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.

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

On 9 mayo, 09:30, kenseto wrote:
On May 8, 10:49 am, " wrote:



On 8 mayo, 10:27, kenseto wrote:

On May 8, 9:53 am, " wrote:

On 8 mayo, 09:25, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 5:01 pm, " wrote:

On 7 mayo, 16:27, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 3:43 pm, " wrote:

On 7 mayo, 15:32, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 11:42 am, " wrote:

On 7 mayo, 10:28, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 6:48�am, YBM wrote:

kenseto a �crit :

ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
simultaneously and that:
1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
moving wrt the light fronts.
2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
moving wrt the light fronts.

In SR, "not moving with respect to a light front" makes no sense.

I have a question, YBM. Whether you talk about photons or light
fronts, in the frame of reference of the train, the light is traveling
at a speed of c from the two points where light was emitted in the
frame of reference of the train. Those two points remain exactly
where they were relative to the frame of reference of the train, and
the movement of the track relative to the train changes nothing. How
do you get that the observer on the train is moving wrt the light
fronts in his frame of reference?

Your mistake is treating the points where the information (light) was
generated the same as the information.
They are quite different!

The observer on the train is not moving in his frame of
reference. The train is not moving in the frame of reference of the
train, and the observer is at the middle of the train the entire
time. The two light fronts are moving with a speed of c toward the
observer. The track is moving toward the rear of the train. What the
track does is irrelevant because the light travels with a speed of c
in the frame of reference of the train, regardless of the motion of
the source of light. Since the track is moving toward the rear of the
train at a speed less than the speed of light, any photons emitted in
the frame of reference of the train after the first photons emitted
will still reach the observer at the middle of the train after the
first ones emitted.

The light carrying the information is moving isotropically from the
points where it was generated. So the train observer will receive
first the front light signal and later the back light signal.

This bogus assertion is based on the bogus assumption that the speed
of light is anisotropic in the train.

Ken Seto

What you and Einstein and all other believers in relativity of
simultaneity are doing is clinging to some beliefs that pertain to
absolute time by making the frame of reference of the track a
preferred frame of reference as far as transmission of light is
concerned. According to you, the train moves toward the source of
light at the front of the train, so that light reaches the observer
first. Wrong. The train is not moving in its own frame of
reference. The track is moving toward the rear of the train. That is
entirely irrelevant as far as when the light will reach the observer
at the middle of the train. You scientists have faithfully copied
Einstein's mistake for more than 100 years. Don't you think it might
be time to think about it?
Robert B. Winn

Nonsense

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The only person making bogus assertions here is you.
Check your dictionary for the meaning of isotropy.
If you do not have one, here is the definition:
Isotropy is uniformity in all directions. The word is made up from
Greek iso (equal) and tropos (direction).

Right....so when Einstein asserted that the train observer rush toward
the light front from the front and receding from the light front from
the rear he is describing a scenario that destroys the isotropy of the
speed of light in the train.
So I guess it is you runt of the SRians failed to comprehend this
simple fact.

Ken Seto

On the contrary, light signals from both strokes are precisely
isotropically propagating (in a spherical growing at c shape) from
their origin, which is exactly what isotropy propagation means. When
that sphere finds an eye (either the track or the train observer eyes)
the observers will say "hey I have detected a strike!".
So how you explain this nonsense of "destroying the isotropy of the
speed of light". Do you understand English at all?

Hey idiot....do you have reading comprehension problem???
According to Einstein: When the train observer rushes toward the light
front from the front the transit time is less for that light front to
reach him. When the train observer receding away from the light front
from the rear the transit time is more for that light front to reach
him. This means that different arrival times for the two light fronts
that were generated at the same distance from the train observer and
thus what Einstein asserted destroyed the SR postulate that the speed
of light is isotropic in the train. Are you too stupid to understand
that???????

You are the moron with comprehension problems. What the heck has the
transit time to do with the isotropy of the light?.

****ing idiot runt.....isotropy of the speed of light means that light
takes the same transit time to reach the observer for the same
distance in different directions.

