On May 15, 10:14Â*am, bz wrote:
rbwinn wrote in news:14a9254a-5835-4483-b00d-
:





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 ma
thematics 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. Â*Not only that, but the one that shrinks is also its own
size in its own frame of reference, and the other frame of reference
is shrinking. Â*So there are several things going wrong at once here..

....

What things are wrong?

Since [from the trains FoR] the strike at the front occurs first, followed
by the strike at the rear, AND [from the trains FoR] the track is
SHORTENED,
it should come as no surprise that to the observer on the train, the marks
on the track are closer together than the length of the train.
After all, the front of the train has passed the front mark by the time the
rear strike/mark is made.

--
Well, as I was saying, that is the scenario that scientists present.
The part I do not believe is where the little short train passes in
front of the observer by the track, and lightning strikes
simultaneously in his frame of reference , making two marks on the
track the length of the short little train which was smashed to that
length by the distance contraction.
Robert B. Winn

On May 15, 2:30Â*pm, PD wrote:
On May 15, 7:27Â*am, rbwinn wrote:





On May 15, 2:24�am, PD wrote:

On May 14, 11:31�pm, rbwinn wrote:

� � However, it defies all of the laws of physics and mathematics for
a train to shrink to a fraction of its length just because it is
moving.

What laws of physics and mathematics would that be?

In the interest of foreshortening the conversation, note that neither
the Galilean nor Lorentz transforms are laws of physics. Perhaps you
could start by listing a few laws of physics you know, and then select
out of that pool the ones you think are defied by having length be a
frame-dependent quantity.

While you're at it, note that kinetic energy of an object is a frame-
dependent quantity, even in Galilean physics. And note that energy
conservation is one of the laws you're looking for. This would be a
good opportunity to point out also why no laws of physics are violated
by this frame-dependence.

PD

Well, according to Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz equations,
and also Lorentz's, one frame of reference actually shrinks relative
to the other.

Nice little fantasy. Would you like to cite where you read that, or
are you willing to acknowledge that there are pieces of your reality
you just make up as you go?

Â*Not only that, but the one that shrinks is also its own
size in its own frame of reference, and the other frame of reference
is shrinking.

See, this is the kind of nonsense that results when you make stuff up
as you go along.

Â*So there are several things going wrong at once here.
Scientists at one time maintained that no laws of science were
violated by the Ptolemaic system of astronomy because it could
accurately predict the positions of planets with its complicated
mathematics of epicycles.

Actually, no, it *post-dicted* those positions. It had very poor
predictive power. Those folks didn't even call themselves scientists
in that day and age. "Scientist" is a more recent term, and what they
practice (and in fact what they practice defines what science is) is
much different that what they practiced then. More emphasis on
experimental verification, more emphasis on prediction rather than
postdiction.

Tycho Brahe was not a scientist? Kepler thought he was one. That is
why he went to work for him so he could have access to his mathematics
and experimental data.
Robert B. Winn

On 15 mayo, 21:00, rbwinn wrote:
On May 15, 5:35 am, " wrote:

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

...

leer más »

Well you have the right of having your own point of view about this,
if that makes you happy.
All the people that work and study seriously these subjects of
relativity have another opinion and, of course, your feelings about it
will not affect them.
I bought and read my first book on relativity 40 years ago, and I am
totally convinced both SR and GR are very good theories that closely
model nature behavior.

Miguel Rios

On May 15, 7:47*pm, kenseto wrote:
On May 15, 5:22*pm, PD wrote:



On May 15, 8:49*am, kenseto wrote:

On May 14, 5:03*pm, PD wrote:

On May 14, 12:53*pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 14, 11:22*am, " wrote:

On 14 mayo, 10:03, kenseto wrote:

On May 13, 6:36 pm, "Simple Simon" wrote:

3. Einstein asserted that the train observer is rushing toward the
light front from the front and receding away from the light front from
the rear.
These assertions means that the light front from the front
will take less transit time to reach the train observer and that the
light front from the rear will take more transit time to reach the
train observer.

Obviously (assuming that the specificity that you omit has the observers and
events at the same times and locations as the classic thought experiment
does).

No I didn't assume anything of the sort. Einstein's assertion implies
that the light front from the front will take less transit time to
reach the train observer and the light front fron the rear will take
longer transit time to reach the train observer. This can only mean
one thing: Einstein's assertion violates the isotropy of the speed of
light in the train.

Once more you show you do not understand English!. Stop lying!

