.e.one at rest to the sun and one at rest to the earth). The beam which travels perpendicular to the orbital velocity is also moving with the orbital velocity. In order to also consider a reference frame that was at rest with respect to the sun, we would have to make a completely different second apparatus. This apparatus would have to travel along the earths surface at 1000MPH(or whatever it is) opposite to the orbital velocity.

Walter: No problem with disagreement. But consider that according to the first postulate, it can be assumed that the sun is in motion, i.e. the source is in motion. Also you have Maxwell's equations to contend with. The MM experiment took into consideration the orbital velocity of the perpendicular and calculated the difference as a second order equation.

Jeff: Jan 25,1999:
Jeff: The MM experiment revealed that light travels isotropically to the air and earth, also. Michelson and Moreley just happened to be at rest with respect to the earth and air. It is with respect to them(observers) that Einstein's theory applies. Couldn't we also conclude, from the MM experiment, that light travels isotropic to the medium it propogates in, just like sound does?

Walter: Certainly can be as you say, but you then have two wave fronts.

Jeff: I totally disagree. Sound produces only one wavefront, so if light travels like sound, light produces only one wavefront. I believe that there are no experiments ever done which demonstrate two wavefronts, corresponding to a single event. This is because all experiments were only observed by observers in one reference frame(except for Hafele-Keating), and the experiments are believed to conform to relativity which considers that there is only one wavefront in one reference frame. I believe that even if two observers were to move very fast with respect to one another, only one wavefront would still be seen, in much the same way that only one wavefront of sound would be seen by two observers moving at great speeds with respect to one another.

I believe that the notion of two wavefronts, which you alluded to above, does not come from any experimental data, but rather, the theory itself. One can interpret that the first postulate(laws of physics remain valid in all reference frames) applied to the second postulate(light has absolute velocity of c) requires the notion of two wavefronts(which I believe is a consequence of Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" of events, as does Reichenbach). But I do not think that the absolute velocity of light should be a law of physics. You say that space and time transformations result from assuming one wavefront. I agree. But Einstein doesn't realize this.

The first postulate does not require sound to produce two wavefronts. Why is thi? This is because a second postulate is not introduced that the velocity of sound is absolute, and that it should be taken as a law of physics, applied to postulate one. If light travels like sound, then I am saying that the second postulate, that the velocity of light is absolute, is not valid. If light travels like sound, and the MM experiment is performed, and we also have a person look at the experiment from above in a spaceship, travelling very fast with respect to the earth, then the person in the spaceship will still notice the light to travel isotropic to the earth. The rigid rods and synchronized clocks that Einstein connected with the guy in the spaceship is just a nifty way of employing his second postulate, against arbitrary reference frames. Let us forget about the rods and clocks.

Now, I have commited a major eror in my logic. Light travels through empty space. Sound does not. That is the reason the idea of the ether was invented in the first place. So how can I say that light travels like sound? I can't, officially. But I can say that it appears to travel much like sound, because the isotropy of the field, through the empty space, from one electron to another electron could just be dictated by the velocity of the first electron.

You are right that I have Maxwells equations to contend with. I would like to postpone this discussion for later. But let me just tell you that many people claim that the Theory of Relativity does not require modification of Maxwell's equations. I disagree. What they should say is that The Theory of Relativity does not require modification of the Maxwells equations, so long as we interprete that the speed c, suggested by the constants in his equations, is taken with respect to an arbitrary observer(not the source electron), and we require symmetry of the equations to obtain when the observers move with respect to one another.

Water: Jan 25, 1999
Lets deal only with sound. According to any books I have read on the subject, sound travels as follows: A train whistle is heard by the passengers and people on the ground. In both frames, the sound (vs) travels at approx 740 miles per second. Air is the carrier of the disturbance. The air on the train travels at the train's speed (v). There are two distinct waves, heard only in each frame. The ground observer calculates the wave front on the train at v +/- vs depending on the direction he is measuring while in his frame it is travelling at vs.