Ken Seto

Again you have to
go back to elementary school and learn to read and write.
The information carried by the light signals is moving at c
isotropically in both the track and the train frame.
The difference in arrival times is not produced by how the light is
moving, but because the train observer is moving relatively to the
light signals.
What drugs are you taken that make you think you know something about
physics?
You have provided substantial evidence that you do not have the
slightest idea of what you are talking, like your famous and hilarious
theory about the Sodium.

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

****ing idiot moron.....the observer *moved* after the light signals
started their voyage towards the observer.

Hey ****ing idiot runt....This shows me that you don't know what
isotropic means. The SR postulates says that the speed of light is
isotropic in the observer's frame. In case you are too stupid to
understand that means that the observer doesn't move wrt different
light fronts from the same distance in different directions. You are
so ****ing stupid I suggest that you go off to a corner and commit
suicide.

Ken Seto


Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know ****o, it is you who is showing and proving day after day the
kind of retarded person you are.
You don't know what isotropy means, even if the meaning of the word is
provided to you. Then you are so moronic as to say that "the observer
doesn't move wrt different light fronts from the same distance in
different directions" is implied by the isotropy of light.
Do you understand the phrase "isotropy of light"? Do you see anywhere
in that phrase the word observer?
Don't you understand that the track observer and the train observer
were at the same location only when t=t'=0, but then the train
observer moved to another location?
Don't you understand that isotropy of light means that light
propagates in a spherical front with center in the point where the
event generated the light?
Don't you understand that the light propagation speed, according to
the second SR postulate, does not depend on the velocity the source of
the light had when the light was produced?
Don't you understand that the location of the train observer, in the
middle of the train, is not correlated with the light signal, since
that light signal is moving at c with respect to its original source,
source which, by the way, was and still is located at the same
distance from the track observer?
Don't you understand that since the lightning strokes occurred at the
same distance from the track observer, and for that very same reason
the track observer saw them as simultaneous, then as the light front
are propagating from their source locations and as the train with its
observer has moved it is impossible for the train observer to get
those signals as simultaneous?

Well it is obvious that we can write and write and show you references
and you will not understand, just because you do not have a brain able
of understanding. You are only good for insulting people, people like
myself that has studied these subjects for more than 40 years.

Go away you ignorant runt

Miguel Rios

kenseto wrote in message

On May 8, 1:47 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
kenseto wrote in message



On May 7, 6:20 pm, PD wrote:
On May 7, 3:27 pm, kenseto wrote:
On May 7, 3:43 pm, " wrote:

[snip]





Why no, Ken, isotropy is still the same.

The track observer notes:
The light from the front of the train is heading backwards at c, while
the train observer rushes toward that light at v.
The light from the back of the train is heading forwards at c, while
the train observer is receding from it at v.
The speed of light is c in both cases. It is still isotropic in the
track frame.

Hey idiot....that's not what Einstein said. He said that:
1. the train observer rushes toward the light front from the front and
thus it takes less time for that light front to reach him.
2. the train observer recedes away from the light front from the rear
and thus it takes more time for that light front to reach him.

This means that two different transit times for two light fronts
generated at the same distance from the train observer and thus the
isotropy of the speed of light is not preserved by Einstein's
assertion.

O help.... all that trouble PD went through.
Would there be *anything* Seto understands all by himself?
I seriously doubt it.
Perhaps Androcles should try to explain the concept of
closing speed to Seto.

****ing idiot runt....

You cannot read my messages. You killfiled me twice.

Einstein asserted what the train observer will
see based on closing speed as perceived by the track observer. That is
wrong. The train observer must make his own observation whether the
strikes are simultaneous.

Learn the meanings of words before you try to put them together
in sentences.
Here's a list of words to learn:
- to assert
- train
- observer
- to see
- to close
- speed
- to perceive
- track
- wrong
- to make
- own
- observation
- whether
- strike
Do not - I repeat, DO NOT - try to learn the meaning of the
following terms:
- to base upon
- simultaneous.
- closing speed

Dirk Vdm

On May 9, 10:35Â*am, " wrote:
On 9 mayo, 09:30, kenseto wrote:

On May 8, 10:49 am, " wrote:

On 8 mayo, 10:27, kenseto wrote:

On May 8, 9:53 am, " wrote:

On 8 mayo, 09:25, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 5:01 pm, " wrote:

On 7 mayo, 16:27, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 3:43 pm, " wrote:

On 7 mayo, 15:32, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 11:42 am, " wrote:

On 7 mayo, 10:28, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 6:48�am, YBM wrote:

kenseto a �crit :

ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
simultaneously and that:
1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
moving wrt the light fronts.
2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
moving wrt the light fronts.

