Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kenseto
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
 |
|
On Jul 11, 1:49 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 11 jul, 10:54, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
But item #3 is based on the bogus assertion that closing speeds as
perceived by the track observer will affect the isotropy of the speed
of light in the train.
No, it's based on what he SEES.
Hey idiot he does not see that the strikes were not simultaneous.
Einstein said said that he (the train observer) rush toward the light
from the front and reced away the light from the rear and that's why
he must see the strikes arrive at him at different times. The problem
with this assertion is that it violates the measured isotropy of the
speed of light in the train.
You clearly do not understand English...
Einstein says:
"...When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous
with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at
the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the
mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment. But the events A
and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the
mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just when
the flashes 1 of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides
with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with
the velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M’
in the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain
permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of
lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet
just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference
to the railway embankment) 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...."
Einstein clearly is saying that, with respect to the track frame
(where the strikes were observed as simultaneous at the track observer
position M) the observer M' is moving towards the front strike light
signal and away from the back strike light signal and, naturally that
means M' will see both signals at different times.
|
Sigh....the point is:
1. If M' move wrt the light fronts in the x-axis direction then the
speed of light in the train frame cannot be isotropic in the x-axis
direction.
2. relative velocity between M and M' has no effect on the isotropy of
the speed of light in the train.
3. Einstein's arguement is bogus. He failed to understand his own
theory....that his arguement violate the isotropy of the speed of
light in the train.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:45 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jul 11, 12:54 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
No he doesn't. I can be convinced if you show me the exact quote
instead of keep on telling me to read the gedanken again.
Einstein said that the train observer rush toward the light from the
front and reced away from the light from the rear. That's why the
train observer does not see the strikes to be simultaneous. This is
not what the train observer sees. This is a bogus assertion of
Einstein.
|
Ken, if it helps, there are a number of small videos that are based on
exactly what Einstein wrote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM&feature=related |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dr. Henri Wilson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:49:51 -0700 (PDT), "paparios@gmail.com"
<paparios@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 11 jul, 10:54, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
But item #3 is based on the bogus assertion that closing speeds as
perceived by the track observer will affect the isotropy of the speed
of light in the train.
No, it's based on what he SEES.
Hey idiot he does not see that the strikes were not simultaneous.
Einstein said said that he (the train observer) rush toward the light
from the front and reced away the light from the rear and that's why
he must see the strikes arrive at him at different times. The problem
with this assertion is that it violates the measured isotropy of the
speed of light in the train.
You clearly do not understand English...
Einstein says:
"...When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous
with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at
the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the
mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment. But the events A
and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the
mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just when
the flashes 1 of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides
with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with
the velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M’
in the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain
permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of
lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet
just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference
to the railway embankment) 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...."
Einstein clearly is saying that, with respect to the track frame
(where the strikes were observed as simultaneous at the track observer
position M) the observer M' is moving towards the front strike light
signal and away from the back strike light signal and, naturally that
means M' will see both signals at different times.
|
Precisely.
Einstein is clearly admitting that the light travels at c+v and c-v in the
train frame.
This not the only indication that Einstein was strongly influenced by BaTh
principles. After all, he conversed with Ritz regularly/.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dr. Henri Wilson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:44:47 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 8, 12:38 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:09:50 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
The times for the flashes to reach the moving observer are D/(c+v and D/(c-v)
In that case aren't you contradicting yourself? You said above that
simultaneity is absolute and yet you said here that simultaneity is
relative.
The train observer has to correct for communication travel time. He then finds
the two flashes occured simultaneously at the train ends.
It's all so simple really.
No.....no correction is allowed. The train observer will see the
strikes to be simultaneous or not? SR says that the train observer
will not see the strike to be simultaneous.....based on the closing
velocities as seen by the track observer. Do you agree with that?
|
SR violates its own postulate if it does.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dr. Henri Wilson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:58:56 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 29, 8:37 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
papar...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, obviously you don't know basic mathematics. In this case the
four relations are from a GF-5, and are obtained from the addition
table (a and b) and the multiplication table (c and d). These fields
are used in coding, and are a nice way of demontrate that 4+4 is not
always equal to 8.
Oh man,
That is not "basic math".
You got me with the computer talk,
I am sorry I forgot about that stuff.
but really.
4+4 =8 unless you are using a different "basic math.
and still you are ignoring the actual facts I posted about
simultaniety.
Why?
You know Jimmy, your problem is that you know nothing of the subjects
discussed in this forum. You only talk like a parrot about clocks and
rulers, so talking with you about a serious topic is very difficult.
Oh,
I don't know computer programmign so I don't know about
classsical physics?
You have a complete bad case in that court fight.
