kenseto wrote:
On May 16, 10:14 am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
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)
Oops, I screwed up - my question doesn't have a unique answer.
At any rate, it doesn't matter, since your answer, "zero", is
never correct.

BTW, you'd have learned that the answer can't be "zero" (i.e.
that the first light from both lightning strikes can't reach O2
simultaneously), if you'd been able to work out the answers to
those challenging questions for 4-year olds that you were asked
earlier in this thread.

You are an idiot runt of the SRians.

Setoland definition of "idiot runt of the SRians": someone who asks
Seto a question about SR and points out that his answer is wrong.

Wise up, Seto, you're an adult who can't comprehend things that are
obvious to 4-year old's; when you insult the intelligence level of
others, it's comical.

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.



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

On May 17, 3:32�am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 16, 10:14 am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
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)
Oops, I screwed up - my question doesn't have a unique answer.
At any rate, it doesn't matter, since your answer, "zero", is
never correct.

BTW, you'd have learned that the answer can't be "zero" (i.e.
that the first light from both lightning strikes can't reach O2
simultaneously), if you'd been able to work out the answers to
those challenging questions for 4-year olds that you were asked
earlier in this thread.

You are an idiot runt of the SRians.

Setoland definition of "idiot runt of the SRians": someone who asks
Seto a question about SR and points out that his answer is wrong.

Wise up, Seto, you're an adult who can't comprehend things that are
obvious to 4-year old's; when you insult the intelligence level of
others, it's comical.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ken Seto is correct about this particular thing. Relativity of
simultaneity is a myth. The problem that scientists have with light
is that they cannot visualize velocity of light. The fact is that if
a photon is emitted from the origin of a set of coordinates and
proceeds along the x axis in the +x direction, it has a velocity of +c
relative to the set of coordinates. If it is emitted from the origin
of a set of coordinates and proceeds along the x axis in the -x
direction, it has a velocity of -c relative to the set of
coordinates. By the same token, if a photon is proceeding in the +x
direction and is reflected 180 degrees by a mirror, its velocity
changes from +c to -c relative to a set of coordinates.
The Lorentz equations work this automatically because everywhere
the speed of light appears in those equations it is squared, and (-
c)^2=c^2. The velocity of light is given in the Lorentz equations
implicitly by the coordinates. So scientists just plug in the
coordinates, and they have solved the problem in a manner that will
agree with experimental results without understanding what they have
done. Being lazy mentally, scientists think it is easier to imagine
that the arm of the interferometer gets shorter, a train contracts in
length, and other ridiculous concepts, rather than that light has a
velocity, and the mathematics has to be worked correctly.
Robert B. Winn

On May 16, 6:49Â*am, PD wrote:
On May 16, 6:42Â*am, rbwinn wrote:





On May 15, 7:56Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 8:27Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 15, 2:30Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 7:27Â*am, rbwinn wrote:

On May 15, 2:24�am, PD wrote:

On May 14, 11:31�pm, rbwinn wrote:

� � However, it defies all of the laws of physics and mathematics for
a train to shrink to a fraction of its length just because it is
moving.

What laws of physics and mathematics would that be?

In the interest of foreshortening the conversation, note that neither
the Galilean nor Lorentz transforms are laws of physics. Perhaps you
could start by listing a few laws of physics you know, and then select
out of that pool the ones you think are defied by having length be a
frame-dependent quantity.

While you're at it, note that kinetic energy of an object is a frame-
dependent quantity, even in Galilean physics. And note that energy
conservation is one of the laws you're looking for. This would be a
good opportunity to point out also why no laws of physics are violated
by this frame-dependence.

PD

Well, according to Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz equations,
and also Lorentz's, one frame of reference actually shrinks relative
to the other.

Nice little fantasy. Would you like to cite where you read that, or
are you willing to acknowledge that there are pieces of your reality
you just make up as you go?

Â*Not only that, but the one that shrinks is also its own
size in its own frame of reference, and the other frame of reference
is shrinking.

See, this is the kind of nonsense that results when you make stuff up
as you go along.

Â*So there are several things going wrong at once here.
Scientists at one time maintained that no laws of science were
violated by the Ptolemaic system of astronomy because it could
accurately predict the positions of planets with its complicated
mathematics of epicycles.

Actually, no, it *post-dicted* those positions. It had very poor
predictive power. Those folks didn't even call themselves scientists
in that day and age. "Scientist" is a more recent term, and what they
practice (and in fact what they practice defines what science is) is
much different that what they practiced then. More emphasis on
experimental verification, more emphasis on prediction rather than
postdiction.

