kenseto wrote:
What's wrong with these pictures???

1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock. This means that
the passage of a stay at home clock second corresponds to the passage
of less than a clock second on the traveling clock. However when the
traveling clock rejoins the stay-at-home clock, the traveling clock
second is compared with the stay-at-home clock second directly to
reach the conclusion that the traveling clock is younger. It seems
that SR is making the contradictory claims that: (a) the passage of a
traveling clock second does not correspond to the passage of a stay-at-
home clock second. (b) the passage of a traveling clock second does
correspond to the passage of a stay-at-home clock second.

2. In the pole and the barn paradox scenario:
SR claims that a physically longer pole can fit into a physically
shorter barn for a brief instant. However SR also claims that nothing
is physically happening to the pole. The question is: If nothing is
physically happening to the pole how can a physically longer pole can
fit into a physically shorter barn? Also, what about from the pole's
point of view? How can it fit into an already physically shorter barn
when the barn is under go further physical contraction?
Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.

3. The SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity: Einstein used the
train and lightning strikes example to derive his concept of RoS. He
said that the track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous
because the speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the
track observer is located at equal distance from the strikes when the
strikes occur simultaneously. Also the track observer is not moving
wrt the light fronts from the strikes.
OTOH he also claimed that the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts from the strikes....the light front from the front of the train
will reach the train observer before the light front from the rear of
the train. This is why the train observer will not see the light
fronts to be simultaneous. However Einstein failed to realize that his
explanation violates his postulate that the speed of light is also
isotropic in the train.....at the time the strikes occur
simultaneously the trian observer is also at equal distance from the
strikes. Therefore the train observer must also sees the strikes to be
simultaneous.
Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.

All these contradictory claim can be resolved by an Improved
Relaitivity Theory (IRT). A paper on IRT entitled "Improved Relativity
Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is availble in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

I just want to add at this point that, while the discussion has moved
to whether you have adequately staffed to perform an experiment to
test your theory, your original post shows that you find special
relativity to be just as confusing as it ever was to you, and that all
of the classic teaching examples are still self-contradictions to you.
You haven't learned one thing in over a decade about this subject. Not
one thing. I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that you're going about
learning it the wrong way.

PD


Ken Seto

On May 9, 5:58Â*am, PD wrote:
On May 8, 10:54Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:





On May 8, 5:02Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 10:25Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 6:54Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 8:53Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 6:40Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 5:46Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 1:11Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 1:45Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 10:40�am, PD wrote:

On May 7, 11:25�am, rbwinn 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.

Sure, it explains it.

Here's how:
The track observer goes back after the train has passed and notes that
the marks on the track are 400 m apart. Remember that, for the track
observer, the strikes hit simultaneously. Since the marks are also on
the train, the track observer correctly notes that the train is 400 m
long. (This is what a length measurement entails anyway: marking the
locations of the ends of an object at the same time.)

Now the train observer goes back after the strikes have hit and notes
that the marks on the train are 500 m apart. But it's also true that
this observer saw the front strike happen before the rear strike ---
the strikes are not simultaneous in this frame. So it doesn't bother
this observer at all that the track observer sees the marks 400 m
apart. That's exactly what you'd expect if you marked the location of
the front of a moving object before you marked the location of the
rear of the moving object -- and that's exactly what the train
observer is sure happened.

The length of the train is frame-dependent. Whether the marks at the
end of the train were made at the same time, is also frame-dependent.

Does this help you understand?

The train has an actual length.

No, actually, it does not. Length is a frame-dependent quantity. The
value in one frame is no more "actual" than the value in another
frame. Now, there is a "rest length" which is the length measured in
the frame in which the train just happens to be at rest, but there is
nothing preferential about this frame.

Well, no, length is not a frame dependent quantity.

That is at variance with experimental observation. Nice conjecture,
though.
How's that working for ya?

Â*Length is
length. Â*There is no distance contraction.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

Well, the Galilean transformation equations indicate otherwise.

The Galilean transformation equations are also at variance with
experimental observation. That's why they've been dropped. You can do
that with mathematics that doesn't model reality well.

Nice conjecture, though. How's that working for ya?

PD

The Galilean transformation equations work very well. Â*The Lorentz
equations not so well, but they give a fairly close approximation. Â*So
when are you going to tell us what the experiment was that proved the
Galilean transformation equations wrong?

