Einstein derived the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) using the
train gedanken. He said that the track observer sees the lightning strikes
to be simultaneous because he is not moving wrt the light fronts from the
strikes and that the train observer sees the strikes to be non-simultaneous
because he is moving wrt the light fronts from the strikes. This conclusion
of RoS violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. Why?
Because isotropy of the speed of light in the train means that the train
observer is not moving wrt the light fronts.

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:
Einstein derived the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) using the
train gedanken. He said that the track observer sees the lightning strikes
to be simultaneous because he is not moving wrt the light fronts from the
strikes and that the train observer sees the strikes to be non-simultaneous
because he is moving wrt the light fronts from the strikes. This conclusion
of RoS violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. Why?
Because isotropy of the speed of light in the train means that the train
observer is not moving wrt the light fronts.

Ken Seto






Ken, when you say "relativity of simultaneity", what do *you* mean?

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

"Relativity of simultaneity means that events that are considered to
be simultaneous in one reference frame are not simultaneous in
another reference frame moving with respect to the first. For example
imagine there were volcanoes located on Mars and Venus. We on earth
may see these two volcanoes on the different planets erupt and
conclude (after appropriate corrections for light travel) that the
eruptions were simultaneous; we could calculate the Greenwich Mean
Time at which the eruptions occurred. The inhabitants of a distant
galaxy, traveling away from ours at a great speed, may one day
observe these same eruptions and find that they were not
simultaneous, that one occurred before the other. The concept of
"simultaneous" or "simultaneity" is not an absolute, but a relative
property -- it depends on one's frame of reference.

"In Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, relative simultaneity
seems to be inextricably linked with the (logically) separate
phenomenon of time dilation, which concerns the different rates at
which time passes (or identical clocks tick) in two different
reference frames. However these two different things are not
necessarily linked. For example, Einstein's (1960) demonstration of
relativity of simultaneity (lightning strikes both ends of a moving
train, seen as simultaneous on the embankment but not on the train)
makes no reference to clocks or the rates at which they are running.
No conclusions need be drawn about the rate of moving clocks from
this example alone.

"It may clear up some confusion to trace the separate historical
development of "relativity of simultaneity" and "time dilation"
before they were brought together by Joseph Larmor (1897) in a form
of the Lorentz transformations".

"kenseto" wrote in message . ..
Einstein derived the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) using the
train gedanken.

He didn't.
He tried to *explain* it with the train example to an
audience of intelligent interested laymen. Molusks do
not belong to that species.

He said that the track observer sees the lightning strikes
to be simultaneous because he is not moving wrt the light fronts from the
strikes and that the train observer sees the strikes to be non-simultaneous
because he is moving wrt the light fronts from the strikes. This conclusion
of RoS violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. Why?
Because isotropy of the speed of light in the train means that the train
observer is not moving wrt the light fronts.

But the train was running vertically, so who cares?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...eVertical.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...s/IsoVert.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Vertical2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...XVertical.html

Dirk Vdm

kenseto wrote:
Einstein derived the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) using the
train gedanken. He said that the track observer sees the lightning strikes
to be simultaneous because he is not moving wrt the light fronts from the
strikes and that the train observer sees the strikes to be non-simultaneous
because he is moving wrt the light fronts from the strikes. This conclusion
of RoS violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. Why?
Because isotropy of the speed of light in the train means that the train
observer is not moving wrt the light fronts.

Ken Seto

The RoS gedanken violates about 10 other electromagnetic principles
but since it is not even necessary for time dependent Maxwell's
equations:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node41.html
....sensible folk just dismiss it as a dangling metaphysic, just as
they dismiss any argument based on similar ambiguities.
It is just there to titlilate the H. G. Wells fans. :-)

Sue...

Ken, when you say "relativity of simultaneity", what do *you* mean?

That question is much too hard for Ken, he cannot even
suggest a way to measure the speed of a moving train.