Tycho Brahe was not a scientist? Â*Kepler thought he was one. Â*That is
why he went to work for him so he could have access to his mathematics
and experimental data.

He was an observational astronomer and a very careful measurer. By the
modern definition of "science", he did not practice much in the way of
science. There were no *pre*dictions of observations, though there
were plenty of *post*dictions. It is in fact interesting to note the
difference between empirical rules (which is what Kepler's laws are)
and a physical theory (which is what Newton added). This distinction
is carefully drawn out in introductory science courses in the first
week, where the details of the scientific method are drawn out, and
these distinctions which really define science are made.

It doesn't surprise me that your eyebrows go up a little about this.
It's these subtleties that are important to those who have immersed
themselves in the subject and completely unimportant to casual
observers.

PD

Well, since Kepler was not a scientist, then neither was Einstein
because he did the same thing Kepler did. Â*He took experimental
results and derived Â*mathematical equations which described those
experimental results fairly closely.

But he did more, and this is what Kepler and Brahe did not: he
included specific *predictions* of things not yet seen or measured.
This is the essential ingredient of science that people in the 1300s,
1400s, 1500s had not yet incorporated into their methodology. That
ingredient was a novel thing in Galileo's day, and it didn't really
blossom until 1650 or so.

Â*As a matter of fact, Newton did
the same thing, so he was not a scientist either. Â*

Same comment here. Newton did some spectacular predictions.

In any event,
Kepler's equations for orbits of planets did not exactly agree with
experimental data. Â*Newton's equations for gravitation did not agree
exactly with experimental data.

They did at the time, within the available precision of their
experimental data.

Â*Those non-scientists had the
advantage of being able to say that maybe the experimental data was
not exact. Â*

No, they didn't have access to the precise data that showed suprises,
so they had no need to say anything of the kind. Bobby, this habit of
making stuff up as you go along has surely landed you in hot water in
the past.

But scientists of today say that their experiments are so
exact that they have proven Kepler and Newton wrong.

That's right. And that's where the fun starts. Because when nature
shows you that your model doesn't work as well as it looked a while
ago, it also gives you a handle on how to find a model that works
better. And this leads to the interesting part of physics. The
interesting part of physics is not saying, "OK we have that figured
out." The interesting part is figuring out the stuff that doesn't
quite work according to our understanding of things.

Â* Â* My opinion of scientists today is that they have an agenda,

Yes, I understand this is your opinion, though I have no idea what
agenda you think scientists have. I don't know what you think
scientists would gain by saying, "OK, all done here. All figured out.
Nothing left to do but sit around." I don't know what you think
scientists would gain by saying, "OK, we know this doesn't work, but
we want you to pretend it does anyway. And if you use the principles
to design useful things and they don't work, then pretend they work
anyway."

so if
you tell them, Hey, according to Einstein the marks left by lightning
on a railroad track will be closer together than the length of the
train, they will immediately close ranks to protect Einstein's theory
rather than actually thinking about what it means.

This is not quite what happens. What they do is check in experiment
whether or not it really happens that way. As it turns out,
*experiment* shows that, yes, nature really works that way. Given
that, then yes, it becomes time to really think about what that means,
because it often leads to other interesting ideas to check.

You, on the other hand, seem content to not bother looking at
experimental data and to instead worry about what it means and if it
conflicts with certain preconceived notions you hold about how nature
*ought* to work, then you become dissatisfied and say "That can't be
right." To hell with experimental data. Don't bother checking with
nature. Just go with what your intuition tells you. Thinking is free
and requires minimal effort.

Â*What they call
science today is more like a religion than a practical means of
solving problems. Â*Scientists believe in miracles like the length
contraction and have put all of their faith in those miracles.

No faith involved. Faith is believing in something for which you have
no evidence. However, in this case, the evidence has been gathered,
and yes, things really do work that way in nature. That's useful
information, because then you can build useful things that incorporate
those insights, and lo and behold, they work exactly as advertised.

You on the other hand stop at the point where it looks incredulous and
say, "Well, that can't be right. That'd be an outright miracle. I'm
not going to believe in miracles as a personal choice." To hell with
experimental evidence. To hell with checking whether it is a miracle
or just a surprising facet of reality. Surprise is a bad thing and
should be avoided if at all possible.

Â* Â* Â*The way to tell whether or not what they believe is true is
whether or not they keep it secret like witch doctors or if they are
open to discussion.

