On May 13, 9:35Â*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.

Yes, pretty much. Â*

Good, just so it's clear.

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

I try not to repeat myself. Especially when baited.

Robert B. Winn

On May 13, 9:42Â*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.

On May 13, 10:07*am, kenseto wrote:
On May 13, 6:47*am, PD wrote:



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

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

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

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

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

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

The SR contradictions are as follows:
1. Nothing physically is happening to the moving longer pole but both
ends of the longer pole can fit into a physically shorter barn for a
very brief instant of time.

And where is the contradiction?
I understand that you do not understand how this is possible. In your
mind, something physical MUST happen to the pole for this to happen,
but you don't explain why you make this assumption. When pointed out
that the same thing is true for energy, you remarked that energy is
not physical. So now the question becomes, what makes you think length
is more physical than energy?

2. The passage of a clock second in the stay-at-home clock corresponds
to the passage of less than a clock second in the traveling twin's
clock. However the traveling clock second can compare directly with
the stay at home clock second to reach the conclusion that the
traveling clock is younger.

And so where is the contradiction? In your mind, in order for there to
be a direct comparison between two clocks, the clock seconds MUST
correspond to the passage of the same amount of time. But you don't
explain why you make this assumption.

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.

In the track frame this is true. Not true for the train frame. In the
train frame, the transit times are the same. Where is the
contradiction? Isotropy is preserved. The light takes the same time
(in the track frame) for the light to reach the track observer. The
light takes the same time (in the train frame) for the light to reach
the train observer. Isotropy in both cases. No contradiction.

That means that Einstein's assertion destroys the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train. Also that means that the
concept of relativity of simultaneity violates the postulates of SR.

I rest my case.

Sorry... What contradiction? What case?

All I see is several unfounded assumptions you've made. Rooting out
the unfounded assumptions is precisely the teaching point of these
exercises.


Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
Well, then, you're stuck aren't you?
Far from it..... I have lined up a couple of PhDs who are willing to
participate, for the sake of advancement science, at no cost to me.
Who?

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

Hey idiot I didn't proclaim anything.

You should read your own posts.

I asked for recomendations for
the suppliers of the neccessary equipment to do my proposed
experiments.

Not in this thread you didn't. You proclaimed SR wrong, your own
made-up theory right, and numerous participants idiots and/or runts.
All the while, you state naive misconceptions about SR that would
get a big red X through them in sophomore physics.

When the experiemnts are completed I will post the
results in my website.

You are kidding only yourself, Ken.


--
--Bryan

kenseto wrote:
Why am I delusional??? I discovered a theory (IRT) that is an
improvement over SRT.

You got some basics of SR wrong, and instead of correcting the
error, or moving off to other things, you made up your own
nonsensical theory.

I came up with proposed experiments that can
refute IRT. I asked for recomendations for the suppliers of the
required equipment to do these experiments. Seems to me that's the
standard scientific procedure.

In the rare cases that your theory states things clearly, it
is self-contradictory. It refutes itself; no experiment needed.

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

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

You've no clue, Ken.


--
--Bryan

On May 13, 6:36*pm, "Simple Simon" wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message

...



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

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

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

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

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

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

The SR contradictions are as follows:
1. Nothing physically is happening to the moving longer pole but both
ends of the longer pole can fit into a physically shorter barn for a
very brief instant of time.

Here is a concrete example of how to fit that pole into that barn within a
single inertial frame of reference without special relativity or the
isotropy of light:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_thread/t...

You are missing the point with this example. The concept of physical
length contraction says that the train is completely within the tunnel
briefly when both doors of the tunnel are closed. This means that the
train is physically contracted according to the track frame observer.
Your example uses the bogus concept of relativity of simultaneity to
assert that the exit door and the entrance door are opened and closed
at different times. This is not fitting the longer train into a
shorter tunnel.


2. The passage of a clock second in the stay-at-home clock corresponds
to the passage of less than a clock second in the traveling twin's
clock. However the traveling clock second can compare directly with
the stay at home clock second to reach the conclusion that the
traveling clock is younger.

