Part 1: The Train Problem.

Part 2: The Fundamental flaw in the
theory of relativity.

Part 3 How and why it escaped detection.
The Train Problem

The fundamental flaw in the theory of relativity.

How and why it escaped detection.


Don Edward Sprague

This page has 3 parts:  

1) I have a question and need help from some intelligent people
Posted on Hannity.com in the education section on December 16th, 2009, 6:43 pm  

2) Open letter to Physicist, Michio Kaku, et al.
Sent to Michio Kako at discovermagazine.com
Posted on Hannity.com in the education section on December 22nd, 2009, 7:45 pm.  

3) The Fundamental flaw in the theory of relativity. How and why it escaped detection.
January 17, 2010



PART 1

I have a question and need help from some intelligent people

Posted on Hannity.com in the education section on December 16th, 2009, 6:43 pm  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few years ago, on a forum, I was challenged to address a specific issue. Occasionally I refine the method of
describing the specific issue. I think I finally have a simple concise description of the problem and the solution. To
begin:
If a person doesn’t know some facts, it is good and proper to tell the person the additional information
so they don’t make a mistake or arrive at a false conclusion.

Next: If a person is moving and doesn’t know they are moving, they perceive things different than if they know they
are moving. When the person discovers or is informed they are moving, their perception or ability to assess
information takes on a reality that was missing before. Next:
If a person is on a moving train, and they don’t know
they are moving, then, they don’t know all the facts so they will arrive at a false conclusion about surrounding
conditions.
When we tell them they are moving, they will be able to accurately address surrounding conditions and
arrive at an accurate conclusion. If the person on the train is moving away from one event and toward another
event, they will understand the events differently based on their knowledge or lack of knowledge.
Since we have
stated that we will inform the train passenger that they are moving. They will be able to accurately assess the
condition about the two events.

Suppose the person on the train moves past a person standing on an embankment just as two very distant
lightning strikes happen. The person on the train is moving away from one pulse of light and toward the other pulse
of light. If they don’t know they are moving, the light events won’t seem to be simultaneous. If they know the
conditions of their movement, they will be able to determine that the light events are in fact simultaneous just as
the person on the ground determined that the light events are simultaneous.


Based on the above, two conclusions have been made:

1- Simultaneous events across moving frames of reference don’t seem to be simultaneous without all the data
but when accurately considering all the facts, the false perception can be proven wrong. Therefore;
simultaneous events across moving frames are simultaneous and time has meaning.

2. Simultaneous events across moving frames don’t seem to be simultaneous to the uninformed. Therefore; the
false perception replaces reality making the simultaneous events only simultaneous in one frame but factually
not simultaneous to the uninformed moving person. Therefore; time has no meaning.

Which is correct?

If you select 1 as correct, you disagree with most but not all people who know and study physics. If you select 2 as
correct, you
agree with most but not all people who know and study physics. These are the basic hearts of the
theory of relativity and the theory of complex relativity. The theory of relativity is based on an illusion becoming fact.
Classical hierarchy Relativity (ChR) is based on gathering and considering all data to eliminate or reduce the
possibility of a false conclusion.

Now for the question I have been building toward. Does the theory of relativity acknowledged use of it’s
intentionally fabricated scenario designed to create a false perception of a train passenger replace reality just
because the person is specifically to leave out known facts that would prevent the false perception? In short form:
Does an intentionally defined false perception replace reality? If an intentional error doesn’t replace reality,
then time has meaning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people have said the person on the train can’t know they are moving. They are like the flat earth people from
hundreds of years ago. The train is analogous to the flat earth. If the people on the train are less sophisticated
than the moving earth people, we will simply tell them they are moving because we know the train is moving. Most
important, ignorance of the fact doesn’t eliminate the fact.

Some people say that too much is made out of a thought experiment and it must be considered in context. The
answer to that is that Albert made up the thought experiment to eliminate the meaning of time. He made too much
of his thought experiment. He stated that his scenario designed to give a false perception eliminated the meaning
of time because the person is ignorant of the fact that they are moving. He went beyond the flat earth argument to
intentionally exclude known information.

Some people say what about ___________fill in the blank experiment _______ which proves the theory of relativity
is correct. The answer has two parts. First, how does the mentioned activity prove that time is meaningless? After
all, meaningless time is the only way the theory works. That is according to Albert. Second, the argument about
______fill in the blank experiment _____ is simply a deflection. Returning to the use of the known false illusion, the
meaning of time has not been eliminated. The meaning of time is what it's all about for the theory of relativity. The
false illusion doesn't eliminate the meaning of time.

