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.


It's the other way around in physics. You *start* with the
observations, and you *derive* assertions. The reason you start that
way in physics is that observations are undeniable.

****ing idiot....there is no observation first. There are specified
conditions that control the predicted observations.

Nature controls
what you observe. That control does not belong to your logic.

****ing idiot....the conditions of the gedanken set up by Einstein
control what will be observed.

Ken Seto

Nature
dictates what *really* happens, whether you expect it or not, or
whether it makes sense or not. That is the purpose of experiment -- to
tell you what *really* happens as a *starting point*. And THEN you
figure out what assertions are consistent with those experimental
results.

In the present case, we *start* with the observations, and by the end
of the gedanken, Einstein shows that the assertion about simultaneity
of the strikes is different than what you might have expected.
Einstein shows that it is NOT the case that the strikes are either
simultaneous or they are not simultaneous. Einstein shows that they
are BOTH simultaneous and not simultaneous, which one being determined
by which reference frame you're in. He goes on to say that it is
*inconsistent with observation* to insist that it is either one or the
other, but not both -- that prejudice must be dispensed with.

Also if you specify
that the strikes were not simultaneous in the train frame you are
already specifying RoS. In that case why did Einstein need to go
through the following bull **** to prove that the train observer will
not see the strikes to be simultaneous: "...he (the train observer) is
hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding
on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will
see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that
emitted from A.."

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.

****ing idiot the whole purpose of Einstein's gedanken is to prove
that two original simultaneous strikes are simultaneous in the track
frame because the track observer is not moving wrt the light fronts
and they are not simultaneous in the train frame because the train
observer is moving wrt the light fronts.

No, sir, that is NOT the purpose of the gedanken. The purpose of the
gedanken is precisely what he WROTE is the purpose of the gedanken.
And if you will bother to READ what he WROTE as his explicit purpose,
you will see that purpose written in black and white. In the beginning
of what he WROTE, he explains that his purpose is to pose and answer
the question whether simultaneity is a condition that can be said to
apply to a pair of events regardless of observer. At the end of the
gedanken, he WROTE the answer to the question posed: The answer is NO.
A pair of events that are reallio-trulio simultaneous in one frame are
reallio-trulio non-simultaneous in another frame. THAT is the purpose
of the gedanken, and we know that because that's what he WROTE is the
purpose of the gedanken.

For you to say that the purpose is something other than what he
explicitly said his purpose is, is simply a denial of reality, Ken --
something you are prone to do fairly liberally. In your case, Ken, the
degree borders on psychosis, frankly. Ubfortunately Einstein's
assertions about the train observer violate the SR postulate that the
speed of light in the train is isotropic. Also they violate the SR
concept that relative motion and direction of relative motion will not
affect on the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. You are so
stupid. sigh

Ken Seto

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 15, 11:53*pm, Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 15, 5:22 pm, PD wrote:
On May 15, 8:49 am, 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.
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?

SR says that observers in different states of motion will,
in many cases, disagree about whether events in different
places are simultaneous.

Hey idiot this assertion assumes the validity of RoS. RoS violates the
isotropy of the speed of light and the PoR in all frames.

Ken Seto

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.

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.

What you do is to pick and choose and say "Well, I'm looking at the
track observer first, and what he says goes. So if HE says the strikes
are simultaneous, then they are physically simultaneous, and then this
dictates what the train observer MUST see." That is, you're letting
one observer determine what the absolute physical reality is, over the
other observer.

Had you started with the train observer instead, the two
specifications (stipulations) would have demanded that the strikes are
NOT physically simultaneous if the train observer sees the strikes to
be not simultaneous. Then you would have used this to force what the
track observer sees.

Einstein's point in the gedanken is that *neither one* sets the
physical reality. The physical reality is that simultaneity is not an
absolute physical attribute of two events. You cannot let one observer
dictate whether two events are physically simultaneous or not, because
both observers have equal say, and they lead to different conclusions
about the simultaneity of the events. In such a case you have to say
that *physical simultaneity* is frame dependent.




It's the other way around in physics. You *start* with the
observations, and you *derive* assertions. The reason you start that
way in physics is that observations are undeniable.

****ing idiot....there is no observation first. There are specified
conditions that control the predicted observations.

That's not true. Fetch the book and read it again. Einstein sets it up
with observations *first*, not specified physical conditions. Your
memory is bad, and the truth is printed in black and white and has
been so for a century.

You are simply wrong on this, Seto, and it's necessary for you to go
back and check facts, rather than denying reality.


Nature controls
what you observe. That control does not belong to your logic.

****ing idiot....the conditions of the gedanken set up by Einstein
control what will be observed.

Ken Seto

*Nature

dictates what *really* happens, whether you expect it or not, or
whether it makes sense or not. That is the purpose of experiment -- to
tell you what *really* happens as a *starting point*. And THEN you
figure out what assertions are consistent with those experimental
results.