I've already told you and pointed it out to you. You responded that
you don't read what scientists point out to you. How's that working
for you?

It got me to the Galilean transformation equations. Â*As far as I can
tell, I am the only one in the world who understands this subject.
Robert B. Winn

OK, so let's recap, shall we?
You believe the Galilean transformations work well.
However, you are unaware of the experimental evidence that shows the
Galilean transformations do not work well.
You have the policy of not reading references provided to you by
scientists that the Galilean transformations do not work well.
This policy has led you to believe further in the truth of the
Galilean transformations, and you further believe that you are the
only person in the world that understands this to be the case.

Yes, pretty much. So, PD, how is it that you have so much time to
post all of these recappings, but no time to post anything about an
experiment that shows the Galilean transformation equations to be
wrong?
Robert B. Winn

On May 9, 6:18Â*am, PD wrote:
On May 8, 7:20Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:





On May 8, 5:04Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 8:54Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 6:43Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 7:17Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 3:57Â*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. Â*He did not fully consider the mathematics of the situation
he described. Â*Einstein did not say anything about marks on the track,
but I did. Â*The marks on the track prove that relativity of
simultaneity cannot exist in reality. Â*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. Â*The distance between the marks on the train is the
length of the train. Â*The distance between the marks on the track is
the length of the train. Â*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. Â*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. Â*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. Â*The mile is a unit of length. Â*The velocity of
the train is also measured in units of length divided by time. Â*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.

Â*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. Â*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 Â*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

Well, you talk about experiments. Â*Go ahead and tell us about one of
these experiments. Â*You were going to do this once before and then
changed your mind.
Robert B. Winn

I try wherever possible not to jump through the same hoop twice,
Bobby. Do you know how to research what's already been posted?- Hide quoted text -

Yes, I just wait until you actually post something. I learned a long
time ago not to go chasing diversions.
Robert B. Winn

On May 9, 6:21Â*am, PD wrote:
On May 8, 11:00Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:





On May 8, 5:04Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 8:54Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 6:43Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 7:17Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 3:57Â*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. Â*He did not fully consider the mathematics of the situation
he described. Â*Einstein did not say anything about marks on the track,
but I did. Â*The marks on the track prove that relativity of
simultaneity cannot exist in reality. Â*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. Â*The distance between the marks on the train is the
length of the train. Â*The distance between the marks on the track is
the length of the train. Â*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. Â*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. Â*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. Â*The mile is a unit of length. Â*The velocity of
the train is also measured in units of length divided by time. Â*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.

Â*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. Â*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 Â*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? Â*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.

Â*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.

Well, all you are proving, PD, is that you are afraid to say anything
because I might find a mistake in it. You scientists are too
sensitive. I am the one using scientific method. You are just
stonewalling and hoping that people will ignore the inconsistencies in
what you say.
Robert B. Winn

On May 13, 1:37*am, Bryan Olson wrote:
none wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
So, Ken, let's recap your position for a moment.
Lets capture your position: Apparently you are so desperate that you
tried to swindle $22,000 from me!!!!!
You tell not the truth, Ken Seto.
I speakest the truth.

*From here it looks like you are afraid of the truth and are not
looking for honest help. PD offered that and you showed you were
looking for someone to cook the data for you. *That is not
science. *This works in the court system but not in science.

My take is different. I do not think Ken has any plan to fake
experimental data. My diagnosis, as serious though amateur
kookologist, is that Ken is legitimately deluded: he believes
the theories that he made up.

Why am I delusional??? I discovered a theory (IRT) that is an
improvement over SRT. I came up with proposed experiments that can
refute IRT. I asked for recomendations for the suppliers of the
required equipment to do these experiments. Seems to me that's the
standard scientific procedure.



There is an element of intellectual dishonestly, or at least
irresponsibility plus narcissism, in zealously espousing one's
own theory without even bothering to understand what so many
others have worked so long and so hard to establish. That's
par for the course on sci.physics.relativity.

The point is that I understand the true meaning of SR more than any
runts in these NGs.....including you.

Ken Seto

It's another thing for Ken to accuse PD of trying to swindle
him, based on what he *imagines* PD would do. I've heard that
called "false witness".

