On May 7, 9:28Â*am, rbwinn wrote:
On May 7, 6:48�am, YBM wrote:

kenseto a �crit :

ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
simultaneously and that:
1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
moving wrt the light fronts.
2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
moving wrt the light fronts.

In SR, "not moving with respect to a light front" makes no sense.

I have a question, YBM. Â*Whether you talk about photons or light
fronts, in the frame of reference of the train, the light is traveling
at a speed of c from the two points where light was emitted in the
frame of reference of the train. Â*Those two points remain exactly
where they were relative to the frame of reference of the train, and
the movement of the track relative to the train changes nothing. Â*How
do you get that the observer on the train is moving wrt the light
fronts in his frame of reference?

The light fronts are not the points where the light was emitted, any
more than ripples are the same as the spot in the pond where the
pebble was dropped. The points on the train where the light was
emitted are stationary relative to the train. The light fronts are
moving relative to the train.

Â* Â* The observer on the train is not moving in his frame of
reference. Â*The train is not moving in the frame of reference of the
train, and the observer is at the middle of the train the entire
time. Â*The two light fronts are moving with a speed of c toward the
observer. Â*

Yes, read your own previous sentence again. The light fronts are
moving relative to the observer on the train.

The track is moving toward the rear of the train. Â*What the
track does is irrelevant because the light travels with a speed of c
in the frame of reference of the train, regardless of the motion of
the source of light. Â*Since the track is moving toward the rear of the
train at a speed less than the speed of light, any photons emitted in
the frame of reference of the train after the first photons emitted
will still reach the observer at the middle of the train after the
first ones emitted.
Â* Â* Â*What you and Einstein and all other believers in relativity of
simultaneity are doing is clinging to some beliefs that pertain to
absolute time by making the frame of reference of the track a
preferred frame of reference as far as transmission of light is
concerned. Â*According to you, the train moves toward the source of
light at the front of the train, so that light reaches the observer
first. Â*Wrong. Â*The train is not moving in its own frame of
reference. Â*The track is moving toward the rear of the train. Â*That is
entirely irrelevant as far as when the light will reach the observer
at the middle of the train. Â*You scientists have faithfully copied
Einstein's mistake for more than 100 years. Â*Don't you think it might
be time to think about it?

There is no mistake and there is no preferred frame. Here is what
happens.
1. The strikes occur simultaneously in the track frame.
2. The same strikes occur non-simultaneously in the train frame.
3. Because (2), the light arrives at the train observer at different
times -- which is exactly what the train observer reports.
4. The track observer ALSO says that the light from the rear strike
will arrive at the train observer after the light from the front
strike, even though (1) -- which is exactly what the train observer
reports.

To choose (1) or (2) as being more "real" than the other would be to
choose a preferred frame. But relativity declines to do that, and it
simply notes that the simultaneity of the strikes (even after taking
into account transit times) is frame-dependent.

Robert B. Winn