Do you see that the length contraction and time dilation of special
relativity are equivalent to "optical illusions"?

How can it be equivalent to optical illusions when the traveling clock
accumulated less elapsed time????? Also if length contraction is
optical illusion then both ends of the longer pole cannot fit into the
shorter barn briefly when both doors are closed simultaneously.


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.


That means that Einstein's assertion destroys the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train.

Not at all. It is exactly because of the isotropy of the speed of light that
the above is true!

How can that Be? Einstein's assertion the two light fronts takes
different transit times to reach the train observer and both of these
light fronts were generated at equal distance from the train observer
originally. Do you understand what isotropy of the speed of light
mean????

Ken Seto

Also that means that the
concept of relativity of simultaneity violates the postulates of SR.

The relativity of simultaneity is a direct and necessary consequence of the
postulates of SR and the definition of simultaneous.



I rest my case.

Congratulations. The breadth and depth of your misunderstanding is truly
awesome.





Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 14, 10:17Â*am, rbwinn wrote:
On May 13, 7:18�pm, PD wrote:



On May 13, 10:07�am, kenseto 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.

In the track frame this is true. Not true for the train frame. In the
train frame, the transit times are the same. Where is the
contradiction? Isotropy is preserved. The light takes the same time
(in the track frame) for the light to reach the track observer. The
light takes the same time (in the train frame) for the light to reach
the train observer. Isotropy in both cases. No contradiction.

That means that Einstein's assertion destroys the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train. Also that means that the
concept of relativity of simultaneity violates the postulates of SR.

Given Einstein's description of transmission of light, which he did
not follow in his mathematics, the only thing that could possibly
happen would be that the light from the lightning at the front of the
train would have a higher frequency than the light from the back of
the train.

Light speed is independent of frequency in space.

Â*Other than that, in the frame of reference of the train
the light would have to reach the observer at the middle of the train
at the same time.

Why would it have to reach the observer at the same time? The strikes
were not simultaneous in the train frame, and then the time of transit
of the light was the same from both strikes, and so the light arrives
at different times at the train observer. Which is a good thing,
because that's what the observer reports he sees.

Â*That can be proven by having the lightning leave
marks on the train and on the railroad track. Â*The marks on the train
will be the length of the train apart, and the marks on the track will
be the length of the train apart,

Yes, and yes, though these two lengths are different.

which they would not be if the
lightning at the front of the train struck first. Â*Scientists claim
that the marks on the track would be L gamma apart,

I assume you mean L is the length of the train in the train frame.
That's different than L' the length of the train in the track frame.
Oh, and the length of the train in the track frame (and the distance
between the marks on the track) is L/gamma, not L gamma.

L' = L/gamma

where L is the
length of the train, but we are talking about reality, not the
imaginative ideas of scientists. Â*The marks on the track would be the
length of the train apart.

Reality is what is measured in experiment, even if that conflicts with
your common sense.

Â* Â*If, in fact, the observer at the middle of the train does see the
light from the front of the train first, as Einstein postulates,

Not as Einstein postulates, but as the observer actually sees.

it is
not because the lightning strikes were not simultaneous, but because
they are traveling through a medium as sound does or are affected by
something such as gravitation,

How does light traveling horizontally get affected by gravity
vertically, and why would the effect be different for light coming
from two different directions, and why should that effect have
anything to do with the direction the train happens to be going? Are
you groping?

which would destroy Einstein's
definition of special relativity. Â*He specifically said that special
relativity was relativity in the absence of gravitation.

Â* Â* In any event, scientists are only fooling themselves with the
Lorentz equations. Â*With regard to light from the lightning at the
rear of the train, the Lorentz equations show that it would take that
light more than four times as long to reach the train observer as seen
from the frame of reference of the track, whereas, the light from the
front of the train would reach him in about half the time if the train
were traveling at a velocity of .9c. Â*Consequently, relativity of
simultaneity does scientists no good. Â*They would do better to just
admit that the longer time in each case refers to light in the frame
of reference of the track which has the frequency and wavelength that
it has when emitted in that frame of reference, and the time in the
frame of reference of the train is light in the frame of reference of
the train which has two different frequencies and wavelengths.
Scientists may not be aware of this, but the time it takes for light
to travel a specific distance in a frame of reference can be computed
from its frequency and wavelength. Â*Without getting into a detailed
description of the nature of light, which I could not give anyway,
what we have are experiments involving frequency, wavelengths, and
distances which scientists do not want to discuss. Â*Scientists are the
priests of experimental knowledge and must keep their Bible chained to
the pulpit if they are to keep the world worshipping the distance
contraction.