I was not entirely comfortable withe PD's offer to work on
Ken's experiment. I think I see where PD was going, but of
course Ken would and should reject the offer. What purpose
was served?

--
--Bryan

On May 13, 6:47*am, PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
What's wrong with these pictures???

1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock. This means that
the passage of a stay at home clock second corresponds to the passage
of less than a clock second on the traveling clock. However when the
traveling clock rejoins the stay-at-home clock, the traveling clock
second is compared with the stay-at-home clock second *directly to
reach the conclusion that the traveling clock is younger. It seems
that SR is making the contradictory claims that: (a) the passage of a
traveling clock second does not correspond to the passage of a stay-at-
home clock second. (b) the passage of a traveling clock second does
correspond to the passage of a stay-at-home clock second.

2. In the pole and the barn paradox scenario:
SR claims that a physically longer pole can fit into a physically
shorter barn for a brief instant. However SR also claims that nothing
is physically happening to the pole. The question is: If nothing is
physically happening to the pole how can a physically longer pole can
fit into a physically shorter barn? Also, what about from the pole's
point of view? How can it fit into an already physically shorter barn
when the barn is under go further physical contraction?
Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.

3. The SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity: Einstein used the
train and lightning strikes example to derive his concept of RoS. He
said that the track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous
because the speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the
track observer is located at equal distance from the strikes when the
strikes occur simultaneously. Also the track observer is not moving
wrt the light fronts from the strikes.
OTOH he also claimed that the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts from the strikes....the light front from the front of the train
will reach the train observer before the light front from the rear of
the train. This is why the train observer will not see the light
fronts to be simultaneous. However Einstein failed to realize that his
explanation violates his postulate that the speed of light is also
isotropic in the train.....at the time the strikes occur
simultaneously the trian observer is also at equal distance from the
strikes. Therefore the train observer must also sees the strikes to be
simultaneous.
Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.

All these contradictory claim can be resolved by an Improved
Relaitivity Theory (IRT). A paper on IRT entitled "Improved Relativity
Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is availble in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

I just want to add at this point that, while the discussion has moved
to whether you have adequately staffed to perform an experiment to
test your theory, your original post shows that you find special
relativity to be just as confusing as it ever was to you, and that all
of the classic teaching examples are still self-contradictions to you.
You haven't learned one thing in over a decade about this subject. Not
one thing. I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that you're going about
learning it the wrong way.


The SR contradictions are as follows:
1. Nothing physically is happening to the moving longer pole but both
ends of the longer pole can fit into a physically shorter barn for a
very brief instant of time.
2. The passage of a clock second in the stay-at-home clock corresponds
to the passage of less than a clock second in the traveling twin's
clock. However the traveling clock second can compare directly with
the stay at home clock second to reach the conclusion that the
traveling clock is younger.
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. 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.

I rest my case.

Ken Seto

On May 13, 12:21*am, Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
Well, then, you're stuck aren't you?

Far from it..... I have lined up a couple of PhDs who are willing to
participate, for the sake of advancement science, at no cost to me.

Who?

Ken, have you considered using the Internet to report on your
project, rather than to proclaim yourself correct before even
doing a single experiment? You could gain credibility by blogging
your step-by-step progress. You have a couple PhD's involved.
Great; introduce them.

Hey idiot I didn't proclaim anything. I asked for recomendations for
the suppliers of the neccessary equipment to do my proposed
experiments. When the experiemnts are completed I will post the
results in my website.

Ken Seto

PD wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
I was not entirely comfortable withe PD's offer to work on
Ken's experiment. I think I see where PD was going, but of
course Ken would and should reject the offer. What purpose
was served?

Actually, after doing some basic background checking on Mr. Seto, I
wrote to withdraw my offer to him.

Glad to hear you withdrew the offer. The one thing I would want
to know from a background check is whether the money is coming
from a source that can afford to lose it; no details.

Mr. Seto did not take kindly to my
performing this check, which at some point produced some concern among
those are connected to him. My background check was more thorough than
this contact that he's aware of.

Mr. Seto is woefully underprepared on all measures for this
experiment.

That is painfully obvious from his posts and his website.

If his so-called PhDs are at all competent, they will
quickly discern this for themselves. It may be that they don't care --
one can imagine all sorts of reasons why.