In SR, "not moving with respect to a light front" makes no sense.

I have a question, YBM. Â*Whether you talk about photons or light
fronts, in the frame of reference of the train, the light is traveling
at a speed of c from the two points where light was emitted in the
frame of reference of the train. Â*Those two points remain exactly
where they were relative to the frame of reference of the train, and
the movement of the track relative to the train changes nothing. Â*How
do you get that the observer on the train is moving wrt the light
fronts in his frame of reference?

Your mistake is treating the points where the information (light) was
generated the same as the information.
They are quite different!

Â* Â* The observer on the train is not moving in his frame of
reference. Â*The train is not moving in the frame of reference of the
train, and the observer is at the middle of the train the entire
time. Â*The two light fronts are moving with a speed of c toward the
observer. Â*The track is moving toward the rear of the train. Â*What the
track does is irrelevant because the light travels with a speed of c
in the frame of reference of the train, regardless of the motion of
the source of light. Â*Since the track is moving toward the rear of the
train at a speed less than the speed of light, any photons emitted in
the frame of reference of the train after the first photons emitted
will still reach the observer at the middle of the train after the
first ones emitted.

The light carrying the information is moving isotropically from the
points where it was generated. So the train observer will receive
first the front light signal and later the back light signal.

This bogus assertion is based on the bogus assumption that the speed
of light is anisotropic in the train.

Ken Seto

Â* Â* Â*What you and Einstein and all other believers in relativity of
simultaneity are doing is clinging to some beliefs that pertain to
absolute time by making the frame of reference of the track a
preferred frame of reference as far as transmission of light is
concerned. Â*According to you, the train moves toward the source of
light at the front of the train, so that light reaches the observer
first. Â*Wrong. Â*The train is not moving in its own frame of
reference. Â*The track is moving toward the rear of the train. Â*That is
entirely irrelevant as far as when the light will reach the observer
at the middle of the train. Â*You scientists have faithfully copied
Einstein's mistake for more than 100 years. Â*Don't you think it might
be time to think about it?
Robert B. Winn

Nonsense

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The only person making bogus assertions here is you.
Check your dictionary for the meaning of isotropy.
If you do not have one, here is the definition:
Isotropy is uniformity in all directions. The word is made up from
Greek iso (equal) and tropos (direction).

Right....so when Einstein asserted that the train observer rush toward
the light front from the front and receding from the light front from
the rear he is describing a scenario that destroys the isotropy of the
speed of light in the train.
So I guess it is you runt of the SRians failed to comprehend this
simple fact.

Ken Seto

On the contrary, light signals from both strokes are precisely
isotropically propagating (in a spherical growing at c shape) from
their origin, which is exactly what isotropy propagation means.. When
that sphere finds an eye (either the track or the train observer eyes)
the observers will say "hey I have detected a strike!".
So how you explain this nonsense of "destroying the isotropy of the
speed of light". Do you understand English at all?

Hey idiot....do you have reading comprehension problem???
According to Einstein: When the train observer rushes toward the light
front from the front the transit time is less for that light front to
reach him. When the train observer receding away from the light front
from the rear the transit time is more for that light front to reach
him. This means that different arrival times for the two light fronts
that were generated at the same distance from the train observer and
thus what Einstein asserted destroyed the SR postulate that the speed
of light is isotropic in the train. Are you too stupid to understand
that???????

You are the moron with comprehension problems. What the heck has the
transit time to do with the isotropy of the light?.

****ing idiot runt.....isotropy of the speed of light means that light
takes the same transit time to reach the observer for the same
distance in different directions.

Ken Seto

Again you have to
go back to elementary school and learn to read and write.
The information carried by the light signals is moving at c
isotropically in both the track and the train frame.
The difference in arrival times is not produced by how the light is
moving, but because the train observer is moving relatively to the
light signals.
What drugs are you taken that make you think you know something about
physics?
You have provided substantial evidence that you do not have the
slightest idea of what you are talking, like your famous and hilarious
theory about the Sodium.