Occasionally the argument comes up about the use of terms such as speed instead of velocity as well as
acceleration and decelerate instead of positive acceleration and negative acceleration. I have to admit that is an
effective use of academia intellectualism. After all what is velocity if not 1. the speed of something in a given
direction. 2 (in general use) speed. What is negative acceleration if not a reduction in acceleration or deceleration.

Now back to the basic question. Does an intentionally defined false perception replace reality? If an intentional error
doesn’t replace reality, then time has meaning.


PART 2

Open letter to Physicist, Michio Kaku, et al.

Sent to Michio Kako at discovermagazine.com
Posted on Hannity.com in the education section on December 22nd, 2009, 7:45 pm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michio Kaku, Theoretical Physicist, City University of New York,

Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University,

Janet Conrad, Experimental Physicist, Columbia University,

Sheldon Glashow, Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Laureate, Boston University,

Brian Greene, Theoretical Physicist, Columbia University,

Alan Guth, Theoretical Physicist, MIT,

Tim Halpin-Healy, Theoretical Physicist, Barnard College, Columbia University,

Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University,

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History,

Frank Wilczek, Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Laureate, MIT,

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html


Subject: What if the train passenger knows he is moving?


Ladies and gentlemen, in the paper The Theory Behind the Equation by Michio Kaku, I see the statement: our
concepts and laws of space and time can only claim validity insofar as they stand in a clear relation to our
experiences....
By a revision of the concept of simultaneity into a more malleable form, I thus arrived at the
theory of relativity.
I believe Michio Kaku has a source showing that Albert made the statement. After all, the
theory of relativity is filled with discussion about the concept of simultaneity.

Those words are not found in the theory of relativity paper. The example of a police officer used in Michio Kaku
paper isn't in the theory of relativity paper. To most accurately explain and discuss the theory of relativity, we must
use the words and thought experiments found in the theory of relativity. In particular, the discussion at hand is
specifically about the conclusion from the statement; By a revision of the concept of simultaneity into a more
malleable form, I thus arrived at the theory of relativity.

The train experiment is the thought experiment used in the theory of relativity. In the train experiment, the train
passenger doesn't observe the simultaneous events as simultaneous.
From that, the theory resolves the problem
that Albert acknowledged
. That is the problem of the train passenger being replaced by light as it moves through
the train.

FROM THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY

w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. In view
of this dilemma there appears to be nothing else for it than to
abandon either the principle of relativity or the
simple law of the propagation of light in vacuo. ,,,

Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming fro
m A. Hence the observer will see the
beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who take the railway train as
their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the
lightning flash A.

We thus arrive at the important result:

Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train,
and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time;
unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a
statement of the time of an event.

END FROM THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY

It is a beautiful and deceptively accurate statement. Said another way: Unless we know the facts about an event,
we don't know the facts about that event. This is the specific device Albert used to revise the concept of
simultaneity into a more malleable form so he could thus arrive at the theory of relativity.

I ask: What if our experience expanded? What if the person on the train knew all the conditions about their
movement? The train passenger would observe the different arrival time of the flashes of light and would use
the train movement information to arrive at the proper time of the events.

That wouldn’t change the statements: 1) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. 2) The speed of
light is a constant in all inertial frames. Those conditions have been shown to be accurate both before and after the
theory of relativity. Relativity isn’t in doubt. When light travels from point A to point B, on earth, the distance is only
relative to earth. Relative to the sun, points A and B are moving. When we perform a round trip measurement of the
speed of light any place on earth, we are measuring a round trip through different size triangles. That is because
the origin and destination points on earth are actually moving thousands or millions of miles per hour through space
and time in some direction. It is accurate to say that the triangle for a round trip for a light speed measurement has
never been the same size or going the same velocity through space. The speed of light and all things are relative.
When Albert wrote, w = c - v, he was correct. The speed of light inside the train is moving at the speed of light
relative to the train. The train and the surface of the earth are synonymous or interchangeable. When a person
shines a flashlight on a train or on the surface of the earth, the light leaves the flashlight and travels at the speed
of light. The same applies when they hold the flashlight out the train window or shine the light into space. The light
from the flashlight held out the window of the train is like a flashlight on a bicycle. We know the light is going the
speed of light inside the train relative to the train. Holding it out the window doesn’t change the speed of light from
being relative to the train to being relative to the ground. The work from H. A. Lorentz and others is correct. The
theory of relativity statements about the laws of physics being the same in all inertial frames and the speed of light
being a constant in all inertial frames are correct.

