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.

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.
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.
3. Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that the original
strikes occurred at different times in the train frame.

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, 8:57Â*am, " wrote:
On 14 mayo, 11:17, 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. 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. 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, 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, 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.
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, 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, 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. Â*Consequently, they will cry heresy whenever anything is
posted in this newsgroup that does not come from a scientist.
Robert B. Winn

It is clear that you do not understand the relativity of simultaneity
and it is also clear you don't want to understand it!. But, at least,
you should try to verify what is exactly what Einstein said and, if
you don't agree with him, prove in which way he was wrong. I know
waiting an effort like that is futile, since you and Seto seem to
think that, somehow, somebody out there is listening to you as the new
scientists that will provide the new physics for the future
generations.

Your marking scheme proves nothing. Listen!, the lightning strokes
could hit neither the train nor the tracks, but trees located at 5
meters to the side from the track. So you could have no markings at
all, but the results from the relativity of simultaneity are still
valid.

Because what it is relevant in this problem, is the fact that the
light signals generated at both events travel isotropically (that
means in all directions) at a speed c. That means certain locations
will be reached by the signals first, other later, etc.
Both observers are doing their own business, one still at the station
and the other moving with the train, and neither of them can affect in
any way the movement of those two light signals.

Eventually signals will arrive to the observers locations and they
will note their observations. It is clear, even for you, that the
track observer will appreciate both strokes as being simultaneous. It
should be also clear to you, as it is for everybody else, that when
both light signals coincide or are simultaneously detected at the
track observer location, the train and its observer have moved away,
in such a way that now it logically means and requires that: a) the
front light signal already was seen by that observer and b) the back
light signal has still to move further to reach the train observer and
so it will be detected by the train observer much later in time.

What is the problem with this?

Thank you for your comments, Miguel. First of all, I am only a former
mental patient with a high school education who started posting in
sci.physics,relativity, and I never said I was anything else. So from
the first I deemed it unlikely that anyone would even respond to my
posts. Therefore, it was somewhat of a surprise to me when at one
point in my use of this newsgroup, about half of the posts made were
directed at me, and scientists were admonishing one another to not
respond to me so that scientific order could be restored to the
newsgroup. I have not posted much in the newsgroup the last several
years until recent weeks.
In answer to your question, what is the problem with your analysis
of the train and lightning problem, it skips one simple fact. As you
said, we both agree that the flashes of light will be simultaneous in
the frame of reference of the track, since that was the way the
lightning was defined. Now, as you mention, in Einstein's description
of the problem, the lightning could have been interpreted to strike
some distance ahead and behind the train, making it easy to confuse
the mathematics. I was the one who originally suggested having the
lightning strike the front and rear of the train, leaving marks on the
train and railroad track. That put the problem directly to the
scientists because they were forced to admit that their interpretation
of the Lorentz equations put the marks on the track a shorter distance
apart than the length of the train, which they explain by relativity
of simultaneity and length contraction of the train as seen from the
frame of reference of the track.
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. This distance contraction is present in the mathematics
whether the train is moving one mile an hour or .9c. The train will
be shorter by some amount if it moves.
What you are missing in your description of the transmission of
the light in the frame of reference of the train is this: If the
lightning strikes the front of the train, the first photon to reach
the observer at the middle of the train comes from the point where the
lightning made a mark on the train, not from where it made a mark on
the railroad track. The fact that in the frame of reference of the
train the mark on the track moves closer to the observer makes no
difference at all concerning when he will see the light. Since the
observer at the middle of the train is half the length of the train
from the mark the lightning made on the front of the train, the first
photon emitted by the lightning at that point will reach the observer
in a time of .5L/c, where L is the length of the train. Any photons
emitted at the mark on the railroad track will reach the observer
after the first photon emitted at the mark on the train unless the
track is moving at greater than the speed of light relative to the
train. The light goes from the point where it was emitted in the
frame of reference of the train to the observer. Note that this would
be true even if the lightning struck ahead of the train as Einstein
implied. So in the frame of reference of the train, the train
observer is not "rushing" toward the front bolt of lightning as
Einstein erroneously stated. He is at rest relative to the train, the
train is at rest, and the light is moving toward the observer from the
point where it was emitted in that frame of reference. The motion of
the railroad track is entirely irrelevant as to when light will reach
the observer at the middle of the train. The only thing that
determines that is the distance that existed between the bolt of
lightning and the observer when the lightning struck. The point where
the lightning struck remains with the frame of reference of the
train. It does not transfer to the frame of reference of the track as
scientists, including Einstein, try to do.
So it all comes down to the marks on the track. If scientists
can prove they are closer together than the length of the train, then
they have proven the distance contraction and relativity of
simultaneity. All I can tell you about that is that it is never going
to happen. The marks on the track are the length of the train apart.
I hope this will show the difference in scientific philosophy
that exists.
Now scientists may say, We have 183 million scientists who all say
that the marks on the track are closer together than the length of the
train, and there is only one former mental patient who says they are
the length of the train apart. Who do I think will win that
contest?
I think the former mental patient will win.
But I am realistic about the present situation. It is identical
to the reason I became a former mental patient in the first place.
When I went to Vietnam in 1967, in the state I was from, you could go
into court charged with any crime, misdemeanor or felony, and ask for
trial by jury. When I came back from Vietnam, I was charged with a
misdemeanor in another state and said I wanted trial by jury. I was
immediately put in a mental institution. While I was gone to Vietnam,
183 million lawyers had decided that when the Constitution guarantees
the right to trial by jury in all criminal prosecutions, most criminal
prosecutions are not included in all criminal prosecutions. So I am a
former mental patient. But I still have the right to trial by jury
because the Constitution says I have the right to trial by jury, and
the Constitution can only be changed by amendment, not by the popular
opinion of 183 million lawyers. However, if I were to be arrested and
to appear in court asking for a trial by jury, you can be certain of
one thing, I would be put back into a mental institution.
But I really do have the right to trial by jury. So, as I say,
we have an identical situation with regard to relativity of
simultaneity and the length contraction, but I prefer to live in
reality. People standing in line waiting to enter the gas chambers at
Auschwitz really did have the right to continue living, but none of
them made it out of the gas chamber alive. Science and mathematics
are not democracies. When there are more scientists, lawyers, and
psychiatrists than people in the world, mistakes are bound to be
made. So you can end up with a situation such as happened at
Auschwitz. The scientists who thought of the cyanide gas were
regarded as highly successful among their peers, and the people who
were inside the gas chambers were thought of as failures.
Now these scientists have more than cyanide gas, so I do not have
any illusions about them. Scientists all seem pretty much alike
wherever you go.
Robert B. Winn