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

****ing idiot moron.....the observer *moved* after the light signals
started their voyage towards the observer.

Â*Hey ****ing idiot runt....This shows me that you don't know what
isotropic means. The SR postulates says that the speed of light is
isotropic in the observer's frame. In case you are too stupid to
understand that means that the observer doesn't move wrt different
light fronts from the same distance in different directions. You are
so ****ing stupid I suggest that you go off to a corner and commit
suicide.

Ken Seto

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know ****o, it is you who is showing and proving day after day the
kind of retarded person you are.
You don't know what isotropy means, even if the meaning of the word is
provided to you. Then you are so moronic as to say that "the observer
doesn't move wrt different light fronts from the same distance in
different directions" is implied by the isotropy of light.
Do you understand the phrase "isotropy of light"? Do you see anywhere
in that phrase the word observer?
Don't you understand that the track observer and the train observer
were at the same location only when t=t'=0, but then the train
observer moved to another location?
Don't you understand that isotropy of light means that light
propagates in a spherical front with center in the point where the
event generated the light?
Don't you understand that the light propagation speed, according to
the second SR postulate, does not depend on the velocity the source of
the light had when the light was produced?

Exactly....do you understand that? Do you unstanding that that;s why
the speed of light is isotropic in the track and in the train?


Don't you understand that the location of the train observer, in the
middle of the train, is not correlated with the light signal, since
that light signal is moving at c with respect to its original source,

Hey ****ing idiot it is also moving at c isotropically wrt the train
observer.

source which, by the way, was and still is located at the same
distance from the track observer?

Hey ****ing idiot the sources are at the ends of the train.

Don't you understand that since the lightning strokes occurred at the
same distance from the track observer, and for that very same reason
the track observer saw them as simultaneous,

Hey ****ing idiot the train observer is also at the same distance from
the strikes and thus he also sees them to be simultaneous.

then as the light front
are propagating from their source locations and as the train with its
observer has moved it is impossible for the train observer to get
those signals as simultaneous?

Hey ****ing idiot the speed of light in the train is independent of
the speed of the source. Furthermore the source are at the ends of the
train. Also from the train observer's point of view he is not moving
wrt the sources because the speed of light is isotropic in his frame.

Well it is obvious that we can write and write and show you references
and you will not understand, just because you do not have a brain able
of understanding. You are only good for insulting people, people like
myself that has studied these subjects for more than 40 years.

Go away you ignorant runt

****ing idiot I am 20 year ahead of you in understanding SR. Go learn
Sr before you make a fool of yourself.

Ken Seto

On 9 mayo, 13:24, kenseto wrote:
On May 9, 10:35 am, " wrote:


You know ****o, it is you who is showing and proving day after day the
kind of retarded person you are.
You don't know what isotropy means, even if the meaning of the word is
provided to you. Then you are so moronic as to say that "the observer
doesn't move wrt different light fronts from the same distance in
different directions" is implied by the isotropy of light.
Do you understand the phrase "isotropy of light"? Do you see anywhere
in that phrase the word observer?
Don't you understand that the track observer and the train observer
were at the same location only when t=t'=0, but then the train
observer moved to another location?
Don't you understand that isotropy of light means that light
propagates in a spherical front with center in the point where the
event generated the light?
Don't you understand that the light propagation speed, according to
the second SR postulate, does not depend on the velocity the source of
the light had when the light was produced?

Exactly....do you understand that? Do you unstanding that that;s why
the speed of light is isotropic in the track and in the train?


Not only that....it is the same light in both cases...you stupid. That
means that there is only one sphere of light propagating from the
place it was generated, and that sphere don't know or care of the
train being moving, or the track observer being still at the station.
That is the meaning of isotropy!

Don't you understand that the location of the train observer, in the
middle of the train, is not correlated with the light signal, since
that light signal is moving at c with respect to its original source,

Hey ****ing idiot it is also moving at c isotropically wrt the train
observer.


No moron. The train observer does not know a strike happened until he
receives the light signal. You don't know the meaning of isotropic
propagation, that's very evident.


source which, by the way, was and still is located at the same
distance from the track observer?