In the present case, we *start* with the observations, and by the end
of the gedanken, Einstein shows that the assertion about simultaneity
of the strikes is different than what you might have expected.
Einstein shows that it is NOT the case that the strikes are either
simultaneous or they are not simultaneous. Einstein shows that they
are BOTH simultaneous and not simultaneous, which one being determined
by which reference frame you're in. He goes on to say that it is
*inconsistent with observation* to insist that it is either one or the
other, but not both -- that prejudice must be dispensed with.

Also if you specify
that the strikes were not simultaneous in the train frame you are
already specifying RoS. In that case why did Einstein need to go
through the following bull **** to prove that the train observer will
not see the strikes to be simultaneous: "...he (the train observer) is
hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding
on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will
see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that
emitted from A.."

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.

****ing idiot the whole purpose of Einstein's gedanken is to prove
that two original simultaneous strikes are simultaneous in the track
frame because the track observer is not moving wrt the light fronts
and they are not simultaneous in the train frame because the train
observer is moving wrt the light fronts.

No, sir, that is NOT the purpose of the gedanken. The purpose of the
gedanken is precisely what he WROTE is the purpose of the gedanken.
And if you will bother to READ what he WROTE as his explicit purpose,
you will see that purpose written in black and white. In the beginning
of what he WROTE, he explains that his purpose is to pose and answer
the question whether simultaneity is a condition that can be said to
apply to a pair of events regardless of observer. At the end of the
gedanken, he WROTE the answer to the question posed: The answer is NO.
A pair of events that are reallio-trulio simultaneous in one frame are
reallio-trulio non-simultaneous in another frame. THAT is the purpose
of the gedanken, and we know that because that's what he WROTE is the
purpose of the gedanken.

For you to say that the purpose is something other than what he
explicitly said his purpose is, is simply a denial of reality, Ken --
something you are prone to do fairly liberally. In your case, Ken, the
degree borders on psychosis, frankly. Ubfortunately Einstein's
assertions about the train observer violate the SR postulate that the
speed of light in the train is isotropic. Also they violate the SR
concept that relative motion and direction of relative motion will not
affect on the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. You are so
stupid. sigh

Ken Seto

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

...

read more »

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

Â*They are definitely not open to discussion. Â*All
you

On 16 mayo, 08:26, 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.



It's the other way around in physics. You *start* with the
observations, and you *derive* assertions. The reason you start that
way in physics is that observations are undeniable.

****ing idiot....there is no observation first. There are specified
conditions that control the predicted observations.

Nature controls
what you observe. That control does not belong to your logic.

****ing idiot....the conditions of the gedanken set up by Einstein
control what will be observed.

Ken Seto

Nature

dictates what *really* happens, whether you expect it or not, or
whether it makes sense or not. That is the purpose of experiment -- to
tell you what *really* happens as a *starting point*. And THEN you
figure out what assertions are consistent with those experimental
results.

In the present case, we *start* with the observations, and by the end
of the gedanken, Einstein shows that the assertion about simultaneity
of the strikes is different than what you might have expected.
Einstein shows that it is NOT the case that the strikes are either
simultaneous or they are not simultaneous. Einstein shows that they
are BOTH simultaneous and not simultaneous, which one being determined
by which reference frame you're in. He goes on to say that it is
*inconsistent with observation* to insist that it is either one or the
other, but not both -- that prejudice must be dispensed with.

Also if you specify
that the strikes were not simultaneous in the train frame you are
already specifying RoS. In that case why did Einstein need to go
through the following bull **** to prove that the train observer will
not see the strikes to be simultaneous: "...he (the train observer) is
hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding
on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will
see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that
emitted from A.."

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.

****ing idiot the whole purpose of Einstein's gedanken is to prove
that two original simultaneous strikes are simultaneous in the track
frame because the track observer is not moving wrt the light fronts
and they are not simultaneous in the train frame because the train
observer is moving wrt the light fronts.

No, sir, that is NOT the purpose of the gedanken. The purpose of the
gedanken is precisely what he WROTE is the purpose of the gedanken.
And if you will bother to READ what he WROTE as his explicit purpose,
you will see that purpose written in black and white. In the beginning
of what he WROTE, he explains that his purpose is to pose and answer
the question whether simultaneity is a condition that can be said to
apply to a pair of events regardless of observer. At the end of the
gedanken, he WROTE the answer to the question posed: The answer is NO.
A pair of events that are reallio-trulio simultaneous in one frame are
reallio-trulio non-simultaneous in another frame. THAT is the purpose
of the gedanken, and we know that because that's what he WROTE is the
purpose of the gedanken.

For you to say that the purpose is something other than what he
explicitly said his purpose is, is simply a denial of reality, Ken --
something you are prone to do fairly liberally. In your case, Ken, the
degree borders on psychosis, frankly. Ubfortunately Einstein's
assertions about the train observer violate the SR postulate that the
speed of light in the train is isotropic. Also they violate the SR
concept that relative motion and direction of relative motion will not
affect on the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. You are so
stupid. sigh

Ken Seto

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

...

leer más »

OK, reading your nonsense is always nice....it makes many laugh loudly
over here and that is good for starting the day.

Einstein says exactly this:

"When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with
respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the
places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-
point M of the length A — B of the embankment."