That's fine. But there comes a point where serving information to you
in the venue *you* want and in the manner *you* want is simply not
worthwhile. Some discussions require different media, different
venues, different modes of operation. People who are genuinely
interested in the results make accommodations to engage with those
more suitable formats.

You on the other hand make judgments based on convenience --- not only
on the content of the material but on whether it is dropped spoonful
by spoonful into your open beak in the nest you are accustomed to.
Well, Bobby, you're not a baby bird any more. It may be time to get
your ass out of the nest, start using your wings, and learn how to
hunt down food on your own.

PD

Well, no, PD, I make judgments based on the fact that scientists are
working the mathematics incorrectly. I think I would have been able
to convince Einstein that he was working it wrong because he had a
goal in mind. He was trying to derive a Unified Field Theory. So if
I had said to Einstein, "Hey, Albert, if you reflect a photon 180
degrees with a mirror, the velocity of the photon changes from +c to -
c relative to a set of coordinates," I think Einstein would have
listened. With regard to his disciples, I do not think they ever will
because they see themselves as protectors of the theory, which is
reputed to work, therefore, they must defend it at all costs. Their
only goal is to be regarded as being as intelligent as Einstein, not
to be able to understand how light works. So they will say exactly
what Einstein said, because if it worked for him, it will work for
them. But the fact remains that the reason why they end up with an
interferometer arm that contracts in length is because they do not
work the mathematics correctly. The have a close approximation taken
from some complex equations, and that is good enough for them. All
they have to do is memorize a discipline, and they are the smartest
people on earth in their own minds.
Robert B. Winn

On May 9, 6:37*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"xxein" wrote in message

...
On May 9, 9:48 am, rbwinn wrote:

On May 9, 6:21 am, PD wrote:

On May 8, 11:00 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 8, 5:04 pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 8:54 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 6:43 pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 7:17 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 3:57 pm, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 18:38, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 12:54 pm, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 14:34, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 10:40?am, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 12:25, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 8:06 am, PD
wrote:

Well, no, if lightining strikes the front and rear
of a moving train,
leaving marks on the train and the track, the
marks on the track will
be the length of the train apart, which relativity
of simultaneity
cannot explain. ?According to mathematics, if the
bolts of lightning
are simultaneous in the frame of reference of the
track, the marks on
the track will be closer together than the length
of the train; if the
bolts of lightning are simultaneous in the frame
of reference of the
train, the marks on the track are further apart
than the length of the
train. ?Reality shows that the marks on the track
will be the length
of the train apart, disproving this false teaching
of Einstein.
Robert B. Winn

Nonsense. That is a bunch of words salad. What in
the world those
marks you mention have to do with relativity of
simultaneity?
This shows you have not read anything about SR. What
does it mean
"according to mathematics"? And where does Einstein
say the nonsense
of the marks on the track?
There are two events (the strikes) and two
observers. What these
observers see is the light signal information that
tells them about
the occurrence of those strikes. That is the reason
one of them can
certify "I saw both strikes to be simultaneous",
while the second
certify "I saw the front strike occurring before the
back strike".

Einstein was the one who thought of the train and two
bolts of
lightning. He did not fully consider the mathematics
of the situation
he described. Einstein did not say anything about
marks on the track,
but I did. The marks on the track prove that
relativity of
simultaneity cannot exist in reality. Lightning hits
the front and
rear of the train simultaneously as seen by an
observer by the track,
leaving marks on the front and rear of the train and
marks on the
railroad track. The distance between the marks on the
train is the
length of the train. The distance between the marks on
the track is
the length of the train. In order for relativity of
simultaneity to
exist, the marks on the track would have to be closer
together than
the length of the train. Conversely, if the bolts of
lightning are
seen simultaneously by the observer on the train, in
order for
relativity of simultaneity to exist, the marks on the
track would have
to be further apart than the length of the train.
Reality shows that
the marks on the track are the length of the train
apart.
Robert B. Winn

That is complete nonsense. What Einstein wrote about
this subject,
just for people like you, can be seen
inhttp://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
Observers do not have to measure any length (actually it
would be very
tough to measure a 200000km train, not speaking of how
to build it and
how to place the tracks). The only requirement is for
the observers to
coincide at t=0 at x=0, that the strikes occurred at
x=-X0 and at x=
+X0 and that the train with its observer is moving at a
speed v into
the +x direction.
The observations consist of both observers receiving the
light signals
that communicate them of the strikes occurrence. Where
in the world
are you seeing something related to measuring lengths?

c=176,000 miles /sec. The mile is a unit of length. The
velocity of
the train is also measured in units of length divided by
time. In
addition to that, the train has a length that is measured
in units of
length.
Robert B. Winn

And what are you trying to say with that?.
We are talking about the relativity of simultaneity, and
that refers
to time relations, not to length contraction.
The whole point of this train thought experiment is to prove
that time
is not absolute.

