On 9 mayo, 09:30, kenseto wrote:
On May 8, 10:49 am, " wrote:



On 8 mayo, 10:27, kenseto wrote:

On May 8, 9:53 am, " wrote:

On 8 mayo, 09:25, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 5:01 pm, " wrote:

On 7 mayo, 16:27, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 3:43 pm, " wrote:

On 7 mayo, 15:32, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 11:42 am, " wrote:

On 7 mayo, 10:28, 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. 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. 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. How
do you get that the observer on the train is moving wrt the light
fronts in his frame of reference?

Your mistake is treating the points where the information (light) was
generated the same as the information.
They are quite different!

The observer on the train is not moving in his frame of
reference. 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. The two light fronts are moving with a speed of c toward the
observer. The track is moving toward the rear of the train. 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. 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.

The light carrying the information is moving isotropically from the
points where it was generated. So the train observer will receive
first the front light signal and later the back light signal.

This bogus assertion is based on the bogus assumption that the speed
of light is anisotropic in the train.

Ken Seto

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. According to you, the train moves toward the source of
light at the front of the train, so that light reaches the observer
first. Wrong. The train is not moving in its own frame of
reference. The track is moving toward the rear of the train. That is
entirely irrelevant as far as when the light will reach the observer
at the middle of the train. You scientists have faithfully copied
Einstein's mistake for more than 100 years. Don't you think it might
be time to think about it?
Robert B. Winn

Nonsense

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The only person making bogus assertions here is you.
Check your dictionary for the meaning of isotropy.
If you do not have one, here is the definition:
Isotropy is uniformity in all directions. The word is made up from
Greek iso (equal) and tropos (direction).

Right....so when Einstein asserted that the train observer rush toward
the light front from the front and receding from the light front from
the rear he is describing a scenario that destroys the isotropy of the
speed of light in the train.
So I guess it is you runt of the SRians failed to comprehend this
simple fact.

Ken Seto

On the contrary, light signals from both strokes are precisely
isotropically propagating (in a spherical growing at c shape) from
their origin, which is exactly what isotropy propagation means. When
that sphere finds an eye (either the track or the train observer eyes)
the observers will say "hey I have detected a strike!".
So how you explain this nonsense of "destroying the isotropy of the
speed of light". Do you understand English at all?

Hey idiot....do you have reading comprehension problem???
According to Einstein: When the train observer rushes toward the light
front from the front the transit time is less for that light front to
reach him. When the train observer receding away from the light front
from the rear the transit time is more for that light front to reach
him. This means that different arrival times for the two light fronts
that were generated at the same distance from the train observer and
thus what Einstein asserted destroyed the SR postulate that the speed
of light is isotropic in the train. Are you too stupid to understand
that???????

You are the moron with comprehension problems. What the heck has the
transit time to do with the isotropy of the light?.

****ing idiot runt.....isotropy of the speed of light means that light
takes the same transit time to reach the observer for the same
distance in different directions.

Ken Seto

Again you have to
go back to elementary school and learn to read and write.
The information carried by the light signals is moving at c
isotropically in both the track and the train frame.
The difference in arrival times is not produced by how the light is
moving, but because the train observer is moving relatively to the
light signals.
What drugs are you taken that make you think you know something about
physics?
You have provided substantial evidence that you do not have the
slightest idea of what you are talking, like your famous and hilarious
theory about the Sodium.

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

****ing idiot moron.....the observer *moved* after the light signals
started their voyage towards the observer.

Hey ****ing idiot runt....This shows me that you don't know what
isotropic means. The SR postulates says that the speed of light is
isotropic in the observer's frame. In case you are too stupid to
understand that means that the observer doesn't move wrt different
light fronts from the same distance in different directions. You are
so ****ing stupid I suggest that you go off to a corner and commit
suicide.

Ken Seto


Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know ****o, it is you who is showing and proving day after day the
kind of retarded person you are.
You don't know what isotropy means, even if the meaning of the word is
provided to you. Then you are so moronic as to say that "the observer
doesn't move wrt different light fronts from the same distance in
different directions" is implied by the isotropy of light.
Do you understand the phrase "isotropy of light"? Do you see anywhere
in that phrase the word observer?
Don't you understand that the track observer and the train observer
were at the same location only when t=t'=0, but then the train
observer moved to another location?
Don't you understand that isotropy of light means that light
propagates in a spherical front with center in the point where the
event generated the light?
Don't you understand that the light propagation speed, according to
the second SR postulate, does not depend on the velocity the source of
the light had when the light was produced?
Don't you understand that the location of the train observer, in the
middle of the train, is not correlated with the light signal, since
that light signal is moving at c with respect to its original source,
source which, by the way, was and still is located at the same
distance from the track observer?
Don't you understand that since the lightning strokes occurred at the
same distance from the track observer, and for that very same reason
the track observer saw them as simultaneous, then as the light front
are propagating from their source locations and as the train with its
observer has moved it is impossible for the train observer to get
those signals as simultaneous?

Well it is obvious that we can write and write and show you references
and you will not understand, just because you do not have a brain able
of understanding. You are only good for insulting people, people like
myself that has studied these subjects for more than 40 years.

Go away you ignorant runt

Miguel Rios