On May 16, 8:25*am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 15, 10:17 am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
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.
Seto's delusions of grandeur entirely control his thought process. *No
matter how many times he's told that this is not what Einstein
stipulated, and no matter how many times he's shown that this is not
what Einstein stipulated, it isn't going to register
Hey idiot runt: I was just pointing out what Einstein said.

And I, Seto-san, was just pointing out that when it comes to
Relativity, you are far too incompetent to be pointing out anything to
anybody. *Abundant proof of that incompetence is provided to you on a
daily basis. *Here's a little of today's allotment.

You're given the following 3 facts:

1. Two observers O1 and O2 are co-located when their (ideal) clocks
both read zero.

2. O1 is at the midpoint of the locations of two lightning strikes,
and receives the first light from both strikes when his clock reads T.

3. O2 is moving along the straight line joining the locations of the
lightning strikes at a constant speed v relative to O1.

Here's your problem. Relative motion between 01 and 02 has no effect
on the isotropy of the speed of light and you are setting up a bogus
situation that violates the basic postulate of SR.


Now for ANYONE who understands SR, answering the following question is
a trivial matter.

How much time elapses on O2's clock between O2's reception of the
first light from each lightning strike?

On the 02 clock the elapsed time is L'/c for both light fronts to
arrive at the 02 observer. On the 01 clock the elapsed time is L/c for
both light fronts to arrive at the 01 observer.
From 01's point of view:
L'=gamma*L
Therefore according to the track clock (the 01 clock) the transit for
the 02 observer to see the light fronts simultaneously is at time
(gamma*L/c)

Ken Seto

Of course, for you, Seto, not only is that question not trivial - it's
utterly impossible, as you're now going to evidence with your reply.