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Relativity of simultaneity, as explained by Einstein, is
dependent on
length contraction.

Actually, no it's not. You'll notice that the relativity of
simultaneity is established without needing to reference the
distance
between the marks. However, you brought up the *additional*
information about the distance between the marks. In so doing,
you
find out that there is a *consequence* of relativity of
simultaneity:
relativity of length.

If lightning strikes both ends of a train,
leaving marks on the ends of the train and marks on the track,
the
only way the marks can be closer together than the length of
the
train, as is required if the lightning at the front strikes
first, is
if there is a distance contraction, as seen from the frame of
reference of the track.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

Well, as I said, that would be the problem of people who believe
it
exists. I believe the Galilean transformation equations which
indicate that relativity of simultaneity and distance contraction
do
not exist.

I know you believe that. That's because you're ignorant of the
experimental data, I believe. If you're not interested enough in the
truth to investigate the data, then I'm under no compunction to make
you change your beliefs.

PD

Ignorant of experimental dataI

Ignorant of experimental data? The only experiment I have to run is
posting equations in sci.physics.relativity.

Aha. There, you see, is where you make a basic mistake, confusing
looking at equations with looking at experimental data. You keep
wanting to look at equations, and you shy away from looking at data.

You might consider asking a scientist how science is done, Bobby,
rather than just playing it the way you want to play it.

So, PD, when are you
going to tell us about the experiments that disprove the Galilean
transformation equations?

I already have, Bobby, and I've reminded you about it too. Just
because you're still holding the hoop up, Bobby, doesn't mean that I'm
going to jump through it again. You can lift a finger too.

You have plenty of time to post all of these denials. If you had
anything meaningful, you could post it, too. Science has not written
anything about the Galilean transformation equations except proofs
that the ether theory does not explain the results of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. I have already read enough of those. If you have
something new, go ahead and tell us what it is.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

| xxein: *I am wondering why anybody should even try to teach anything
| to a resolute believer in something else.

So why do you?

xxein1: Maybe just the possibility that an idiot like you can gain a
physical understanding.

I seem to be wrong on that, again.

"xxein" wrote in message
...
On May 9, 6:37 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"xxein" wrote in message

...
On May 9, 9:48 am, rbwinn wrote:

On May 9, 6:21 am, PD wrote:

On May 8, 11:00 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 8, 5:04 pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 8:54 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 6:43 pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 7:17 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 3:57 pm, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 18:38, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 12:54 pm, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 14:34, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 10:40?am, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 12:25, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 8:06 am, PD

wrote:

Well, no, if lightining strikes the front and
rear
of a moving train,
leaving marks on the train and the track, the
marks on the track will
be the length of the train apart, which
relativity
of simultaneity
cannot explain. ?According to mathematics, if
the
bolts of lightning
are simultaneous in the frame of reference of
the
track, the marks on
the track will be closer together than the
length
of the train; if the
bolts of lightning are simultaneous in the frame
of reference of the
train, the marks on the track are further apart
than the length of the
train. ?Reality shows that the marks on the
track
will be the length
of the train apart, disproving this false
teaching
of Einstein.
Robert B. Winn

Nonsense. That is a bunch of words salad. What in
the world those
marks you mention have to do with relativity of
simultaneity?
This shows you have not read anything about SR.
What
does it mean
"according to mathematics"? And where does
Einstein
say the nonsense
of the marks on the track?
There are two events (the strikes) and two
observers. What these
observers see is the light signal information that
tells them about
the occurrence of those strikes. That is the
reason
one of them can
certify "I saw both strikes to be simultaneous",
while the second
certify "I saw the front strike occurring before
the
back strike".