On the contrary, what Einstein said, and everybody else but you
understands, is that the train observer is moving towards the light
signal coming from the front of the train, and that light signal is,
for sure, traveling at c to reach him (as the back light signal is
also doing). Isotropy is never touched here

****ing idiot....the light signal from the front and the rear were
generated at equal distance from the train observer. if the signal
from the front reaches the train observer before the signal from the
rear that means that it takes different transit times for light to
travel equal distance in different directions.

No, the light signals *started* their transit at different times in
the train frame. The transit times are equal. As a consequence, they
arrive at different times.

Hey idiot if the light signals ("started" or "occurred") at different
times in the train frame then these are not the same light signals as
seen by the track observer. Why? Because Einstein stipulated that the
singals occurred simultaneously.

He said no such thing. You do not have his book in front of you, and
your memory is terrible. He said only that the *track observer*
concludes that the strikes are simultaneous, because he has
observations that are consistent with that conclusion.

Hey idiot if the strikes were not simultaneous to begin with how can
the track observer sees them to be simultaneous?

This is where you get stuck. You think you have to *start* from
choosing an assertion: the strikes are either physically simultaneous
or they are not physically simultaneous, but only one or the other.
Then you think you *derive* observations from those assertions.

It's the other way around in physics. You *start* with the
observations, and you *derive* assertions. The reason you start that
way in physics is that observations are undeniable. Nature controls
what you observe. That control does not belong to your logic. Nature
dictates what *really* happens, whether you expect it or not, or
whether it makes sense or not. That is the purpose of experiment -- to
tell you what *really* happens as a *starting point*. And THEN you
figure out what assertions are consistent with those experimental
results.

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

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

At NO TIME does
Einstein ever say that the strikes are assumed to be simultaneous, or
stipulated to be simultaneous in some fundamentally real or absolute
way. When you can actually lay your hands on the book you remember
only dimly, I can help you read it for comprehension, sentence by
sentence.

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

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

For you to say that the purpose is something other than what he
explicitly said his purpose is, is simply a denial of reality, Ken --
something you are prone to do fairly liberally. In your case, Ken, the
degree borders on psychosis, frankly.

Ubfortunately Einstein's
assertions about the train observer violate the SR postulate that the
speed of light in the train is isotropic. Also they violate the SR
concept that relative motion and direction of relative motion will not
affect on the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. You are so
stupid. sigh

Ken Seto



Note that when it was posted on this newsgroup what Einstein
*actually* said, your reaction was priceless -- you said he didn't
understand relativity. So you are caught in a tight little circle. One
minute you believe he wrote what you dimly remember and so you cite
your belief as being what Einstein was trying to convey, and then when
you are shown what he actually wrote you no longer thing he meant what
he said.

The reason why Einstein said that the
train observer will not see these signals to occur simultaneously is
becasue the signal from the front is arriving at a transit time of L/(c
+v) and the signal from the rear is arriving at a transit time of L/(c-
v).

Note that the order of deduction is actually the reverse of this.
1. First, it is *observed* by the train observer that they arrive at
different times. No amount of telling him what he should have seen
instead will convince him otherwise, because he knows what he saw.

Hey idiot this is an assertion based on the validity of RoS.

No, it is not based on any assumption. It is an *observation*. What is
stipulated in Einstein's example is what the two observers *see* --
and that you will see if you manage to secure the book to reread the
passage.

We are
here tryin g to determine the validity of RoS.

2. The transit times are determined to be equal. This is because the
distance traveled is equal, as verified by the train observer, and
because the speed of light is equal in both directions, as verified by
the train observer.

The transit times are not equal if you include Einstein's assertion
that the train observer is moving wrt the light fronts.

The transit times are equal according the *train* observer. The
*train* observer does not say he is moving wrt to the light fronts.
The *track* observer says the *train* observer is moving wrt to the
light fronts. In no way is it more of a "reality" that the train
observer is moving. (After all, both observers are moving.)

The transit
times are equal

They are equal because of *measurement*. The distances from the
strikes to the observer are equal (measured) and the speed of light
from both strikes is equal (measured).

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

Stop using the word "is". It conveys a sense of underlying reality
that isn't there. I suggest you use the word "sees" or "observes", as
in "the track observer sees the train observer as moving wrt to the
light fronts". Of course, "the train observer sees himself as not
moving wrt to the light fronts." Both of these are accurate
observations and therefore both true. There is no "is" that decides
which one is really right.

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

There are only two strikes. They cannot occur simultaneously in the
track frame and not occur simultaneously in the train frame.

Yes, they can. That is precisely the whole point of the entire lesson
in Einstein's book, and in fact you will see a sentence in that
passage that says *exactly* that as an incontrovertibly true
statement. The *same* two strikes are simultaneous in the track frame
AND not simultaneous in the train frame. That is *precisely* the
correct statement and *precisely* why Einstein went to all this
trouble to explain.