LOL
As I told you before, at least Seto has his own theory and he even has
a web page about it. You have nothing!
No,
I have absolute simultaniety for observers that are able to
use the old fashion, never proven wrong Euclidian 3D and
basic geometry.
So..
You can ignore that simultaniety can exist.
or you can think about how I showed you what to
do to prove if it existed at all.
It is real easy, use Euclidian 3D and basic math (not programming math)
You show with a physical demonstration, not with math. You show with
experimental evidence, not with geometry.
You haven't proven anything. You *believe* in what Euclidean geometry
tells you, on blind faith. That is religion. This is like "proving"
that God exists by pointing to the Bible, and saying "Use that".
When you can really SHOW absolute simultaneity, when you can SHOW
faster than light travel, when you can SHOW the laws of physics can be
kept the same in all inertial frames and still have absolutely
synchronized clocks, then you'll have a case. But until then, it's
all little pink fairies.
|
Draper everything you've said here supports absolute simultaneity.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dr. Henri Wilson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:50:03 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 9, 3:41 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 9, 10:44 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
The train observer has to correct for communication travel time. He then finds
the two flashes occured simultaneously at the train ends.
It's all so simple really.
No.....no correction is allowed. The train observer will see the
strikes to be simultaneous or not?
Not.
SR says that the train observer
will not see the strike to be simultaneous.....based on the closing
velocities as seen by the track observer.
NOT based on the closing velocities as seen by the track observer.
Based on the train observer's own observations.
Hey idiot.....the train observer didn't make any observations
regarding the simultaneity of the strikes. Einstein merely specified
that the train observer was at equal distance from the strikes and
that the speed of light in the train is isotropic. He specfiied that
the track observer saw the strikes to be simultaneous. At the time of
the strikes the track observer was also at equal distance from the
strikes. So that means that as dertimed by the track observer the
strikes were simultaneous to begin with. Therefore the train must see
these same two strikes to be simultaneous because he is also at equal
distances from them when they happened simultaneously.
|
Ken you should STRESS that this is what what SHOULD happen according to SR's
2nd postulate.
Draper and the others don't realise that Einstein was fully supporting
ballistic theory in this thought experiment.
| Quote: |
Einstein's discussion of the track observer's ruminations about this
is ONLY to show that what the train observer concludes from his own
observations is ALSO consistent with the laws of physics as known by
the track observer.
If the track observer wants to know if the train observer will see the
strikes to be simultaneous or nor he use SR as follows:
1. The speed of light in the train is isotropic.
2. The track observer determined that the strikes were simultaneous to
begin with.
3. At the time the strikes occur simultaneously the train observer was
at equal distance from the strikes.
4. Therefore based on item 1, 2 and 3 the train observer must also see
the strikes to be simultaneous.
Ken was not able to comprehend this from his reading of what Einstein
wrote, and somehow got the impression that the train observer makes
his conclusion based on the track-observer's thinking, which was not
Einstein's point at all.
No it is you and Einstein who failed to understand that simultaneity
is not relative velocity or observer dependent.
Ken Seto
|
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dr. Henri Wilson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:10:56 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 11, 1:35 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdd4ad89-b911-4c70-a4b9-d882bc4b6968@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 9, 6:12 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
us or not simultaneous?
Draper, by the time the light reaches the train obserrver he is NOT at the
midway point.
Of course he is, in the train frame, you idiot. It makes no difference
whatsoever that the track observer is now a mile and half behind by
the time the light reaches the train observer. The train observer
knows he is standing in the middle of the train and verifies at his
leisure that the marks are at the ends of the train. How in this frame
is he not at the midway point? He never moved from the middle of the
train. Idiot.
|
The train ends are not the source. The lightning is the source.
You are as stupid as Draper.
| Quote: |
INTERRUPT
=========================
Relativity: The Special and General Theory, chapter eight, On the Idea of
Time in Physics, by Albert Einstein: "Lightning has struck the rails on our
railway embankment at two places A and B far distant from each other...."
(Lightning has struck the RAILS.....! Two places on the RAILS, not two
places on the train!)
The lightning leaves scorch marks both on the rails and on the train.
|
Hey idiot, the marks are not the sources. The lightning flshes are.
They are at horizontal rest in the train frame but move at c+v and c-v in the
train frame.
IF the flashes result in secondary emission/reflection from both the track and
the train ends, the train observer will see THREE flashes. One will arrive at
D/(c-v) TWO arrive at D/c and another will arrive at D /(c+v)
| Quote: |
GLB
========================
END INTERRUPT
If he performs an elementary calculation, he will establish that the
flashes
occured simultaneously at the two points on the track equidistant from
where he
was at that instant.
The flash sources are assumed at rest in the track frame.
