Frames of Reference and other stupidity.

“Einstein's essential "Light Clock" Experiment”

This is the classic illustration showing the thought experiment of Einstein. This is the key graphic for Special Relativity. Basically, as we have already discussed, the guy on the carriage does not realize he is moving. This is not really about Physics, it’s about his mental problem. What he “thinks” is happening and what is really happening is two different things. But let’s carry on anyway.

The basis of SR is the differences of measurement taken by the two observers. The catch phrase is “Inertial Frames of reference”. Actually that is exactly the same as your “point of view”. It is how you see the action from your vantage point.

If you think about it, one’s vantage position from which he sees the action, has absolutely nothing to do with the action.

If I can’t see the goal post from my place in the grandstand, it will not affect the number of goals made, or the outcome of the game. But Einstein thinks it would. Maybe Einstein needs to get out more.

Today, Relativists still insist that they can directly compare the measurements taken by the two observers, despite the obvious fact that one is delusional, he thinks he is stationary, when he is actually on a train or spaceship hurtling along tracks or through space, depending on your favorite version of this story.

Lets look at this from another angle.

To figure out what’s wrong with seeing a long diagonal path for the stationary observer, but also requiring the same light to travel the much shorter vertical path for the guy in the carriage, we need to think about "frames of reference". We shall see how it's possible to fool yourself with these “frames of reference”.

It's difficult to imagine the path of a photon, so instead, let's first consider the motion of a wheel.

There is a popular puzzle question put forward by Physics nuts, which is, “What part of a train goes backward while the train is moving forward?

Their answer is "there is a spot on the wheel flange that will be going backward when it’s below the edge of the track."  They seem happy with this claim, and they have pretty graphics to prove it. So it must be true, right? And who can argue with the Math?

But is that spot REALLY moving backward relative to anybody’s frame of reference? Or is it just an “apparent path", caused by the application of geometry constructions? In other words, the whole path (known as a prolate cycloid) is nothing but a geometric construct, representing nothing about the real physics of the wheel and track. Sure, an engineer may need to use this type of geometry when designing some new machine, but on the train, or on your car, the cycloid is just an illusion.

However, the diehard Relativist will insist that spots on the flange actually perform this action. Meaning that the spot must be actually be moving backward. But this is a fallacy. If you swallow this fallacy, you are ready to accept the next one, that is, “Inertial Frames of Reference”.

Why is it wrong?

Consider the wheel rotating in image 1. Is the yellow dot going backwards at any time? NO.

Now look at Image 2. Now is the yellow dot going backwards at any time? NO.

Next image, (image 3) the same wheel is now on the ground. Clearly the “camera” is mounted to the side of the car, as we see the wheel rotating and the ground moving past, but this makes absolutely no difference to physics. The wheel is simply only rotating, and this causes the car to roll forward. Not rocket science, but science no less important.

Look at image 3.

The wheel is now acting like a train wheel… but is the yellow dot going backwards at any time?

No is it certainly not. 

Now in Image 4, which shows the same wheel but now with the camera mounted on the ground. Any difference? Not in the slightest, but Relativists would insist that there is now a critical difference. Now magically they claim that the yellow dot is in fact deciding to separate itself from the rest of the wheel, and move backwards but only when the yellow dot is below the train track surface.

What has really happened here?

Nothing Physical, only that your ‘frame of reference concept” has performed the task it was designed to do, that is to trick you into believing in fabrications of geometry rather than in real Physics.

The truth is that the yellow dot is never going to be doing anything other than simply rotating along with the rest of the wheel. It does not matter if the wheel is spinning in space, touching the ground or has a flange. No part of the wheel can act independently to the rest of the wheel. Even if we paint a yellow dot in the right place that won’t make magic happen. The wheel is only rotating. The yellow dot is part of the whole wheel, it can only rotate about the wheel axis, as does the rest of the wheel. Period. No other action is occurring.

In the real world, rational people understand that the whole wheel is acting as it was before, that is, simply still just rotating, and the apparent but imaginary geometry one can trace in space for the “path” of the yellow dot, is not in any way indicative of what the wheel is doing.

Which of these two animations accurately describe the action of a wheel rolling?

Only the second animation shows correctly that two actions are the result of the rolling car wheel. One is that the wheel is rotating about it's axis, they other action is that the car attached to the axis will move in a linear motion.

The construction geometry of the design engineer in this case is not portraying the action of the wheel. The cycloid is neat, but no car moved forward because of the cycloidal motion of a yellow dot.

If you wish to analyze the motion of bodies relative to each other, then first you MUST establish a COMMON standpoint from which to gather measurements. If two observers are ever going to compare their gathered data about some event, then unless they first agree on a standard measurement system, in units and datum points, then their individual measurements and observations will be meaningless. Their results cannot be directly compared, as any conclusions would invariably be in error.

What has this to do with Einstein? The wheel and yellow dot example demonstrates perfectly that one’s “frame of reference” has absolutely nothing to do with the practical or theoretical motion of a body in motion.

Relativists do not abide by this fundamental rule, so their assumptions, conclusions, and results are fatally flawed. To come back to the light clock on the moving carriage, we can now understand that two observers have neglected to ensure that they are both working with the same units of measurement, and of particular importance, the same datum points.

This has been allowed to occur under the pretext that the guy on the moving carriage, “does not realize he is moving”. Such a situation is acceptable in a sci-fi novel, but not for the Science of Physics.

Someone should stop the professors when they get to this part in their lecture on Special Relativity, as they have delved off into pseudo science from then on. Once the professor begins to make comparisons between a stationary observer and a delusional observer, then physics goes out the window from that point on. To insinuate that the guy in the spaceship, or moving carriage is unaware that he is moving, and that somehow, through magic, this ignorance will distort time, shrink distance and increase mass, is the height of stupidity. Yet they still teach it with a straight face.

To illustrate how this thought experiment SHOULD have gone:

The guy on the moving carriage is measuring a photon going a couple of meters to the ceiling, but the guy on the platform is measuring the combined trajectory of a whole train carriage plus the trajectory of the photon. But why don’t they measure the same thing? See if any time dilation has occurred? It won’t have. If they both just watch the photon, time it, they will both come up with the exact same elapsed time. The stationary guy will correctly say, “By the time the photon reached the ceiling, the carriage was way over there”.

Then when the carriage comes to a stop, the carriage guy will hop out, and he can measure the distance from where he finds himself, back to where he was originally. Gee, he was moving after all! He then will do the math and derive the exact same result as the stationary guy. There can be no time dilation, length contraction or mass increase. Simply because the guy on the carriage has come to the realization that he in fact was moving all the time! Unless he includes that vital bit of information into his math, it will be wrong! At this stage he will also realize that the yellow dot on the wheel was only going around in a circle, and no part of the wheel was really moving backward.

There is no mystery here. Special Relativity is irrational, Einstein is wrong, Modern Physics is a sham, and Newton would be ashamed and embarrassed by the modern so called “Physics”.


Mark Ross
Tasmania  Australia


Email: zeccano(swap for "@")