Yes, the *same* object can be stationary in one frame and moving in
another frame. Yes, the *same* object can be moving east in one frame
and west in another frame. Yes, the *same* object can have a energy of
35 J in one frame and an energy of 139 J in another frame.
You certainly agree with the above statements, don't you? This has
been known for over 400 years.

Going further, yes, event A can be before event B in one frame, and
event A can be after event B in another frame.
Yes, event A can be simultaneous with event B in one frame, and A and
B can be not simultaneous in another frame.
Yes, a stick can be 0,8 m long in one frame and 0.72 m long in another
frame.

Einstein
gave the following bogus reasons why the train observer will not see
the strikes to be simultaneous
1. The strikes occur at equal distance from the track and train
observers simultaneously.
2. The track observer is not moving wrt the light fronts and therefore
he will see the strikes to be simultaneous.
3. The train observer is moving wrt the light fronts and therefore he
will not see the strikes to be simultaneous.

Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 15, 8:27Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:
On May 15, 2:30Â*pm, PD wrote:



On May 15, 7:27Â*am, rbwinn wrote:

On May 15, 2:24�am, PD wrote:

On May 14, 11:31�pm, rbwinn wrote:

� � However, it defies all of the laws of physics and mathematics for
a train to shrink to a fraction of its length just because it is
moving.

What laws of physics and mathematics would that be?

In the interest of foreshortening the conversation, note that neither
the Galilean nor Lorentz transforms are laws of physics. Perhaps you
could start by listing a few laws of physics you know, and then select
out of that pool the ones you think are defied by having length be a
frame-dependent quantity.

While you're at it, note that kinetic energy of an object is a frame-
dependent quantity, even in Galilean physics. And note that energy
conservation is one of the laws you're looking for. This would be a
good opportunity to point out also why no laws of physics are violated
by this frame-dependence.

PD

Well, according to Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz equations,
and also Lorentz's, one frame of reference actually shrinks relative
to the other.

Nice little fantasy. Would you like to cite where you read that, or
are you willing to acknowledge that there are pieces of your reality
you just make up as you go?

Â*Not only that, but the one that shrinks is also its own
size in its own frame of reference, and the other frame of reference
is shrinking.

See, this is the kind of nonsense that results when you make stuff up
as you go along.

Â*So there are several things going wrong at once here.
Scientists at one time maintained that no laws of science were
violated by the Ptolemaic system of astronomy because it could
accurately predict the positions of planets with its complicated
mathematics of epicycles.

Actually, no, it *post-dicted* those positions. It had very poor
predictive power. Those folks didn't even call themselves scientists
in that day and age. "Scientist" is a more recent term, and what they
practice (and in fact what they practice defines what science is) is
much different that what they practiced then. More emphasis on
experimental verification, more emphasis on prediction rather than
postdiction.

Tycho Brahe was not a scientist? Â*Kepler thought he was one. Â*That is
why he went to work for him so he could have access to his mathematics
and experimental data.

He was an observational astronomer and a very careful measurer. By the
modern definition of "science", he did not practice much in the way of
science. There were no *pre*dictions of observations, though there
were plenty of *post*dictions. It is in fact interesting to note the
difference between empirical rules (which is what Kepler's laws are)
and a physical theory (which is what Newton added). This distinction
is carefully drawn out in introductory science courses in the first
week, where the details of the scientific method are drawn out, and
these distinctions which really define science are made.

It doesn't surprise me that your eyebrows go up a little about this.
It's these subtleties that are important to those who have immersed
themselves in the subject and completely unimportant to casual
observers.

PD

Robert B. Winn

kenseto wrote:
On May 15, 5:22 pm, PD wrote:
On May 15, 8:49 am, kenseto wrote:
Hey idiot if the light signals ("started" or "occurred") at different
times in the train frame then these are not the same light signals as
seen by the track observer. Why? Because Einstein stipulated that the
singals occurred simultaneously.

He said no such thing. You do not have his book in front of you, and
your memory is terrible. He said only that the *track observer*
concludes that the strikes are simultaneous, because he has
observations that are consistent with that conclusion.

Hey idiot if the strikes were not simultaneous to begin with how can
the track observer sees them to be simultaneous?

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

Ken, at this stage, how could you possibly not know that?

"Simultaneous to begin with" is dumbed-down too far. It
shows a presupposition (which experimental evidence
indicates to be false) that simultaneity is absolute.