Einstein was the one who thought of the train and
two
bolts of
lightning. He did not fully consider the mathematics
of the situation
he described. Einstein did not say anything about
marks on the track,
but I did. The marks on the track prove that
relativity of
simultaneity cannot exist in reality. Lightning hits
the front and
rear of the train simultaneously as seen by an
observer by the track,
leaving marks on the front and rear of the train and
marks on the
railroad track. The distance between the marks on
the
train is the
length of the train. The distance between the marks
on
the track is
the length of the train. In order for relativity of
simultaneity to
exist, the marks on the track would have to be
closer
together than
the length of the train. Conversely, if the bolts of
lightning are
seen simultaneously by the observer on the train, in
order for
relativity of simultaneity to exist, the marks on
the
track would have
to be further apart than the length of the train.
Reality shows that
the marks on the track are the length of the train
apart.
Robert B. Winn

That is complete nonsense. What Einstein wrote about
this subject,
just for people like you, can be seen
inhttp://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
Observers do not have to measure any length (actually
it
would be very
tough to measure a 200000km train, not speaking of how
to build it and
how to place the tracks). The only requirement is for
the observers to
coincide at t=0 at x=0, that the strikes occurred at
x=-X0 and at x=
+X0 and that the train with its observer is moving at
a
speed v into
the +x direction.
The observations consist of both observers receiving
the
light signals
that communicate them of the strikes occurrence. Where
in the world
are you seeing something related to measuring lengths?

c=176,000 miles /sec. The mile is a unit of length. The
velocity of
the train is also measured in units of length divided by
time. In
addition to that, the train has a length that is
measured
in units of
length.
Robert B. Winn

And what are you trying to say with that?.
We are talking about the relativity of simultaneity, and
that refers
to time relations, not to length contraction.
The whole point of this train thought experiment is to
prove
that time
is not absolute.

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Relativity of simultaneity, as explained by Einstein, is
dependent on
length contraction.

Actually, no it's not. You'll notice that the relativity of
simultaneity is established without needing to reference the
distance
between the marks. However, you brought up the *additional*
information about the distance between the marks. In so doing,
you
find out that there is a *consequence* of relativity of
simultaneity:
relativity of length.

If lightning strikes both ends of a train,
leaving marks on the ends of the train and marks on the
track,
the
only way the marks can be closer together than the length of
the
train, as is required if the lightning at the front strikes
first, is
if there is a distance contraction, as seen from the frame
of
reference of the track.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

Well, as I said, that would be the problem of people who believe
it
exists. I believe the Galilean transformation equations which
indicate that relativity of simultaneity and distance
contraction
do
not exist.

I know you believe that. That's because you're ignorant of the
experimental data, I believe. If you're not interested enough in
the
truth to investigate the data, then I'm under no compunction to
make
you change your beliefs.

PD

Ignorant of experimental dataI

Ignorant of experimental data? The only experiment I have to run is
posting equations in sci.physics.relativity.

Aha. There, you see, is where you make a basic mistake, confusing
looking at equations with looking at experimental data. You keep
wanting to look at equations, and you shy away from looking at data.

You might consider asking a scientist how science is done, Bobby,
rather than just playing it the way you want to play it.

So, PD, when are you
going to tell us about the experiments that disprove the Galilean
transformation equations?

I already have, Bobby, and I've reminded you about it too. Just
because you're still holding the hoop up, Bobby, doesn't mean that I'm
going to jump through it again. You can lift a finger too.

You have plenty of time to post all of these denials. If you had
anything meaningful, you could post it, too. Science has not written
anything about the Galilean transformation equations except proofs
that the ether theory does not explain the results of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. I have already read enough of those. If you have
something new, go ahead and tell us what it is.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

| xxein: I am wondering why anybody should even try to teach anything
| to a resolute believer in something else.

So why do you?

| xxein1: Maybe just the possibility that an idiot like you can gain a
| physical understanding.

| I seem to be wrong on that, again.

A ****head like you will always be wrong, nothing new there.

--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Androcles

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

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

On May 17, 9:39*am, rbwinn wrote:


Well, no, PD, I make judgments based on the fact that scientists are
working the mathematics incorrectly. *I think I would have been able
to convince Einstein that he was working it wrong because he had a
goal in mind. *He was trying to derive a Unified Field Theory. *So if
I had said to Einstein, "Hey, Albert, if you reflect a photon 180
degrees with a mirror, the velocity of the photon changes from +c to -
c relative to a set of coordinates," I think Einstein would have
listened. *With regard to his disciples, I do not think they ever will
because they see themselves as protectors of the theory, which is
reputed to work, therefore, they must defend it at all costs. Their
only goal is to be regarded as being as intelligent as Einstein, not
to be able to understand how light works. *So they will say exactly
what Einstein said, because if it worked for him, it will work for
them. *But the fact remains that the reason why they end up with an
interferometer arm that contracts in length is because they do not
work the mathematics correctly. *The have a close approximation taken
from some complex equations, and that is good enough for them. *All
they have to do is memorize a discipline, and they are the smartest
people on earth in their own minds.
Robert B. Winn

Your capacity to just make stuff up for fun is boundless.

PD