On May 17, 8:48*am, kenseto wrote:
On May 16, 5:02*pm, PD wrote:



On May 16, 11:54*am, kenseto wrote:

On May 16, 9:26*am, PD wrote:

On May 16, 7:26*am, kenseto wrote:

On May 15, 10:45*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 7:47*pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 15, 5:22*pm, PD wrote:

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.

Hey idiot if the strikes were not simultaneous to begin with how can
the track observer sees them to be simultaneous?

This is where you get stuck. You think you have to *start* from
choosing an assertion: the strikes are either physically simultaneous
or they are not physically simultaneous, but only one or the other.
Then you think you *derive* observations from those assertions.

Hey idiot the gedanken specified that both observers are at equal
distance from the strikes and that the speed of light is isotropic in
the train and the track. These two specifications (stipulations)
demands that the strikes are physcially simultaneous to begin with if
the track observer was to see the strikes to be simultaneous.

These two specifications (stipulations) ALSO demand that the strikes
are not physically simultaneous to begin with if the train observer
sees the strikes to be not simultaneous.

Wrong....these two specifications (stipulations) also demand that the
strikes were physically simultaneous to begin with for the train
observer.

No, they do not. Read it. Fetch the book and read it.

Hey idiot the two stipulations (equal distance from the strikes and
isotropy of the speed of light) automatically demands that the strikes
were simultaneous to begin with.

No, that's not correct either. Only when you add the factor of whether
the observer saw the light arrive at the same time do you come to that
conclusion. Don't be an idiot.

Suppose a lightning strike hits 2 miles east of your house, and
another lightning strike hits 2 miles north of your house, and we'll
stipulate that the speed of light is isotropic from both strikes. Do
you now say these two requirements alone make the strikes
simultaneous? What if you saw the light from the first strike on
Tuesday afternoon, and the light from the second strike on Wednesday
morning? Don't be an idiot, Ken.




There is no demand that the train observer sees the strikes
to be not simultaneous.

Read it. Fetch the book and read it. You are in basic denial of
reality, Ken.

Hey idiot.....according to Einstein the train observer sees the
strikes to be not simultaneous because he is moving wrt the light
fronts.

Nope, it is so because that's what that observer actually sees.
Einstein shows that this is entirely consistent with the laws of
physics, as seen by the track observer.

This is a new stipulation and it violates the isotropy of the
speed of light and the PoR in the train frame.

No, it doesn't.

Einstein failed to
realize that his SR postulates says that the speed of light is
independent of the state of motion of the source or the observer.
You are stupid.

Ken Seto