Why on earth would he assume that? He's got no evidence of that. The
flash sources are momentary events at the ENDS OF THE TRAIN. Why on
earth would he assume that they are stationary in the track frame?
Their light moves at
c in that frame and at c+v and c-v in the train observer's frame.
The whole exercise is trivially simple.
Especially to the simple-minded who make stuff up as they go along.
Einstein was a hoaxer.
Just tell me what YOU think, Henri. I'm in the mood for a little
levity.
It's all so simple really.
Ken Seto
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible
unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his
second postulate.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible
unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second
postulate.
|
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dr. Henri Wilson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:44:23 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 9, 7:16 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:44:47 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 8, 12:38 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Why not?
The train observer will see the
strikes to be simultaneous or not? SR says that the train observer
will not see the strike to be simultaneous.....based on the closing
velocities as seen by the track observer. Do you agree with that?
The train observer knows his speed wrt the source of the flashes, ie., the
marks on the tracks.
You are an idiot....the sources are at the ends of the train. There is
no relative velocity between the train observer and the ends of the
train.
|
Don't call me an idiot. I'm the only one here who knows what YOU are talking
about.
You fellows are arguing about something you don't understand at all. You
haven't even defined the light sources.
YOU are now claiming the flashes originate from the train ends....at c wt the
train observer (correct in that case). Draper et al. claim the flashes come
from the track. What they keep getting wrong is that according to Einstein, the
flashes should move at c in both the track and the train frame.....in which
case they would arrive simultaneously to BOTH observers...which is clearly
impossible.
I have corrected you all by pointing out that TWO sets of reflected flashes
will result from the strikes. One pair move at c wrt the track and the other at
c wrt the train. The train observer receives THREE flashes.
| Quote: |
He also knows that the light from the flashes moves at c wrt those two marks.
It is a condition of the expriment that the two flashes hit he tracks
absolutely simultaneously.
The track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous because he was
at equal distance from the strikes when they occur simultaneously.
|
Very true. The reflections that originate from the train ends will reach him
simultaneously. . Those main ones that originate from the lightning itself
which is horizontally at rest wrt the track), will reach him at different
times.
| Quote: |
The two flashes of light will not rech the train observer simultaneously, as
expected.
The trian observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous because he was
at equal distance from the strikes when they occur simultaneously.
|
Correct.... for one pair of flashes.
All of you are supporting Ballistic theory anyway.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jul 14, 3:41 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:49:51 -0700 (PDT), "papar...@gmail.com"
papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 jul, 10:54, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
But item #3 is based on the bogus assertion that closing speeds as
perceived by the track observer will affect the isotropy of the speed
of light in the train.
No, it's based on what he SEES.
Hey idiot he does not see that the strikes were not simultaneous.
Einstein said said that he (the train observer) rush toward the light
from the front and reced away the light from the rear and that's why
he must see the strikes arrive at him at different times. The problem
with this assertion is that it violates the measured isotropy of the
speed of light in the train.
You clearly do not understand English...
Einstein says:
"...When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous
with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at
the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the
mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment. But the events A
and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the
mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just when
the flashes 1 of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides
with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with
the velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M’
in the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain
permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of
lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet
just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference
to the railway embankment) 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...."
Einstein clearly is saying that, with respect to the track frame
(where the strikes were observed as simultaneous at the track observer
position M) the observer M' is moving towards the front strike light
signal and away from the back strike light signal and, naturally that
means M' will see both signals at different times.
Precisely.
Einstein is clearly admitting that the light travels at c+v and c-v in the
train frame.
|
So it is true that you do not comprehend what you read. Especially the
part where Einstein explicitly says that light travels at c in both
directions in the train frame.
But then again, it is difficult to comprehend what you do NOT read,
isn't it?
| Quote: |
This not the only indication that Einstein was strongly influenced by BaTh
principles. After all, he conversed with Ritz regularly/.
Miguel Rios
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:41 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jul 14, 3:53 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:10:56 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 11, 1:35 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdd4ad89-b911-4c70-a4b9-d882bc4b6968@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 9, 6:12 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
us or not simultaneous?
Draper, by the time the light reaches the train obserrver he is NOT at the
midway point.
Of course he is, in the train frame, you idiot. It makes no difference
whatsoever that the track observer is now a mile and half behind by
the time the light reaches the train observer. The train observer
knows he is standing in the middle of the train and verifies at his
leisure that the marks are at the ends of the train. How in this frame
is he not at the midway point? He never moved from the middle of the
train. Idiot.
The train ends are not the source. The lightning is the source.
You are as stupid as Draper.
|
That WAS Draper, idiot.
The flashes are instantaneous events in the gedanken, idiot.