--
--Bryan

On May 15, 6:33Â*pm, " wrote:
On 15 mayo, 21:00, rbwinn wrote:

On May 15, 5:35 am, " wrote:

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. 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. Â*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. Â*So from
the first I deemed it unlikely that anyone would even respond to my
posts. Â*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. Â*I have not posted much in the newsgroup the last several
years until recent weeks.
Â* Â* In answer to your question, what is the problem with your analysis
of the train and lightning problem, it skips one simple fact. Â*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. Â*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. Â*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. Â*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.
Â* Â* 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. Â*This distance contraction is present in the mathematics
whether the train is moving one mile an hour or .9c. Â*The train will
be shorter by some amount if it moves.
Â* Â* Â*What you are missing in your description of the transmission of
the light in the frame of reference of the train is this: Â*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. Â*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. Â*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. Â*Any photons

...

leer más »

Well you have the right of having your own point of view about this,
if that makes you happy.
All the people that work and study seriously these subjects of
relativity have another opinion and, of course, your feelings about it
will not affect them.
I bought and read my first book on relativity 40 years ago, and I am
totally convinced both SR and GR are very good theories that closely
model nature behavior.

Miguel Rios

Well, the theory came from Europe, which is where all things that
modern society seeks come from. I think that special relativity is an
approximation, not something to base a religion on. In any event, it
does no good to point out inconsistencies to scientists. They are
part of a discipline, just as radical Muslims are part of a
discipline, and are only going to parrot what other scientists say.
Robert B. Winn

On May 15, 7:56Â*pm, PD wrote:
On May 15, 8:27Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:





On May 15, 2:30Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 7:27Â*am, rbwinn wrote:

On May 15, 2:24�am, PD wrote:

On May 14, 11:31�pm, rbwinn wrote:

� � However, it defies all of the laws of physics and mathematics for
a train to shrink to a fraction of its length just because it is
moving.

What laws of physics and mathematics would that be?

In the interest of foreshortening the conversation, note that neither
the Galilean nor Lorentz transforms are laws of physics. Perhaps you
could start by listing a few laws of physics you know, and then select
out of that pool the ones you think are defied by having length be a
frame-dependent quantity.

While you're at it, note that kinetic energy of an object is a frame-
dependent quantity, even in Galilean physics. And note that energy
conservation is one of the laws you're looking for. This would be a
good opportunity to point out also why no laws of physics are violated
by this frame-dependence.

PD

Well, according to Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz equations,
and also Lorentz's, one frame of reference actually shrinks relative
to the other.

Nice little fantasy. Would you like to cite where you read that, or
are you willing to acknowledge that there are pieces of your reality
you just make up as you go?

Â*Not only that, but the one that shrinks is also its own
size in its own frame of reference, and the other frame of reference
is shrinking.

See, this is the kind of nonsense that results when you make stuff up
as you go along.

Â*So there are several things going wrong at once here.
Scientists at one time maintained that no laws of science were
violated by the Ptolemaic system of astronomy because it could
accurately predict the positions of planets with its complicated
mathematics of epicycles.

Actually, no, it *post-dicted* those positions. It had very poor
predictive power. Those folks didn't even call themselves scientists
in that day and age. "Scientist" is a more recent term, and what they
practice (and in fact what they practice defines what science is) is
much different that what they practiced then. More emphasis on
experimental verification, more emphasis on prediction rather than
postdiction.

Tycho Brahe was not a scientist? Â*Kepler thought he was one. Â*That is
why he went to work for him so he could have access to his mathematics
and experimental data.

He was an observational astronomer and a very careful measurer. By the
modern definition of "science", he did not practice much in the way of
science. There were no *pre*dictions of observations, though there
were plenty of *post*dictions. It is in fact interesting to note the
difference between empirical rules (which is what Kepler's laws are)
and a physical theory (which is what Newton added). This distinction
is carefully drawn out in introductory science courses in the first
week, where the details of the scientific method are drawn out, and
these distinctions which really define science are made.

It doesn't surprise me that your eyebrows go up a little about this.
It's these subtleties that are important to those who have immersed
themselves in the subject and completely unimportant to casual
observers.

