Difference between revisions of "Simultaneity Cannot Possibly be Relative to Motion"
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox paper | {{Infobox paper | ||
| title = Simultaneity Cannot Possibly be Relative to Motion | | title = Simultaneity Cannot Possibly be Relative to Motion | ||
| − | | author = [[John E | + | | author = [[John E Chappell]] |
| keywords = [[Simultaneity]], [[Relativity]], [[Motion]] | | keywords = [[Simultaneity]], [[Relativity]], [[Motion]] | ||
| published = 1999 | | published = 1999 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
| − | A slightly modified version of the 1962 critique by philosopher Melbourne Evans (Emeritus, Univ. of New Mexico) shows that (I) in the famous moving train thought experiment he used to introduce his spatial theory of relativity, Einstein reached his result of relative simultaneity only by contradicting himself within the same chain of reasoning; and furthermore that (2) avoiding such a contradiction will lead inevitably to <u>absolute</u> simultaneity, whatever velocity is attributed to light. As shown in a 1968 book by Rosser, another kind of attempt to validate relative simultaneity, a mathematical "proof' based on the Lorentz transformations, rests entirely on an invalid shift in meaning of certain mathematical symbols - which at first designate <u>lengths</u>. and then surreptitiously are reassigned to designate <u>points</u>. | + | A slightly modified version of the 1962 critique by philosopher Melbourne Evans (Emeritus, Univ. of New Mexico) shows that (I) in the famous moving train thought experiment he used to introduce his spatial theory of relativity, Einstein reached his result of relative simultaneity only by contradicting himself within the same chain of reasoning; and furthermore that (2) avoiding such a contradiction will lead inevitably to <u>absolute</u> simultaneity, whatever velocity is attributed to light. As shown in a 1968 book by Rosser, another kind of attempt to validate relative simultaneity, a mathematical "proof' based on the Lorentz transformations, rests entirely on an invalid shift in meaning of certain mathematical symbols - which at first designate <u>lengths</u>. and then surreptitiously are reassigned to designate <u>points</u>. |
| − | [[Category:Relativity]] | + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|simultaneity possibly relative motion]] |
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Relativity|simultaneity possibly relative motion]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:55, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Simultaneity Cannot Possibly be Relative to Motion |
| Author(s) | John E Chappell |
| Keywords | Simultaneity, Relativity, Motion |
| Published | 1999 |
| Journal | None |
Abstract
A slightly modified version of the 1962 critique by philosopher Melbourne Evans (Emeritus, Univ. of New Mexico) shows that (I) in the famous moving train thought experiment he used to introduce his spatial theory of relativity, Einstein reached his result of relative simultaneity only by contradicting himself within the same chain of reasoning; and furthermore that (2) avoiding such a contradiction will lead inevitably to absolute simultaneity, whatever velocity is attributed to light. As shown in a 1968 book by Rosser, another kind of attempt to validate relative simultaneity, a mathematical "proof' based on the Lorentz transformations, rests entirely on an invalid shift in meaning of certain mathematical symbols - which at first designate lengths. and then surreptitiously are reassigned to designate points.
