On May 14, 10:17Â*am, rbwinn wrote:
On May 13, 7:18�pm, PD wrote:



On May 13, 10:07�am, kenseto wrote:

3. Einstein asserted that the train observer is rushing toward the
light front from the front and receding away from the light front from
the rear. These assertions means that the light front from the front
will take less transit time to reach the train observer and that the
light front from the rear will take more transit time to reach the
train observer.

In the track frame this is true. Not true for the train frame. In the
train frame, the transit times are the same. Where is the
contradiction? Isotropy is preserved. The light takes the same time
(in the track frame) for the light to reach the track observer. The
light takes the same time (in the train frame) for the light to reach
the train observer. Isotropy in both cases. No contradiction.

That means that Einstein's assertion destroys the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train. Also that means that the
concept of relativity of simultaneity violates the postulates of SR.

Given Einstein's description of transmission of light, which he did
not follow in his mathematics, the only thing that could possibly
happen would be that the light from the lightning at the front of the
train would have a higher frequency than the light from the back of
the train.

Light speed is independent of frequency in space.

Â*Other than that, in the frame of reference of the train
the light would have to reach the observer at the middle of the train
at the same time.

Why would it have to reach the observer at the same time? The strikes
were not simultaneous in the train frame, and then the time of transit
of the light was the same from both strikes, and so the light arrives
at different times at the train observer. Which is a good thing,
because that's what the observer reports he sees.

Â*That can be proven by having the lightning leave
marks on the train and on the railroad track. Â*The marks on the train
will be the length of the train apart, and the marks on the track will
be the length of the train apart,

Yes, and yes, though these two lengths are different.

which they would not be if the
lightning at the front of the train struck first. Â*Scientists claim
that the marks on the track would be L gamma apart,

I assume you mean L is the length of the train in the train frame.
That's different than L' the length of the train in the track frame.
Oh, and the length of the train in the track frame (and the distance
between the marks on the track) is L/gamma, not L gamma.

L' = L/gamma

where L is the
length of the train, but we are talking about reality, not the
imaginative ideas of scientists. Â*The marks on the track would be the
length of the train apart.

Reality is what is measured in experiment, even if that conflicts with
your common sense.

Â* Â*If, in fact, the observer at the middle of the train does see the
light from the front of the train first, as Einstein postulates,

Not as Einstein postulates, but as the observer actually sees.

it is
not because the lightning strikes were not simultaneous, but because
they are traveling through a medium as sound does or are affected by
something such as gravitation,

How does light traveling horizontally get affected by gravity
vertically, and why would the effect be different for light coming
from two different directions, and why should that effect have
anything to do with the direction the train happens to be going? Are
you groping?

which would destroy Einstein's
definition of special relativity. Â*He specifically said that special
relativity was relativity in the absence of gravitation.

Â* Â* In any event, scientists are only fooling themselves with the
Lorentz equations. Â*With regard to light from the lightning at the
rear of the train, the Lorentz equations show that it would take that
light more than four times as long to reach the train observer as seen
from the frame of reference of the track, whereas, the light from the
front of the train would reach him in about half the time if the train
were traveling at a velocity of .9c. Â*Consequently, relativity of
simultaneity does scientists no good. Â*They would do better to just
admit that the longer time in each case refers to light in the frame
of reference of the track which has the frequency and wavelength that
it has when emitted in that frame of reference, and the time in the
frame of reference of the train is light in the frame of reference of
the train which has two different frequencies and wavelengths.
Scientists may not be aware of this, but the time it takes for light
to travel a specific distance in a frame of reference can be computed
from its frequency and wavelength. Â*Without getting into a detailed
description of the nature of light, which I could not give anyway,
what we have are experiments involving frequency, wavelengths, and
distances which scientists do not want to discuss. Â*Scientists are the
priests of experimental knowledge and must keep their Bible chained to
the pulpit if they are to keep the world worshipping the distance
contraction.

Why would scientists want anyone to worship anything that doesn't
match what is seen in experiment?

Â*Consequently, they will cry heresy whenever anything is
posted in this newsgroup that does not come from a scientist.
Robert B. Winn