Why would scientists want anyone to worship anything that doesn't
match what is seen in experiment?

Â*Consequently, they will cry heresy whenever anything is
posted in this newsgroup that does not come from a scientist.
Robert B. Winn

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.That means that the
speed of light is not isotropic.


The exact wording from Einstein is "...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.."

Right....that means that the speed of light from B is (c+v) and the
speed of light from A is (c-v). So again what Einstein is saying is
that the train observer is seeing anisotropy light speed from A and B.
You are so stupid.

Ken Seto




That means that Einstein's assertion destroys the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train.

Not at all. It is exactly because of the isotropy of the speed of light that
the above is true!

How can that Be? Einstein's assertion the two light fronts takes
different transit times to reach the train observer and both of these
light fronts were generated at equal distance from the train observer
originally. Do you understand what isotropy of the speed of light
mean????

Ken Seto

Everybody does understand isotropy but you!. Light signals propagate
isotropically from their sources while the moving observer changes
location. Transit times have nothing to do with isotropy.

Of course as, you know nothing about this relativity of simultaneity
stuff, you would never understand the solution of the pole and barn
thought problem.

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 14, 4:18*am, Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
Well, then, you're stuck aren't you?
Far from it..... I have lined up a couple of PhDs who are willing to
participate, for the sake of advancement science, at no cost to me.
Who?

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

Hey idiot I didn't proclaim anything.

You should read your own posts.

I asked for recomendations for
the suppliers of the neccessary equipment to do my proposed
experiments.

Not in this thread you didn't. You proclaimed SR wrong, your own
made-up theory right, and numerous participants idiots and/or runts.
All the while, you state naive misconceptions about SR that would
get a big red X through them in sophomore physics.

What are my misconceptions????
I posted the following contradictions of SR which of these are my
misconceptions?
1. The passage of a stay at home clock second corresponds to the
passage of less than a clock second in the traveling clock. Yet when
the traveling clcok reunites with the stay at home clock the clock
second are compared directly to reach the conclusion that the
traveling clock is younger.
2. The pole is physical longer than the barn but both ends of the pole
cn fit into the barn briefly with both doors are closed. And yet at
the same time SR claims that nothing physically is happening to the
pole.
3. Einstein's concept of relativity of simultaneity violates the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train.

Ken Seto


When the experiemnts are completed I will post the
results in my website.

You are kidding only yourself, Ken.


How am I kidding myself? I will post the results no matter how they
turn out.

Ken Seto

On 14 mayo, 13:53, 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.That means that the
speed of light is not isotropic.



Better look yourself in a mirror....you will see there a real idiot.
Light signals were generated at equal distances from the train
observer....when that very same train observer location was coincident
with the location of the track observer. That is, for your empty skull
sake, at t=0, x=0, the initial location of the track and train
observers, those strokes were at x=+100000km and x=-100000km away.
Then...what happened? Well... after 0.33 seconds the track observer
saw two simultaneous light signals at his location x=0. But in the
mean time, the train and the train observer are away from x=0
(precisely when the track observer sees the light signals the train
observer is at x59000km). So what you conclude from these facts?.
Think about it....if you can.


The exact wording from Einstein is "...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.."

Right....that means that the speed of light from B is (c+v) and the
speed of light from A is (c-v). So again what Einstein is saying is
that the train observer is seeing anisotropy light speed from A and B.
You are so stupid.

Ken Seto


No Seto....you do not "see anisotropy light speed from A and B", so
everybody is quite sure of whom is the stupid one in this discussion.
Go back to your dictionary and read about the meaning of isotropy, and
then try to remember.

Miguel Rios