Instantaneous events are neither at rest nor moving in any frame,
idiot.
| Quote: |
INTERRUPT
========================
Relativity: The Special and General Theory, chapter eight, On the Idea of
Time in Physics, by Albert Einstein: "Lightning has struck the rails on our
railway embankment at two places A and B far distant from each other....."
(Lightning has struck the RAILS.....! Two places on the RAILS, not two
places on the train!)
The lightning leaves scorch marks both on the rails and on the train.
Hey idiot, the marks are not the sources. The lightning flshes are.
They are at horizontal rest in the train frame but move at c+v and c-v in the
train frame.
IF the flashes result in secondary emission/reflection from both the track and
the train ends, the train observer will see THREE flashes. One will arrive at
D/(c-v) TWO arrive at D/c and another will arrive at D /(c+v)
GLB
=======================
END INTERRUPT
If he performs an elementary calculation, he will establish that the
flashes
occured simultaneously at the two points on the track equidistant from
where he
was at that instant.
The flash sources are assumed at rest in the track frame.
Why on earth would he assume that? He's got no evidence of that. The
flash sources are momentary events at the ENDS OF THE TRAIN. Why on
earth would he assume that they are stationary in the track frame?
Their light moves at
c in that frame and at c+v and c-v in the train observer's frame.
The whole exercise is trivially simple.
Especially to the simple-minded who make stuff up as they go along.
Einstein was a hoaxer.
Just tell me what YOU think, Henri. I'm in the mood for a little
levity.
It's all so simple really.
Ken Seto
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible
unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his
second postulate.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible
unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second
postulate.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:43 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jul 14, 4:28 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:58:56 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 29, 8:37 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
papar...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, obviously you don't know basic mathematics. In this case the
four relations are from a GF-5, and are obtained from the addition
table (a and b) and the multiplication table (c and d). These fields
are used in coding, and are a nice way of demontrate that 4+4 is not
always equal to 8.
Oh man,
That is not "basic math".
You got me with the computer talk,
I am sorry I forgot about that stuff.
but really.
4+4 =8 unless you are using a different "basic math.
and still you are ignoring the actual facts I posted about
simultaniety.
Why?
You know Jimmy, your problem is that you know nothing of the subjects
discussed in this forum. You only talk like a parrot about clocks and
rulers, so talking with you about a serious topic is very difficult.
Oh,
I don't know computer programmign so I don't know about
classsical physics?
You have a complete bad case in that court fight.
LOL
As I told you before, at least Seto has his own theory and he even has
a web page about it. You have nothing!
No,
I have absolute simultaniety for observers that are able to
use the old fashion, never proven wrong Euclidian 3D and
basic geometry.
So..
You can ignore that simultaniety can exist.
or you can think about how I showed you what to
do to prove if it existed at all.
It is real easy, use Euclidian 3D and basic math (not programming math)
You show with a physical demonstration, not with math. You show with
experimental evidence, not with geometry.
You haven't proven anything. You *believe* in what Euclidean geometry
tells you, on blind faith. That is religion. This is like "proving"
that God exists by pointing to the Bible, and saying "Use that".
When you can really SHOW absolute simultaneity, when you can SHOW
faster than light travel, when you can SHOW the laws of physics can be
kept the same in all inertial frames and still have absolutely
synchronized clocks, then you'll have a case. But until then, it's
all little pink fairies.
Draper everything you've said here supports absolute simultaneity.
|
Then you clearly do not understand what you read. Would you like some
reading lessons?
| Quote: |
PD
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:47 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jul 14, 4:24 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:44:23 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:16 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:44:47 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 8, 12:38 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Why not?
The train observer will see the
strikes to be simultaneous or not? SR says that the train observer
will not see the strike to be simultaneous.....based on the closing
velocities as seen by the track observer. Do you agree with that?
The train observer knows his speed wrt the source of the flashes, ie., the
marks on the tracks.
You are an idiot....the sources are at the ends of the train. There is
no relative velocity between the train observer and the ends of the
train.
Don't call me an idiot. I'm the only one here who knows what YOU are talking
about.
You fellows are arguing about something you don't understand at all. You
haven't even defined the light sources.
YOU are now claiming the flashes originate from the train ends....at c wt the
train observer (correct in that case). Draper et al. claim the flashes come
from the track.
|
No, I do not. I see that you have as much difficulty comprehending
what you read as Seto does.
| Quote: |
What they keep getting wrong is that according to Einstein, the
flashes should move at c in both the track and the train frame.
|
Yes.
| Quote: |
....in which
case they would arrive simultaneously to BOTH observers
|
No. You CLEARLY do not comprehend what you read.
| Quote: |
...which is clearly
impossible.