kenseto wrote:
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????

The one's so many have explained so many times. They do not
seem to be changing, so next time you ask, the answer will
probably be the same.

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.

Misconception, as already explained.

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.

Misconception, as already explained.

3. Einstein's concept of relativity of simultaneity violates the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train.

MAAE.

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.

You are kidding yourself with a Walter Mitty fantasy,
except Mitty had the sense to keep his secret life secret.

I had a discussion with Jerry about a practical way to test
the same phenomenon you hypothesized. Alas, your theory is
such arbitrary gibberish that you just say it doesn't predict
the same thing in the practical version.


--
--Bryan

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

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. 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. 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. Do you know how to figure epicycles?
Well, maybe you had better brush up on them because some
scientists said they were true.
Robert B. Winn

On 15 mayo, 00:31, rbwinn wrote:
On May 14, 8:57 am, " wrote: On 14 mayo, 11:17, 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. 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. That can be proven by having the lightning leave
marks on the train and on the railroad track. 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, which they would not be if the
lightning at the front of the train struck first. Scientists claim
that the marks on the track would be L gamma apart, where L is the
length of the train, but we are talking about reality, not the
imaginative ideas of scientists. The marks on the track would be the
length of the train apart.
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, 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, which would destroy Einstein's
definition of special relativity. He specifically said that special
relativity was relativity in the absence of gravitation.
In any event, scientists are only fooling themselves with the
Lorentz equations. 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. Consequently, relativity of
simultaneity does scientists no good. 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. 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. 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. Consequently, they will cry heresy whenever anything is
posted in this newsgroup that does not come from a scientist.
Robert B. Winn

It is clear that you do not understand the relativity of simultaneity
and it is also clear you don't want to understand it!. But, at least,
you should try to verify what is exactly what Einstein said and, if
you don't agree with him, prove in which way he was wrong. I know
waiting an effort like that is futile, since you and Seto seem to
think that, somehow, somebody out there is listening to you as the new
scientists that will provide the new physics for the future
generations.

Your marking scheme proves nothing. Listen!, the lightning strokes
could hit neither the train nor the tracks, but trees located at 5
meters to the side from the track. So you could have no markings at
all, but the results from the relativity of simultaneity are still
valid.