Hey ****ing idiot the sources are at the ends of the train.

Once the event happened (that is the lightning strike) it does not
matter since the light signal carrying the information is already on
its way towards the observers.
And, by the way, we could also assume the lightning strike occurred on
the side of the train and not in the train and the result is the
same.
Actually if you read the Einstein book the strokes are not located at
the ends of the train. So that proves you have not read or understood
the book.


Don't you understand that since the lightning strokes occurred at the
same distance from the track observer, and for that very same reason
the track observer saw them as simultaneous,

Hey ****ing idiot the train observer is also at the same distance from
the strikes and thus he also sees them to be simultaneous.


No stupid, assertion is not proof so prove it.

then as the light front
are propagating from their source locations and as the train with its
observer has moved it is impossible for the train observer to get
those signals as simultaneous?

Hey ****ing idiot the speed of light in the train is independent of
the speed of the source. Furthermore the source are at the ends of the
train. Also from the train observer's point of view he is not moving
wrt the sources because the speed of light is isotropic in his frame.


No stupid, the sources may or may not being at the ends of the trains
but that is not important, since the light signals are already moving
towards the observers, so the sources of the information are not
longer generating light.
Secondly, the light information is moving in a spherical way (that is
isotropically) from its original location, and from those locations
for sure the train observer is moving.


Well it is obvious that we can write and write and show you references
and you will not understand, just because you do not have a brain able
of understanding. You are only good for insulting people, people like
myself that has studied these subjects for more than 40 years.

Go away you ignorant runt

****ing idiot I am 20 year ahead of you in understanding SR. Go learn
Sr before you make a fool of yourself.

Ken Seto

What everybody here sees is you are an ignorant who has a stupid an
wrong theory about physics he has never studied.
Besides that you have even problems with junior school arithmetic, as
the words salad you call papers have proved to be full of infantile
errors.

Miguel Rios

On May 9, 3:49*pm, " wrote:
On 9 mayo, 13:24, kenseto wrote:





On May 9, 10:35 am, " wrote:

You know ****o, it is you who is showing and proving day after day the
kind of retarded person you are.
Ken Seto

What everybody here sees is you are an ignorant who has a stupid an
wrong theory about physics he has never studied.
Besides that you have even problems with junior school arithmetic, as
the words salad you call papers have proved to be full of infantile
errors.

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: Maybe different words and explanations will affect ambiguous
readers, but not Ken. He will take the sword before changing his
mind.

Welcome to the crusades. I hope you will be logical with whatever you
have to offer.

Sometimes, explaining a clear logic can mean different things to
different minds. I bid you well.

On May 9, 9:48Â*am, rbwinn wrote:
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.

"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?

On May 9, 8:38Â*am, rbwinn wrote:
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.

As far as I know, I am the only person in the world who uses the
Galiilean transformation equations.

Well, you don't much of anything very far, it seems.

Â*They work fine for me.

Yes, I imagine that's so. This is perhaps because you like playing
with equations and don't care much about experimental evidence. This
is probably one of the key differences between you and scientists.

Â*So unless
you can show me they do not work,I have to just discount anything that
you and other scientists say about it.

Well, as I've told you before, Bobby, the point isn't to convince you.
What you continue to believe is your business.

Â*You have posted nothing here
that shows them to be wrong. Â*With regard to your complaint that I do
not fulfill the fool's errands that you try to send me on, it is not
going to happen. Â*If you have a reference that you claim proves that
the Galilean transformation equations do not work, go ahead and tell
us what it is and why you think it proves the Galilean transformation
equations wrong.

I've done exactly that. You call it a fool's errand. Now, I haven't
got the foggiest idea why you'd ask me to provide something for you
that you would consider a fool's errand and that you don't have the
least interest in looking at.

It's a little like the bored old man sitting on the porch who hollers
at the neighbor kid, "Hey, kid, fetch me a bucket!" And when the
bucket comes and the kid asks, "So what do you need a bucket for?" the
old man says, "I don't need a bucket at all. I just wanted to see you
bring one to me."

Â*You have plenty of time to assign these fool's
errands. Â*Take a little of that time to explain yourself.
Robert B. Winn