I have corrected you all by pointing out that TWO sets of reflected flashes
|
What *reflected* flashes? Reflected from WHAT?
| Quote: |
will result from the strikes. One pair move at c wrt the track and the other at
c wrt the train. The train observer receives THREE flashes.
|
WHAATTT? Now you are babbling. Please, Henri, there is a bit of
spittle hanging off the left corner of your mouth. No, YOUR left.
| Quote: |
He also knows that the light from the flashes moves at c wrt those two marks.
It is a condition of the expriment that the two flashes hit he tracks
absolutely simultaneously.
The track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous because he was
at equal distance from the strikes when they occur simultaneously.
Very true. The reflections that originate from the train ends will reach him
simultaneously. . Those main ones that originate from the lightning itself
which is horizontally at rest wrt the track), will reach him at different
times.
The two flashes of light will not rech the train observer simultaneously, as
expected.
The trian observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous because he was
at equal distance from the strikes when they occur simultaneously.
Correct.... for one pair of flashes.
All of you are supporting Ballistic theory anyway.
|
Henri just mouths things, under the strategy that those who read what
he says will not understand what is going on, but if he says them with
sufficient authoritative terseness, maybe someone will just buy it
unthinkingly.
| Quote: |
Ken Seto
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kenseto
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:20 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jul 10, 11:22 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 10, 10:07 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:43 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 9, 4:15 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:23 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 7, 10:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 5, 3:03 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 5, 7:45 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:47 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
No....he said the train observer M' is rushing toward the light front
from the front and thus he sees the this light front first. He also
said that the train observer is recdeing away from the light front
from the rear and thus he sees this light front at a later time. These
assertions is the baisis of RoS.
No it isn't. It is showing that what the train observer SAW is also
consistent with the laws of physics as known by the track observer.
You do not comprehend what you are reading.
Hey idiot....not according to RoS. RoS says that the train observer is
rushing toward the light front from the front (c+v) and receding from
the light front from the rear (c-v). That means that RoS says that the
speed of light in the train is anisotropic.
That is NOT the statement of the relativity of simultaneity. You don't
comprehend what you are reading.
It is a statement explains how RoS is derived. It is a statement says
that the speed of light in the train is anisotropic.
No, it does NOT say the speed of light is anisotropic in the train.
Yes it does. The train observer is rushing toward the light front from
the front (c+v) and he is receding away from the light from the rear
(c-v). That is anisotropic.
The isotropy of light speed does not have anything to do with the
*closing* speeds that have the values (c+v) and (c-v). There is no law
of physics nor any SR that says the *closing speed* is isotropic >or invariant.
The simultaneity of events is also independent of closing speeds. The
gedanken specified the following conditions:
1. The speed of light in the track and the train frame is isotropic..
2. Both the track observer and the train observer are at equal
distance from the strikes.
3. It was also specified that the track observer sees the strikes to
be simultaneous to begin with.
4. From these conditions the train observer must also see the strikes
to be simultaneous.
You do not know the difference between closing speed and measured
light speed.
It would help if you knew the meaning of the terms you are using.
The *closing* speed of c+v that the track observer sees between the
light from the front and the train observer is NOT the approach speed
of the light measured by the train observer.
So why did you use closing speed to determine whether the train
observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous or not???
I don't. The train observer DOES determine that for himself, using
measured approach speed of light (which is c). That is not the point
of looking at the problem from the track frame. Let me repeat: it is
NOT the purpose of looking at the problem from the track frame to
determine whether the strikes are simultaneous in the train frame..
Einstein did....so are you saying that he wa swrong?
No, he did not. You do not comprehend what you are reading.
The
fact that the strikes are not simultaneous in the train frame is
ALREADY determined from the observations by the train observer.
This is bull shit. The train observer cannot make such determination.
Of course he can. He can SEE the flashes of light, you idiot.
Why? Because he does not know if the strikes were simultaneous or not
simultaneous to begin with.
No, he doesn't have to REASON it out. He OBSERVES things.
The
purpose of looking at the problem from the train frame is to show that
the train observer's account is ALSO consistent with the laws of
physics as known by the track observer. Note that simultaneity is not
a law of physics -- one does not need to have the same answer about
simultaneity for the two frames. The principle of relativity is a
statement about the invariance of the *laws of physics* between
inertial frames, not a statement about the invariance of simultaneity
-- simultaneity is not a law of physics.
You mean RoS is not a law of physics???
You do not even comprehend what I wrote. Please read the above and try
again. Jeez, your command of the English language is pathetic.
I said: "Simultaneity is not a law of physics". You said "You mean ROS
is not a law of physics???"
Do you see what kind of bonehead mistakes you are making?