Because what it is relevant in this problem, is the fact that the
light signals generated at both events travel isotropically (that
means in all directions) at a speed c. That means certain locations
will be reached by the signals first, other later, etc.
Both observers are doing their own business, one still at the station
and the other moving with the train, and neither of them can affect in
any way the movement of those two light signals.

Eventually signals will arrive to the observers locations and they
will note their observations. It is clear, even for you, that the
track observer will appreciate both strokes as being simultaneous. It
should be also clear to you, as it is for everybody else, that when
both light signals coincide or are simultaneously detected at the
track observer location, the train and its observer have moved away,
in such a way that now it logically means and requires that: a) the
front light signal already was seen by that observer and b) the back
light signal has still to move further to reach the train observer and
so it will be detected by the train observer much later in time.

What is the problem with this?

Thank you for your comments, Miguel. First of all, I am only a former
mental patient with a high school education who started posting in
sci.physics,relativity, and I never said I was anything else. So from
the first I deemed it unlikely that anyone would even respond to my
posts. Therefore, it was somewhat of a surprise to me when at one
point in my use of this newsgroup, about half of the posts made were
directed at me, and scientists were admonishing one another to not
respond to me so that scientific order could be restored to the
newsgroup. I have not posted much in the newsgroup the last several
years until recent weeks.
In answer to your question, what is the problem with your analysis
of the train and lightning problem, it skips one simple fact. As you
said, we both agree that the flashes of light will be simultaneous in
the frame of reference of the track, since that was the way the
lightning was defined. Now, as you mention, in Einstein's description
of the problem, the lightning could have been interpreted to strike
some distance ahead and behind the train, making it easy to confuse
the mathematics. I was the one who originally suggested having the
lightning strike the front and rear of the train, leaving marks on the
train and railroad track. That put the problem directly to the
scientists because they were forced to admit that their interpretation
of the Lorentz equations put the marks on the track a shorter distance
apart than the length of the train, which they explain by relativity
of simultaneity and length contraction of the train as seen from the
frame of reference of the track.
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. This distance contraction is present in the mathematics
whether the train is moving one mile an hour or .9c. The train will
be shorter by some amount if it moves.
What you are missing in your description of the transmission of
the light in the frame of reference of the train is this: If the
lightning strikes the front of the train, the first photon to reach
the observer at the middle of the train comes from the point where the
lightning made a mark on the train, not from where it made a mark on
the railroad track. The fact that in the frame of reference of the
train the mark on the track moves closer to the observer makes no
difference at all concerning when he will see the light. Since the
observer at the middle of the train is half the length of the train
from the mark the lightning made on the front of the train, the first
photon emitted by the lightning at that point will reach the observer
in a time of .5L/c, where L is the length of the train. Any photons
emitted at the mark on the railroad track will reach the observer
after the first photon emitted at the mark on the train unless the
track is moving at greater than the speed of light relative to the
train. The light goes from the point where it was emitted in the
frame of reference of the train to the observer. Note that this would
be true even if the lightning struck ahead of the train as Einstein
implied. So in the frame of reference of the train, the train
observer is not "rushing" toward the front bolt of lightning as
Einstein erroneously stated. He is at rest relative to the train, the
train is at rest, and the light is moving toward the observer from the
point where it was emitted in that frame of reference. The motion of
the railroad track is entirely irrelevant as to when light will reach
the observer at the middle of the train. The only thing that
determines that is the distance that existed between the bolt of
lightning and the observer when the lightning struck. The point where
the lightning struck remains with the frame of reference of the
train. It does not transfer to the frame of reference of the track as
scientists, including Einstein, try to do.
So it all comes down to the marks on the track. If scientists
can prove they are closer together than the length of the train, then
they have proven the distance contraction and relativity of
simultaneity. All I can tell you about that is that it is never going
to happen. The marks on the track are the length of the train apart.
I hope this will show the difference in scientific philosophy
that exists.
Now scientists may say, We have 183 million scientists who all say
that the marks on the track are closer together than the length of the
train, and there is only one former mental patient who says they are
the length of the train apart. Who do I think will win that
contest?
I think the former mental patient will win.
But I am realistic about the present situation. It is identical
to the reason I became a former mental patient in the first place.
When I went to Vietnam in 1967, in the state I was from, you could go
into court charged with any crime, misdemeanor or felony, and ask for
trial by jury. When I came back from Vietnam, I was charged with a
misdemeanor in another state and said I wanted trial by jury. I was
immediately put in a mental institution. While I was gone to Vietnam,
183 million lawyers had decided that when the Constitution guarantees
the right to trial by jury in all criminal prosecutions, most criminal
prosecutions are not included in all criminal prosecutions. So I am a
former mental patient. But I still have the right to trial by jury
because the Constitution says I have the right to trial by jury, and
the Constitution can only be changed by amendment, not by the popular
opinion of 183 million lawyers. However, if I were to be arrested and
to appear in court asking for a trial by jury, you can be certain of
one thing, I would be put back into a mental institution.
But I really do have the right to trial by jury. So, as I say,
we have an identical situation with regard to relativity of
simultaneity and the length contraction, but I prefer to live in
reality. People standing in line waiting to enter the gas chambers at
Auschwitz really did have the right to continue living, but none of
them made it out of the gas chamber alive. Science and mathematics
are not democracies. When there are more scientists, lawyers, and
psychiatrists than people in the world, mistakes are bound to be
made. So you can end up with a situation such as happened at
Auschwitz. The scientists who thought of the cyanide gas were
regarded as highly successful among their peers, and the people who
were inside the gas chambers were thought of as failures.
Now these scientists have more than cyanide gas, so I do not have
any illusions about them. Scientists all seem pretty much alike
wherever you go.
Robert B. Winn