PD

Well, since Kepler was not a scientist, then neither was Einstein
because he did the same thing Kepler did. He took experimental
results and derived mathematical equations which described those
experimental results fairly closely. As a matter of fact, Newton did
the same thing, so he was not a scientist either. In any event,
Kepler's equations for orbits of planets did not exactly agree with
experimental data. Newton's equations for gravitation did not agree
exactly with experimental data. Those non-scientists had the
advantage of being able to say that maybe the experimental data was
not exact. But scientists of today say that their experiments are so
exact that they have proven Kepler and Newton wrong.
My opinion of scientists today is that they have an agenda, so if
you tell them, Hey, according to Einstein the marks left by lightning
on a railroad track will be closer together than the length of the
train, they will immediately close ranks to protect Einstein's theory
rather than actually thinking about what it means. What they call
science today is more like a religion than a practical means of
solving problems. Scientists believe in miracles like the length
contraction and have put all of their faith in those miracles.
The way to tell whether or not what they believe is true is
whether or not they keep it secret like witch doctors or if they are
open to discussion. They are definitely not open to discussion. All
you

rbwinn wrote in
:

On May 15, 10:14Â*am, bz wrote:
rbwinn wrote in news:14a9254a-5835-4483-b00d-
:





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
ma
thematics 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. Â*Not only that, but the one that
shrinks is also its
own
size in its own frame of reference, and the other frame of reference
is shrinking. Â*So there are several things going wrong at once here
.

....

What things are wrong?

Since [from the trains FoR] the strike at the front occurs first,
followed

by the strike at the rear, AND [from the trains FoR] the track is
SHORTENED,
it should come as no surprise that to the observer on the train, the
marks

on the track are closer together than the length of the train.
After all, the front of the train has passed the front mark by the time
th
e
rear strike/mark is made.

--
Well, as I was saying, that is the scenario that scientists present.
The part I do not believe is where the little short train passes in
front of the observer by the track, and lightning strikes
simultaneously in his frame of reference , making two marks on the
track the length of the short little train which was smashed to that
length by the distance contraction.

The nice thing about science is that it is that no 'faith' or belief is
required. Only observation.

If you want to disprove Einstein's theory then you must propose an
experiment that can be done. Einstein's theory must predict a certain
result. Your theory must predict a different result.

Run the experiment.

If the results fail to support Einstein's theory but are consistent with
your theory, then you publish your results. Others attempt to replicate
your experiment. If, indeed, Einstein's theory is falsified, then you will
have succeeded and will probably get a Nobel prize.

I will tell you what will not work: posting here that you disagree with
what Einstein's theory predicts.

That will not work because that is not how science works.

Another thing that will not work is misinterpreting Einsteins theory and
claiming that it says something different from what it actually says. Seto
and others frequently do this. You have just done it when you used the
words ''short little train which was smashed''.

You know quite well that Einstein never said the train would be smashed.
He only said that the observer riding on the train would observe the
flashes as not being simultaneous. He goes on and shows that the Lorentz
equations can be used to predict how the measured length of moving objects
will be effected by their motion.

He never said the train will be 'smashed'. In fact, his equations show
that, to the observer riding on the train, the length will be unchanged.
As the observer and his measuring tools ALL change together.

Your word choice shows that you are attempting to use propaganda
techniques to makes Einstein's predictions seem ridiculous.

You are attempting to use emotion to persuade rather than logic.

The problem with this is that you can not convince anyone important with
this approach.

You want to convince scientists that Einstein is wrong. You must know the
science as well as they do.

If someone tried to tell you that they could weld aluminum to steel using
only the steam from a tea kettle, would you believe them?

Of course not. You know that wouldn't work. You would know that they were
completely ignorant of welding and how it works. What would you tell them?
After you tried 10 or 15 different ways to convince them that they were
wrong, what would you say?




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

kenseto wrote:
On May 15, 10:17 am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:

Hey idiot if the light signals ("started" or "occurred") at different
times in the train frame then these are not the same light signals as
seen by the track observer. Why? Because Einstein stipulated that the
singals occurred simultaneously.

Seto's delusions of grandeur entirely control his thought process. No
matter how many times he's told that this is not what Einstein
stipulated, and no matter how many times he's shown that this is not
what Einstein stipulated, it isn't going to register

Hey idiot runt: I was just pointing out what Einstein said.

And I, Seto-san, was just pointing out that when it comes to
Relativity, you are far too incompetent to be pointing out anything to
anybody. Abundant proof of that incompetence is provided to you on a
daily basis. Here's a little of today's allotment.

You're given the following 3 facts:

1. Two observers O1 and O2 are co-located when their (ideal) clocks
both read zero.

2. O1 is at the midpoint of the locations of two lightning strikes,
and receives the first light from both strikes when his clock reads T.

3. O2 is moving along the straight line joining the locations of the
lightning strikes at a constant speed v relative to O1.

Now for ANYONE who understands SR, answering the following question is
a trivial matter.

How much time elapses on O2's clock between O2's reception of the
first light from each lightning strike?

Of course, for you, Seto, not only is that question not trivial - it's
utterly impossible, as you're now going to evidence with your reply.