I agree!!!! It is a buch of
bull shit cook up by Einstein to show that time running at different
rates in different frames. \
Don't you think
that the train observer should do that for himself?
The train observer in
fact measures the approach speed of the light to be c, not c+v.
Right....also he said that the speed of light in his frame is
isotropic and that he is at equal distance from the strikes. Therefore
he determines that the strikes were simltaneous to begin with.
No, those two conditions are not sufficient for simultaneity. The
ADDITIONAL requirement is that the observer actually observes the
light arriving at the observer at the same time.
Right....Einstein already specified that the track observer sees the
strikes to be simultaneous to begin with. Since the train observer
meets the same conditions as the track observer then the train
observer must also sees the strikes to be simultaneous.
But he DOESN'T because he has his OWN set of observations. He is not
reliant on the track observer's observations, or the track observer's
arguments.
This condition is not
met by the train observer. To recap, there are THREE conditions that
must be met for two events to be simultaneous:
1. The speed of the signal from the events to the observer must be
isotropic.
2. The observer is midway between the two events.
3. The observer actually observes the signal arriving at his location
at the same time.
The first two are met in this case, but not the third.
Both observers meet the third condition.
No sir. READ the gedanken experiment and try to comprehend what you
are reading. It says in black and white that the train observer does
NOT meet the third condition. He in fact observes the OPPOSITE.
The train observer does not observe whether the strikes are
simultaneous or not....
Yes, he does. READ the gedanken.
he does not have enough data to make such
observation.
Yes, he does. You've already (just yesterday!) asked me what
observations he made, and I told you, and you've already (just
overnight) forgotten what I told you. Your mind is gone, Seto. You
cannot remember a discussion from one day to the next. I'm about to
give up on you, as your senility is too deep a handicap to overcome.
What he observes are as follows:
1. that the strikes happened at equal distance from him.
2. That the speed of light in his frame is isotropic.
And he observes one more thing which you keep forgetting, day after
day after day, even though it is printed in black and white in the
book you refuse to look up.
3. That the light from the two flashes arrives at his eyes at
different times.
Because he has this third observation, he needs nothing else to
determine the simultaneity of the strikes. In particular, he does NOT
need the chain of logic from the track observer to make any conclusion
about it.
|
Hey idiot there is no such observation. The light fronts do not arrive
at different times. If they did the speed of light in the train is not
isotropic.
Ken Seto
| Quote: |
You have asked this question twenty times in a row, and you've been
told the answer twenty times in a row, and you make the same mistake
twenty times in a row. You have forgotten that you plonked me days
ago. You are no longer able to maintain a coherent train of thought
from one hour to the next without stepping backwards. You have gone
senile, Ken.
In order for him to conclude whether the strikes are arriving at him
simultaneously or not he need to know if the strikes were simultaneous
to begin with or not. The track obserever can give him that
information: That is that the strikes were simultaneous to begin with.
Therefore based on these new information he concludes that the strikes
will arrive at him simultaneously.
Ken Seto
According to thwe track
observer: The signals arriving at the track observer simultaneously at
an earlier time of 0.5L/c. The signals arriving at the train observer
simutlaneously at a later time of 0.5L*gamma/c.
That is NOT what the track observer sees.
Sorry, I meant that is NOT what the train observer sees.
Sure that's what the track observer determined using SR.
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kenseto
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jul 10, 11:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 10, 10:31 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:22 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:07 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:43 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 9, 4:15 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:23 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 7, 10:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 5, 3:03 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 5, 7:45 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:47 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
No....he said the train observer M' is rushing toward the light front
from the front and thus he sees the this light front first. He also
said that the train observer is recdeing away from the light front
from the rear and thus he sees this light front at a later time. These
assertions is the baisis of RoS.
No it isn't. It is showing that what the train observer SAW is also
consistent with the laws of physics as known by the track observer.
You do not comprehend what you are reading.
Hey idiot....not according to RoS. RoS says that the train observer is
rushing toward the light front from the front (c+v) and receding from
the light front from the rear (c-v). That means that RoS says that the
speed of light in the train is anisotropic.
That is NOT the statement of the relativity of simultaneity. You don't
comprehend what you are reading.
It is a statement explains how RoS is derived. It is a statement says
that the speed of light in the train is anisotropic.
No, it does NOT say the speed of light is anisotropic in the train.
Yes it does. The train observer is rushing toward the light front from
the front (c+v) and he is receding away from the light from the rear
(c-v). That is anisotropic.
The isotropy of light speed does not have anything to do with the
*closing* speeds that have the values (c+v) and (c-v). There is no law
of physics nor any SR that says the *closing speed* is isotropic >or invariant.