While you may well be an expert in mental disorders, because of your
personal experience, it is also clear that you are not an expert on
the scientific method, because you admit you don't have the personal
experience of studying or interacting with professors or scientists.
So please keep your comments on the field where you can contribute
with something of interest, and without guessing, which is what you
have shown up until now.

You are changing the subject from relativity of simultaneity to length
contraction, when you put into the picture the subject of the marks.
Well, if you take that avenue, the results will be exactly the same
because SR is a mathematically coherent theory that, besides being
coherent, agrees with all experiments being carried to test the
theory.

The train was moving when the strokes hit and is moving when the light
signals reached the track observer and the train observer and, for
sure, if the train stops, its length will be larger than the marks you
are talking of. That is what SR says, and you are free to put all the
experiments you consider necessary to show that this aspect of SR is
wrong. Many scientists are right now doing that, by imagining new ways
of testing both SR and GR, because that is the way our understanding
of nature grows.

Many people, for centuries, have been looking for the perpetual motion
machine, which according to our present knowledge can't exist. That's
OK, everybody is free to do so and who knows, may be somebody in the
future by researching on this will get some good results. Scientists
do this by using the so called scientific method, which sometimes can
be quite slow. Inventors, like Edison, are faster by using trial and
error techniques, but most of them just end doing nothing.

Miguel Rios

On May 15, 12:42*am, Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
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????

The one's so many have explained so many times. They do not
seem to be changing, so next time you ask, the answer will
probably be the same.

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.

Misconception, as already explained.

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.

Misconception, as already explained.

3. Einstein's concept of relativity of simultaneity violates the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train.

MAAE.

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.

You are kidding yourself with a Walter Mitty fantasy,
except Mitty had the sense to keep his secret life secret.

I had a discussion with Jerry about a practical way to test
the same phenomenon you hypothesized. Alas, your theory is
such arbitrary gibberish that you just say it doesn't predict
the same thing in the practical version.

You are a ****ing idiot runt of the SRians. Bye.

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. 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. 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 if you exclude Einstein's bogus assertion that the
train observer is moving wrt the light fronts.

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. 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

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....isotropy in the train is destroyed by Einstein's
assertions. He claimed that the signal from the front requires a
transit time of L/(c+v) to reach the train observer and the signal
from the rear requires a transit time of L/(c-v) to reach the train
observer. You are so stupid. Bye.

Ken Seto

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.."



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 15 mayo, 09:59, kenseto wrote:
On May 14, 11:22 am, " wrote:


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....isotropy in the train is destroyed by Einstein's
assertions. He claimed that the signal from the front requires a
transit time of L/(c+v) to reach the train observer and the signal
from the rear requires a transit time of L/(c-v) to reach the train
observer. You are so stupid. Bye.

Ken Seto

- Show quoted text -

You are a liar!, and an ignorant runt. Einstein didn't say anything
like that...
Why you lie even if you have the original text?.
Well...we all here understand that, as you have shown often how good
you are in logic and mathematics

Miguel Rios