Martin Hogbin

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:g1yWf.66534$oL.64969@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
Einstein derived the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) using
the
train gedanken. He said that the track observer sees the lightning
strikes
to be simultaneous because he is not moving wrt the light fronts from
the
strikes and that the train observer sees the strikes to be
non-simultaneous
because he is moving wrt the light fronts from the strikes. This
conclusion
of RoS violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. Why?
Because isotropy of the speed of light in the train means that the train
observer is not moving wrt the light fronts.

Ken Seto






Ken, when you say "relativity of simultaneity", what do *you* mean?

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

"Relativity of simultaneity means that events that are considered to
be simultaneous in one reference frame are not simultaneous in
another reference frame moving with respect to the first. For example
imagine there were volcanoes located on Mars and Venus. We on earth
may see these two volcanoes on the different planets erupt and
conclude (after appropriate corrections for light travel) that the
eruptions were simultaneous; we could calculate the Greenwich Mean
Time at which the eruptions occurred. The inhabitants of a distant
galaxy, traveling away from ours at a great speed, may one day
observe these same eruptions and find that they were not
simultaneous, that one occurred before the other. The concept of
"simultaneous" or "simultaneity" is not an absolute, but a relative
property -- it depends on one's frame of reference.

You can't assume that an observer in a distant galaxy will not see the
erruptions to be not simultaneous and then conclude that simultaneity is not
an absolute. The distant observer can calculate using the LT and determined
that the erruptions to be simultaneous but occur at a different clock time
interval than what the earth observer calculated. This will eliminate the
need for the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity and thus the
concept of time dilation. What this mean is that the clock on earth runs at
a different rate than the clock at distant galaxy..

"In Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, relative simultaneity
seems to be inextricably linked with the (logically) separate
phenomenon of time dilation, which concerns the different rates at
which time passes (or identical clocks tick) in two different
reference frames.

The idea of time dilation (the different rates at which time passes in
different frames) is bogus. Why? Because absolute time is the only time that
exists and the rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames..
However a clock second will contain a different amount of absolute time in
different frames (different state of absolute motion). This causes a clock
to run at different rates in different states of absolute motion and you
mistakenly call this time dilation.
This confusion comes from Einstein's bogus definition for time. He said
"time is what the clock measures". In real life a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in different frames. Therefore two
different observers will see the same two events to occur at two different
clock time interval but those two clock time interval contains the same
amount of absolute time.
BTW the existence of absolute time is the reason why the speed of light is a
constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.


Ken Seto

However these two different things are not
necessarily linked. For example, Einstein's (1960) demonstration of
relativity of simultaneity (lightning strikes both ends of a moving
train, seen as simultaneous on the embankment but not on the train)
makes no reference to clocks or the rates at which they are running.
No conclusions need be drawn about the rate of moving clocks from
this example alone.

"It may clear up some confusion to trace the separate historical
development of "relativity of simultaneity" and "time dilation"
before they were brought together by Joseph Larmor (1897) in a form
of the Lorentz transformations".

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

Ken, when you say "relativity of simultaneity", what do *you* mean?

That question is much too hard for Ken, he cannot even
suggest a way to measure the speed of a moving train.

ROTFLOL.....Martin is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:g1yWf.66534$oL.64969@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
Einstein derived the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) using
the
train gedanken. He said that the track observer sees the lightning
strikes
to be simultaneous because he is not moving wrt the light fronts from
the
strikes and that the train observer sees the strikes to be
non-simultaneous
because he is moving wrt the light fronts from the strikes. This
conclusion
of RoS violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. Why?
Because isotropy of the speed of light in the train means that the train
observer is not moving wrt the light fronts.

Ken Seto






Ken, when you say "relativity of simultaneity", what do *you* mean?