The simultaneity of events is also independent of closing speeds. The
gedanken specified the following conditions:
1. The speed of light in the track and the train frame is isotropic.
2. Both the track observer and the train observer are at equal
distance from the strikes.
3. It was also specified that the track observer sees the strikes to
be simultaneous to begin with.
4. From these conditions the train observer must also see the strikes
to be simultaneous.
You do not know the difference between closing speed and measured
light speed.
It would help if you knew the meaning of the terms you are using.
The *closing* speed of c+v that the track observer sees between the
light from the front and the train observer is NOT the approach speed
of the light measured by the train observer.
So why did you use closing speed to determine whether the train
observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous or not???
I don't. The train observer DOES determine that for himself, using
measured approach speed of light (which is c). That is not the point
of looking at the problem from the track frame. Let me repeat: it is
NOT the purpose of looking at the problem from the track frame to
determine whether the strikes are simultaneous in the train frame.
Einstein did....so are you saying that he wa swrong?
No, he did not. You do not comprehend what you are reading.
The
fact that the strikes are not simultaneous in the train frame is
ALREADY determined from the observations by the train observer.
This is bull shit. The train observer cannot make such determination.
Of course he can. He can SEE the flashes of light, you idiot.
Why? Because he does not know if the strikes were simultaneous or not
simultaneous to begin with.
No, he doesn't have to REASON it out. He OBSERVES things.
The
purpose of looking at the problem from the train frame is to show that
the train observer's account is ALSO consistent with the laws of
physics as known by the track observer. Note that simultaneity is not
a law of physics -- one does not need to have the same answer about
simultaneity for the two frames. The principle of relativity is a
statement about the invariance of the *laws of physics* between
inertial frames, not a statement about the invariance of simultaneity
-- simultaneity is not a law of physics.
You mean RoS is not a law of physics???
You do not even comprehend what I wrote. Please read the above and try
again. Jeez, your command of the English language is pathetic.
I said: "Simultaneity is not a law of physics". You said "You mean ROS
is not a law of physics???"
Do you see what kind of bonehead mistakes you are making?
I agree!!!! It is a buch of
bull shit cook up by Einstein to show that time running at different
rates in different frames. \
Don't you think
that the train observer should do that for himself?
The train observer in
fact measures the approach speed of the light to be c, not c+v.
Right....also he said that the speed of light in his frame is
isotropic and that he is at equal distance from the strikes.. Therefore
he determines that the strikes were simltaneous to begin with.
No, those two conditions are not sufficient for simultaneity. The
ADDITIONAL requirement is that the observer actually observes the
light arriving at the observer at the same time.
Right....Einstein already specified that the track observer sees the
strikes to be simultaneous to begin with. Since the train observer
meets the same conditions as the track observer then the train
observer must also sees the strikes to be simultaneous.
But he DOESN'T because he has his OWN set of observations. He is not
reliant on the track observer's observations, or the track observer's
arguments.
This condition is not
met by the train observer. To recap, there are THREE conditions that
must be met for two events to be simultaneous:
1. The speed of the signal from the events to the observer must be
isotropic.
2. The observer is midway between the two events.
3. The observer actually observes the signal arriving at his location
at the same time.
The first two are met in this case, but not the third.
Both observers meet the third condition.
No sir. READ the gedanken experiment and try to comprehend what you
are reading. It says in black and white that the train observer does
NOT meet the third condition. He in fact observes the OPPOSITE.
The train observer does not observe whether the strikes are
simultaneous or not....
Yes, he does. READ the gedanken.
he does not have enough data to make such
observation.
Yes, he does. You've already (just yesterday!) asked me what
observations he made, and I told you, and you've already (just
overnight) forgotten what I told you. Your mind is gone, Seto. You
cannot remember a discussion from one day to the next. I'm about to
give up on you, as your senility is too deep a handicap to overcome.
What he observes are as follows:
1. that the strikes happened at equal distance from him.
2. That the speed of light in his frame is isotropic.
And he observes one more thing which you keep forgetting, day after
day after day, even though it is printed in black and white in the
book you refuse to look up.
3. That the light from the two flashes arrives at his eyes at
different times.
But item #3 is based on the bogus assertion that closing speeds as
perceived by the track observer will affect the isotropy of the speed
of light in the train.
No, it's based on what he SEES. It is not based on any assumption,
argument, or chain of logic. It is not based on a model, it is not
based on a postulate or principle of relativity. It is the result of
DIRECT OBSERVATION. This is what he SEES with his own EYES.
|
Hey idiot there is no such observation. Einstein used closing
velocities to conclude that the light from the strikes arrive at the
train observer at different times. Such conclusion is not OBSERVATION
and such conclusion violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the
train. You are so stupid.