Jeff: Jan 25, 1999
The key assumption in your analysis of sound is that the air on the train travels at the trains speed. Let us suppose that the train is open. There will be one wavefront, corresponding to the train whistle. This wavefront travels at 740 miles per hour with respect to the air. This air is at rest with respect to the ground observer, but moving with respect to the train observer. Each of the ground observer and the train observer will measure the single wavefront of sound to travel at 740 miles per hour with respect to the ground obsever(the air) and 740+(velocity of train with respect to air, or ground) miles per hour with respect to the train observer(for pulses of sound directly approaching him from the front) and 740-(velocity of train with respect to the ground, or air) miles per hour (for pulses of sound directly approaching him from behind).

In other words, each observer will note that there is a single pulse of light, or single wavefront, corresponding to the train's whistle. This wavefront will travel isotropic to the motion of the air that it travels through. Each observer will note this. If the air inside the train is moving with respect to the train, then each of the observers will note that the pulses from the whistle, which travels inside of the train, will travel isotropic to the air inside of the train. Each of the observers will also note that the pulses from the whistle, which travel outside of the train, will travel isotropic to the air outside of the train. Although the pulses which travel inside the train travel faster ahead(if the train continues ahead in front of the whistle), and slower hehind, than do the pulses outside of the train, there is only one pulse, corresponding to the whistle, seen by both obsevers. What I mean by one pulse is that each of the observers will see every pulse, from the whistle, to be at the same location, at the same time. For example, if the guy in the train thinks that the pulse is in the middle of the train at time t, then the guy on the ground will also think the pulse is in the middle of the train at time t.

Jeff: Jan 26, 1999
OK. Now, we both agree that an event(train whistle) produces only one wavefront of sound. This wavefront will travel isotropically only if the medium it travels through is homogeneously dense, and homogeneously in motion(or not in motion). All observers, whether they are moving with respect to the medium or not, will agree on the motion of the medium. Therefore, all observers will agree on the location of the pulses of sound, from the train whistle.All observers will agree that the pulses travel isotropically in the medium, through which the pulses propogate.

Now, light is a different story. Contrary to sound, light can travel through empty space. So let us pretend that there is no medium, as there was when we spoke of the propogation of sound. Whereas sound travelled isotropic to the medium, Einstein says light travels isotropic to each observer(this declaration is not grounded on the MM experiment, which has only to do with proving the unentrained ether theory wrong, and very little to do with proving Einstein's assumption right). When the observers are moving with respect to one another, this seems to suggest that two wavefronts are created from each event. One wavefronts center moves with one observer while the other wavefronts center moves with the other observer. This is regarded as the paradox of the sphere.

However, let us note that we only have two wavefronts, if we assume that space and time are absolute between the observers. I interpret that the space and time transformations were created by Einstein to reconcile how the two wavefronts can become one wavefront.(Einstein didn't recognize this, though). This attempt is flawed because the linear mathematical transformations can only apply to the pulses of light moving parallel to the motion of the observers. (Of course, Einstein didn't recognize this either).

Now, Einstein never explicitly says that his "relativity of simultaneity" refers to the wavefronts. Rather, he only refers to it with regards to the events. Reichenbach considers that relativity theory does not require the two wavefronts to become one. I consider that the alternative space and time transformations were created as an attempt to do this. However, I consider that "relativity of simultaneity" of events requires "relativity of simultaneity" of a wavefront, corresponding to an event. I believe that "relativity of simultaneity" of a wavefront is the same thing as drawing two wavefronts-one centered at each observer.

What I want you to realize is that this two wavefront thing is a big deal. It is not suggested by the MM experiment. It is suggested, only, by Einstein's assumption. As you know, I do not believe that any single thing can be in two places at once. Why? Simply because then it would be two things, not one thing.

Walter: Jan 26, 1999
No one said we had to agree on everything. Here is a point of difference that we obviously will not reconcile. Lets leave it at that. I say that there are two wavefronts and you say there is one. Only future events will determine which is correct. No problem.