For the record, if the background check had come out otherwise, then I
would have been happy to provide my services to the utmost of my
professional ability. I have no vested interest in protecting
relativity. This is true for any physicist here.

Sure. My problem with the offer was that it goes along with the
the delusion. Watter under the bridge now.


--
--Bryan

Bryan Olson wrote in message

PD wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
I was not entirely comfortable withe PD's offer to work on
Ken's experiment. I think I see where PD was going, but of
course Ken would and should reject the offer. What purpose
was served?

Actually, after doing some basic background checking on Mr. Seto, I
wrote to withdraw my offer to him.

Glad to hear you withdrew the offer. The one thing I would want
to know from a background check is whether the money is coming
from a source that can afford to lose it; no details.

I wouldn't be surprised a bit if there wasn't a source to begin with.
Maybe it was just an instance of compulsive lying as another symptom
of his mental condition, or maybe he got a email or a letter from a joker.
Google for the combination
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Sc...pe+Freely+Seto

Poor Ken :-)

Dirk Vdm

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
On May 13, 6:47 am, PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
What's wrong with these pictures???

1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock. This means that
the passage of a stay at home clock second corresponds to the passage
of less than a clock second on the traveling clock. However when the
traveling clock rejoins the stay-at-home clock, the traveling clock
second is compared with the stay-at-home clock second directly to
reach the conclusion that the traveling clock is younger. It seems
that SR is making the contradictory claims that: (a) the passage of a
traveling clock second does not correspond to the passage of a stay-at-
home clock second. (b) the passage of a traveling clock second does
correspond to the passage of a stay-at-home clock second.

2. In the pole and the barn paradox scenario:
SR claims that a physically longer pole can fit into a physically
shorter barn for a brief instant. However SR also claims that nothing
is physically happening to the pole. The question is: If nothing is
physically happening to the pole how can a physically longer pole can
fit into a physically shorter barn? Also, what about from the pole's
point of view? How can it fit into an already physically shorter barn
when the barn is under go further physical contraction?
Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.

3. The SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity: Einstein used the
train and lightning strikes example to derive his concept of RoS. He
said that the track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous
because the speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the
track observer is located at equal distance from the strikes when the
strikes occur simultaneously. Also the track observer is not moving
wrt the light fronts from the strikes.
OTOH he also claimed that the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts from the strikes....the light front from the front of the train
will reach the train observer before the light front from the rear of
the train. This is why the train observer will not see the light
fronts to be simultaneous. However Einstein failed to realize that his
explanation violates his postulate that the speed of light is also
isotropic in the train.....at the time the strikes occur
simultaneously the trian observer is also at equal distance from the
strikes. Therefore the train observer must also sees the strikes to be
simultaneous.
Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.

All these contradictory claim can be resolved by an Improved
Relaitivity Theory (IRT). A paper on IRT entitled "Improved Relativity
Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is availble in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

I just want to add at this point that, while the discussion has moved
to whether you have adequately staffed to perform an experiment to
test your theory, your original post shows that you find special
relativity to be just as confusing as it ever was to you, and that all
of the classic teaching examples are still self-contradictions to you.
You haven't learned one thing in over a decade about this subject. Not
one thing. I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that you're going about
learning it the wrong way.


The SR contradictions are as follows:
1. Nothing physically is happening to the moving longer pole but both
ends of the longer pole can fit into a physically shorter barn for a
very brief instant of time.
Here is a concrete example of how to fit that pole into that barn within a
single inertial frame of reference without special relativity or the
isotropy of light:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...cc23ed1b8e6d26

2. The passage of a clock second in the stay-at-home clock corresponds
to the passage of less than a clock second in the traveling twin's
clock. However the traveling clock second can compare directly with
the stay at home clock second to reach the conclusion that the
traveling clock is younger.
Do you see that the length contraction and time dilation of special
relativity are equivalent to "optical illusions"?

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).

That means that Einstein's assertion destroys the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train.
Not at all. It is exactly because of the isotropy of the speed of light that
the above is true!

Also that means that the
concept of relativity of simultaneity violates the postulates of SR.
The relativity of simultaneity is a direct and necessary consequence of the
postulates of SR and the definition of simultaneous.


I rest my case.
Congratulations. The breadth and depth of your misunderstanding is truly
awesome.


Ken Seto