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

"Relativity of simultaneity means that events that are considered to
be simultaneous in one reference frame are not simultaneous in
another reference frame moving with respect to the first. For example
imagine there were volcanoes located on Mars and Venus. We on earth
may see these two volcanoes on the different planets erupt and
conclude (after appropriate corrections for light travel) that the
eruptions were simultaneous; we could calculate the Greenwich Mean
Time at which the eruptions occurred. The inhabitants of a distant
galaxy, traveling away from ours at a great speed, may one day
observe these same eruptions and find that they were not
simultaneous, that one occurred before the other. The concept of
"simultaneous" or "simultaneity" is not an absolute, but a relative
property -- it depends on one's frame of reference.

You can't assume that an observer in a distant galaxy will not see the
erruptions to be not simultaneous and then conclude that simultaneity is not
an absolute.

The relativity of simultaneity is not a conclusion that is arrived at
by a single observer. It is a conclusion that is arrived at by the
comparison of the conclusions by *two* observers about the same pair of
events. The fact that they *both* used the same set of agreed-upon
rules for arriving at their conclusion, and yet arrived at different
conclusions as a result of using those rules, is what forces both
observers to acknowledge the observer-dependence of simultaneity. What
one observer concludes on his own is completely immaterial.

The distant observer can calculate using the LT and determined
that the erruptions to be simultaneous but occur at a different clock time
interval than what the earth observer calculated. This will eliminate the
need for the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity and thus the
concept of time dilation. What this mean is that the clock on earth runs at
a different rate than the clock at distant galaxy..

"In Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, relative simultaneity
seems to be inextricably linked with the (logically) separate
phenomenon of time dilation, which concerns the different rates at
which time passes (or identical clocks tick) in two different
reference frames.

The idea of time dilation (the different rates at which time passes in
different frames) is bogus. Why? Because absolute time is the only time that
exists and the rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames..

Well, gee, that's a clear statement of your opinion on the matter,
though you seem to want to say it's so without any checking against
experimental reality.

PD

However a clock second will contain a different amount of absolute time in
different frames (different state of absolute motion). This causes a clock
to run at different rates in different states of absolute motion and you
mistakenly call this time dilation.
This confusion comes from Einstein's bogus definition for time. He said
"time is what the clock measures". In real life a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in different frames. Therefore two
different observers will see the same two events to occur at two different
clock time interval but those two clock time interval contains the same
amount of absolute time.
BTW the existence of absolute time is the reason why the speed of light is a
constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.


Ken Seto

However these two different things are not
necessarily linked. For example, Einstein's (1960) demonstration of
relativity of simultaneity (lightning strikes both ends of a moving
train, seen as simultaneous on the embankment but not on the train)
makes no reference to clocks or the rates at which they are running.
No conclusions need be drawn about the rate of moving clocks from
this example alone.

"It may clear up some confusion to trace the separate historical
development of "relativity of simultaneity" and "time dilation"
before they were brought together by Joseph Larmor (1897) in a form
of the Lorentz transformations".

"kenseto" wrote in message
. ..
Einstein derived the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) using the
train gedanken. He said that the track observer sees the lightning
strikes
to be simultaneous because he is not moving wrt the light fronts from the
strikes and that the train observer sees the strikes to be
non-simultaneous
because he is moving wrt the light fronts from the strikes. This
conclusion
of RoS violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. Why?
Because isotropy of the speed of light in the train means that the train
observer is not moving wrt the light fronts.

BTW I forgot to include the following exception:
Both the track and the train observer can move wrt the light fronts and
maintain isotropy of the speed of light in both frames and thus maintaining
absolute simultaneity in both frames if they both move vertically in the
middle plane between the light fronts. In that case the track observer will
see the strikes to be simultaneous at an earlier time (because he is in a
lower state of absolute motion than the train observer) and the train
observer will see them at a later time. This will eliminate the need for the
bogus concept of RoS.

"kenseto" wrote in message . ..

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

Ken, when you say "relativity of simultaneity", what do *you* mean?

That question is much too hard for Ken, he cannot even
suggest a way to measure the speed of a moving train.

. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR

I have not mentioned SR, I simply asked how you
would measure the speed of a train.

In this too much for you?

martin Hogbin