Ken Seto
| Quote: |
He does not have to come up with any argument for what he sees with
his own eyes. He just SEES it. This is what science does. At some
point it drops all arguments and logic and postulates and assumptions
and simply checks with an OBSERVATION.
How is your experiment coming, where you can see the results with your
own eyes? Have you gotten any progress from your PhD hirelings?
That means that RoS is bogus. End of story.
Ken Seto
Because he has this third observation, he needs nothing else to
determine the simultaneity of the strikes. In particular, he does NOT
need the chain of logic from the track observer to make any conclusion
about it.
You have asked- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
read more » |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jul 14, 8:20 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 10, 11:22 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:07 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:43 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 9, 4:15 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:23 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 7, 10:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 5, 3:03 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 5, 7:45 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:47 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
No....he said the train observer M' is rushing toward the light front
from the front and thus he sees the this light front first. He also
said that the train observer is recdeing away from the light front
from the rear and thus he sees this light front at a later time. These
assertions is the baisis of RoS.
No it isn't. It is showing that what the train observer SAW is also
consistent with the laws of physics as known by the track observer.
You do not comprehend what you are reading.
Hey idiot....not according to RoS. RoS says that the train observer is
rushing toward the light front from the front (c+v) and receding from
the light front from the rear (c-v). That means that RoS says that the
speed of light in the train is anisotropic.
That is NOT the statement of the relativity of simultaneity. You don't
comprehend what you are reading.
It is a statement explains how RoS is derived. It is a statement says
that the speed of light in the train is anisotropic.
No, it does NOT say the speed of light is anisotropic in the train.
Yes it does. The train observer is rushing toward the light front from
the front (c+v) and he is receding away from the light from the rear
(c-v). That is anisotropic.
The isotropy of light speed does not have anything to do with the
*closing* speeds that have the values (c+v) and (c-v). There is no law
of physics nor any SR that says the *closing speed* is isotropic >or invariant.
The simultaneity of events is also independent of closing speeds. The
gedanken specified the following conditions:
1. The speed of light in the track and the train frame is isotropic.
2. Both the track observer and the train observer are at equal
distance from the strikes.
3. It was also specified that the track observer sees the strikes to
be simultaneous to begin with.
4. From these conditions the train observer must also see the strikes
to be simultaneous.
You do not know the difference between closing speed and measured
light speed.
It would help if you knew the meaning of the terms you are using.
The *closing* speed of c+v that the track observer sees between the
light from the front and the train observer is NOT the approach speed
of the light measured by the train observer.
So why did you use closing speed to determine whether the train
observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous or not???
I don't. The train observer DOES determine that for himself, using
measured approach speed of light (which is c). That is not the point
of looking at the problem from the track frame. Let me repeat: it is
NOT the purpose of looking at the problem from the track frame to
determine whether the strikes are simultaneous in the train frame.
Einstein did....so are you saying that he wa swrong?
No, he did not. You do not comprehend what you are reading.
The
fact that the strikes are not simultaneous in the train frame is
ALREADY determined from the observations by the train observer.
This is bull shit. The train observer cannot make such determination.
Of course he can. He can SEE the flashes of light, you idiot.
Why? Because he does not know if the strikes were simultaneous or not
simultaneous to begin with.
No, he doesn't have to REASON it out. He OBSERVES things.
The
purpose of looking at the problem from the train frame is to show that
the train observer's account is ALSO consistent with the laws of
physics as known by the track observer. Note that simultaneity is not
a law of physics -- one does not need to have the same answer about
simultaneity for the two frames. The principle of relativity is a
statement about the invariance of the *laws of physics* between
inertial frames, not a statement about the invariance of simultaneity
-- simultaneity is not a law of physics.
You mean RoS is not a law of physics???
You do not even comprehend what I wrote. Please read the above and try
again. Jeez, your command of the English language is pathetic.
I said: "Simultaneity is not a law of physics". You said "You mean ROS
is not a law of physics???"
Do you see what kind of bonehead mistakes you are making?
I agree!!!! It is a buch of
bull shit cook up by Einstein to show that time running at different
rates in different frames. \
Don't you think
that the train observer should do that for himself?
The train observer in
fact measures the approach speed of the light to be c, not c+v.
Right....also he said that the speed of light in his frame is
isotropic and that he is at equal distance from the strikes. Therefore
he determines that the strikes were simltaneous to begin with..
No, those two conditions are not sufficient for simultaneity. The
ADDITIONAL requirement is that the observer actually observes the
light arriving at the observer at the same time.
Right....Einstein already specified that the track observer sees the
strikes to be simultaneous to begin with. Since the train observer
meets the same conditions as the track observer then the train
observer must also sees the strikes to be simultaneous.
But he DOESN'T because he has his OWN set of observat | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
