On May 15, 8:49*am, kenseto wrote:
On May 14, 5:03*pm, PD wrote:



On May 14, 12:53*pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 14, 11:22*am, " wrote:

On 14 mayo, 10:03, kenseto wrote:

On May 13, 6:36 pm, "Simple Simon" 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.

Obviously (assuming that the specificity that you omit has the observers and
events at the same times and locations as the classic thought experiment
does).

No I didn't assume anything of the sort. Einstein's assertion implies
that the light front from the front will take less transit time to
reach the train observer and the light front fron the rear will take
longer transit time to reach the train observer. This can only mean
one thing: Einstein's assertion violates the isotropy of the speed of
light in the train.

Once more you show you do not understand English!. Stop lying!

On the contrary, what Einstein said, and everybody else but you
understands, is that the train observer is moving towards the light
signal coming from the front of the train, and that light signal is,
for sure, traveling at c to reach him (as the back light signal is
also doing). Isotropy is never touched here

****ing idiot....the light signal from the front and the rear were
generated at equal distance from the train observer. if the signal
from the front reaches the train observer before the signal from the
rear that means that it takes different transit times for light to
travel equal distance in different directions.

No, the light signals *started* their transit at different times in
the train frame. The transit times are equal. As a consequence, they
arrive at different times.

Hey idiot if the light signals ("started" or "occurred") at different
times in the train frame then these are not the same light signals as
seen by the track observer. Why? Because Einstein stipulated that the
singals occurred simultaneously.

He said no such thing. You do not have his book in front of you, and
your memory is terrible. He said only that the *track observer*
concludes that the strikes are simultaneous, because he has
observations that are consistent with that conclusion. At NO TIME does
Einstein ever say that the strikes are assumed to be simultaneous, or
stipulated to be simultaneous in some fundamentally real or absolute
way. When you can actually lay your hands on the book you remember
only dimly, I can help you read it for comprehension, sentence by
sentence.

Note that when it was posted on this newsgroup what Einstein
*actually* said, your reaction was priceless -- you said he didn't
understand relativity. So you are caught in a tight little circle. One
minute you believe he wrote what you dimly remember and so you cite
your belief as being what Einstein was trying to convey, and then when
you are shown what he actually wrote you no longer thing he meant what
he said.

The reason why Einstein said that the
train observer will not see these signals to occur simultaneously is
becasue the signal from the front is arriving at a transit time of L/(c
+v) and the signal from the rear is arriving at a transit time of L/(c-
v).



Note that the order of deduction is actually the reverse of this.
1. First, it is *observed* by the train observer that they arrive at
different times. No amount of telling him what he should have seen
instead will convince him otherwise, because he knows what he saw.

Hey idiot this is an assertion based on the validity of RoS.

No, it is not based on any assumption. It is an *observation*. What is
stipulated in Einstein's example is what the two observers *see* --
and that you will see if you manage to secure the book to reread the
passage.

We are
here tryin g to determine the validity of RoS.

2. The transit times are determined to be equal. This is because the
distance traveled is equal, as verified by the train observer, and
because the speed of light is equal in both directions, as verified by
the train observer.

The transit times are not equal if you include Einstein's assertion
that the train observer is moving wrt the light fronts.

The transit times are equal according the *train* observer. The
*train* observer does not say he is moving wrt to the light fronts.
The *track* observer says the *train* observer is moving wrt to the
light fronts. In no way is it more of a "reality" that the train
observer is moving. (After all, both observers are moving.)

The transit
times are equal

They are equal because of *measurement*. The distances from the
strikes to the observer are equal (measured) and the speed of light
from both strikes is equal (measured).

if you exclude Einstein's bogus assertion that the
train observer is moving wrt the light fronts.

Stop using the word "is". It conveys a sense of underlying reality
that isn't there. I suggest you use the word "sees" or "observes", as
in "the track observer sees the train observer as moving wrt to the
light fronts". Of course, "the train observer sees himself as not
moving wrt to the light fronts." Both of these are accurate
observations and therefore both true. There is no "is" that decides
which one is really right.


3. Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that the original
strikes occurred at different times in the train frame.

There are only two strikes. They cannot occur simultaneously in the
track frame and not occur simultaneously in the train frame.

Yes, they can. That is precisely the whole point of the entire lesson
in Einstein's book, and in fact you will see a sentence in that
passage that says *exactly* that as an incontrovertibly true
statement. The *same* two strikes are simultaneous in the track frame
AND not simultaneous in the train frame. That is *precisely* the
correct statement and *precisely* why Einstein went to all this
trouble to explain.

Yes, the *same* object can be stationary in one frame and moving in
another frame. Yes, the *same* object can be moving east in one frame
and west in another frame. Yes, the *same* object can have a energy of
35 J in one frame and an energy of 139 J in another frame.
You certainly agree with the above statements, don't you? This has
been known for over 400 years.

Going further, yes, event A can be before event B in one frame, and
event A can be after event B in another frame.
Yes, event A can be simultaneous with event B in one frame, and A and
B can be not simultaneous in another frame.
Yes, a stick can be 0,8 m long in one frame and 0.72 m long in another
frame.


Einstein
gave the following bogus reasons why the train observer will not see
the strikes to be simultaneous
1. The strikes occur at equal distance from the track and train
observers simultaneously.
2. The track observer is not moving wrt the light fronts and therefore
he will see the strikes to be simultaneous.
3. The train observer is moving wrt the light fronts and therefore he
will not see the strikes to be simultaneous.

Ken Seto