On 9 mayo, 13:24, kenseto wrote:
On May 9, 10:35 am, " wrote:


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?

Exactly....do you understand that? Do you unstanding that that;s why
the speed of light is isotropic in the track and in the train?


Not only that....it is the same light in both cases...you stupid. That
means that there is only one sphere of light propagating from the
place it was generated, and that sphere don't know or care of the
train being moving, or the track observer being still at the station.
That is the meaning of isotropy!

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,

Hey ****ing idiot it is also moving at c isotropically wrt the train
observer.


No moron. The train observer does not know a strike happened until he
receives the light signal. You don't know the meaning of isotropic
propagation, that's very evident.


source which, by the way, was and still is located at the same
distance from the track observer?

Hey ****ing idiot the sources are at the ends of the train.

Once the event happened (that is the lightning strike) it does not
matter since the light signal carrying the information is already on
its way towards the observers.
And, by the way, we could also assume the lightning strike occurred on
the side of the train and not in the train and the result is the
same.
Actually if you read the Einstein book the strokes are not located at
the ends of the train. So that proves you have not read or understood
the book.


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,

Hey ****ing idiot the train observer is also at the same distance from
the strikes and thus he also sees them to be simultaneous.


No stupid, assertion is not proof so prove it.

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?

Hey ****ing idiot the speed of light in the train is independent of
the speed of the source. Furthermore the source are at the ends of the
train. Also from the train observer's point of view he is not moving
wrt the sources because the speed of light is isotropic in his frame.


No stupid, the sources may or may not being at the ends of the trains
but that is not important, since the light signals are already moving
towards the observers, so the sources of the information are not
longer generating light.
Secondly, the light information is moving in a spherical way (that is
isotropically) from its original location, and from those locations
for sure the train observer is moving.


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

****ing idiot I am 20 year ahead of you in understanding SR. Go learn
Sr before you make a fool of yourself.

Ken Seto

What everybody here sees is you are an ignorant who has a stupid an
wrong theory about physics he has never studied.
Besides that you have even problems with junior school arithmetic, as
the words salad you call papers have proved to be full of infantile
errors.

Miguel Rios