As you clearly don't understand this wording and lie about it, it says
the following:

a) It is an observation from the track...Hey I saw to light signals
from two strokes to be simultaneous. Nothing is said explicitly or
implicitly about the real events. The observer does not know the
distance from the strokes.

Then Einstein, with respect to the train observer says:

"this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves
towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train. If
an observer sitting in the position M’ in the train did not possess
this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and the light
rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B would reach him
simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just where he is situated. Now in
reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is
hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding
on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will
see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that
emitted from A."

b) This means that if the train observer is not moving relatively to
the track observer, he would also see both strokes as simultaneous.
Again this is an observation.
c) Since he is moving he observes that both strokes are not
simultaneous.

Finally who is right and who is wrong. Well neither of them is either.
This is because the observation, that is, simultaneity at the track
observer location and non simultaneity at the train observer, is also
compatible with situations where the original events were not
simultaneous at all to begin with, but they occurred at different
times and locations. You could also construct an example where the
train observer sees the strokes as simultaneous and the track observer
sees them as non simultaneous.

Miguel Rios

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.

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.

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. There is no demand that the train observer sees the strikes
to be not simultaneous. Einstein artifically introduced the bogus
assertion that the train observer is moving wrt the light fronts and
that's why he does not see the strikes to be simultaneous. Einstein
failed to realize that his assertion violates the PoR and the isotropy
of the speed of light in the train.

Ken Seto


What you do is to pick and choose and say "Well, I'm looking at the
track observer first, and what he says goes. So if HE says the strikes
are simultaneous, then they are physically simultaneous, and then this
dictates what the train observer MUST see." That is, you're letting
one observer determine what the absolute physical reality is, over the
other observer.

Had you started with the train observer instead, the two
specifications (stipulations) would have demanded that the strikes are
NOT physically simultaneous if the train observer sees the strikes to
be not simultaneous. Then you would have used this to force what the
track observer sees.

Einstein's point in the gedanken is that *neither one* sets the
physical reality. The physical reality is that simultaneity is not an
absolute physical attribute of two events. You cannot let one observer
dictate whether two events are physically simultaneous or not, because
both observers have equal say, and they lead to different conclusions
about the simultaneity of the events. In such a case you have to say
that *physical simultaneity* is frame dependent.



It's the other way around in physics. You *start* with the
observations, and you *derive* assertions. The reason you start that
way in physics is that observations are undeniable.

****ing idiot....there is no observation first. There are specified
conditions that control the predicted observations.

That's not true. Fetch the book and read it again. Einstein sets it up
with observations *first*, not specified physical conditions. Your
memory is bad, and the truth is printed in black and white and has
been so for a century.

You are simply wrong on this, Seto, and it's necessary for you to go
back and check facts, rather than denying reality.





Nature controls
what you observe. That control does not belong to your logic.

****ing idiot....the conditions of the gedanken set up by Einstein
control what will be observed.

Ken Seto

*Nature

dictates what *really* happens, whether you expect it or not, or
whether it makes sense or not. That is the purpose of experiment -- to
tell you what *really* happens as a *starting point*. And THEN you
figure out what assertions are consistent with those experimental
results.

In the present case, we *start* with the observations, and by the end
of the gedanken, Einstein shows that the assertion about simultaneity
of the strikes is different than what you might have expected.
Einstein shows that it is NOT the case that the strikes are either
simultaneous or they are not simultaneous. Einstein shows that they
are BOTH simultaneous and not simultaneous, which one being determined
by which reference frame you're in. He goes on to say that it is
*inconsistent with observation* to insist that it is either one or the
other, but not both -- that prejudice must be dispensed with.

Also if you specify
that the strikes were not simultaneous in the train frame you are
already specifying RoS. In that case why did Einstein need to go
through the following bull **** to prove that the train observer will
not see the strikes to be simultaneous: "...he (the train observer) is
hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding
on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will
see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that
emitted from A.."

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.

****ing idiot the whole purpose of Einstein's gedanken is to prove
that two original simultaneous strikes are simultaneous in the track
frame because the track observer is not moving wrt the light fronts
and they are not simultaneous in the train frame because the train
observer is moving wrt the light fronts.

No, sir, that is NOT the purpose of the gedanken. The purpose of the
gedanken is precisely what he WROTE is the purpose of the gedanken.
And if you will bother to READ what he WROTE as his explicit purpose,
you will see that purpose written in black and white. In the beginning
of what he WROTE, he explains that his purpose is to pose and answer
the question whether simultaneity is a condition that can be said to
apply to a pair of events regardless of observer. At the end of the
gedanken, he WROTE the answer to the question posed: The answer is NO.
A pair of events that are reallio-trulio simultaneous in one frame are
reallio-trulio non-simultaneous in another frame. THAT is the purpose
of the gedanken, and we know that because that's what he WROTE is the
purpose of the gedanken.

For you to say that the purpose is something other than what he
explicitly said his purpose is, is simply a denial of reality, Ken --
something you are prone to do fairly liberally. In your case, Ken, the
degree borders on psychosis, frankly. Ubfortunately Einstein's
assertions about the train observer violate the SR postulate that the
speed of light in the train is isotropic. Also they violate the SR
concept that- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -...

read more »