When the train passenger has learned or gained more experience, the false illusion about simultaneous events
goes away. The train passenger has been told that the sun or any spot in the universe is the reference-body to
which the statement of time refers and it applies to the train and the embankment which are moving. Time regains
meaning. With that restored factor, think of the possibilities for expanded thinking.

Now we can rewrite the statement about every reference-body having its own particular time. Using a constant
universal time across every moving reference-body and all the information about the location of any events,
we can
determine the timing of any events
. Therefore, simultaneous events in any frame or across frame can be shown to
be simultaneous. The addition of information eliminates the revision of the concept of simultaneity into a more
malleable form,
thus returns Albert's self defined dilemma about his theory of relativity.

The new statement removes the deceptive portion of the statement from the theory of relativity. Now said this way:
Until we know the facts about an event, we need to gather more information so we have all the facts about
that event.

Ladies and gentlemen, please address the question: What if the train passenger knows he is moving?

Don


Addendum 1:  Since the earth is continually accelerating,  the length of a second on earth continually changes if
Einstein is correct.  All past stellar data shows that time progresses at a constant rate on earth.  If Einstein is
correct,  the shape of the earth and all stellar objects changes because it gets shorter in the direction of travel.  All
stellar data shows that the stellar objects don't change length in the direction of travel based on their speed
relative each individual observer frame of reference.     

Addendum 2:

I understand that moving clocks causes their time reading to change. A clock going around the earth in a space ship
will lose or gain time. That simply means the clock has an error. The frequency or rate of UTC is computed by the
International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) located near Paris, France. The BIPM uses a weighted
average from about 250 atomic clocks located in more than 50 national laboratories to construct a time scale called
International Atomic Time. It is important to repeat this point. The worlds official time is a result of calculation
because of the time measurement errors from the about 250 atomic clocks. Which clock is accurate, the one on the
space craft or one of about 250 official world clocks that have errors?

Addendum 3:

The factual data about superluminal motion has been dismissed as optical illusion because it conflicts with the
theory of relativity that converts an optical illusion to fact.

Addendum 4:

The question has a very narrow focus. It pertains to one section of the theory of relativity concerning simultaneous
events. The question challenges the revision of the concept of simultaneity into a more malleable form.

Addendum 5:

Statements:
FROM THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY


I maintain my previous definition nevertheless, because in reality it assumes absolutely nothing about light. There is
only one demand to be made of the definition of simultaneity, namely, that in every real case it must supply us with
an empirical decision as to whether or not the conception that has to be defined is fulfilled. That my definition
satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light requires the same time to traverse the path A —> M as for the path
B —> M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which
I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.”

We thus require a definition of simultaneity such that this definition supplies us with the method by means of which,
in the present case, he can decide by experiment whether or not both the lightning strokes occurred simultaneously.

Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway
embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer must be in the
negative.

END FROM THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY


PART 3

The Fundamental flaw in the theory of relativity.
How and why it escaped detection.

January 17, 2010


Statements in the theory of relativity are basically beautifully deceptively accurate. The accurate components have
been promulgated for about 100 years. The fundamental deceptive components were beautifully camouflaged or
concealed through elaborate obfuscation or overt convolution within the original paper.  Once it was accepted as
accurate, the resulting conclusion of the theory were repeatedly taught through simplified or alternative examples
instead of being done through critical examination of the actual thought experiments.  The basis of the flaw sunk
deeper into the background.  

It is easily accepted that the train passenger wouldn't observe the events as simultaneous. Obviously the events
don’t seem to be simultaneous because the person doesn't remain at the mid point between the events. If a reader
is inclined to accept the theory as accurate, they will readily accept both conclusions about the train passenger’s
alternative definition of simultaneous events and the relative meaning of variable time. Einstein effectively
convinced people that time has no meaning because the train passenger didn't observe the events as
simultaneous.  He change the meaning of simultaneous from representing fact to representing perception albeit
false.  

Since the facts are now apparent, the physics world will eventually address the fundamental flaw. It will take
leading experts who become heroes when they take a deep breath and acknowledge that they have recognized
the flaw and are moving on with a new and better understanding. They will proceed to do much more with the new
perspective.  They will have new horizons that aren't shackled with a pseudo throttle. They will seek and find more
details and facts when examining events of any type or size.  It isn't a question of “if the flaw will be
acknowledged”.  It is simply a matter of who will step up first.  Then it is a matter of when and how they will
acknowledge the revelation of the flaw.  


Copyright © Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved.
To see a repeat of the train problem experiment that proves the passenger can know the train is moving,
go to the Simultaneous relativity experiment.