Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #432886 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-09-19 14:56 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-09-24 06:48 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 185 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-19 14:56 +0200
Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-19 06:00 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-19 14:48 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-19 14:53 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-09-19 08:05 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-19 09:09 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-09-19 09:35 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-19 10:45 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-19 22:01 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-09-20 07:30 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-20 20:00 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-19 07:55 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-19 14:58 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-20 09:18 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-20 04:48 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-20 13:47 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-20 14:33 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 09:05 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-20 16:07 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-22 01:24 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 12:22 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 15:28 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 15:40 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-29 09:20 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-29 08:49 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 12:08 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-29 05:59 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-28 09:22 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-28 03:08 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-27 20:30 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 20:42 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 08:39 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 02:18 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 08:25 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-22 01:37 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 12:34 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-22 13:30 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 06:44 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-10-10 00:24 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 03:02 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 06:50 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 22:23 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 10:08 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-23 04:09 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-23 13:32 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 09:02 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-24 06:31 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-23 19:37 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 07:26 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-24 16:44 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 08:03 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-24 17:35 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 08:26 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 17:36 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-24 18:24 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 07:34 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 15:49 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 07:56 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-25 00:00 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 13:47 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-25 00:47 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 23:53 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 19:53 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-25 02:58 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 13:54 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-26 03:15 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 10:19 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 13:56 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-26 03:11 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-25 14:43 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-26 01:26 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-26 02:06 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-27 08:39 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 13:52 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-26 03:18 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 10:21 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 13:19 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 15:48 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 08:31 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-24 17:46 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 09:30 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-09-24 08:04 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-24 08:24 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-23 14:11 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 08:53 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 02:31 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 16:39 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 12:34 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 08:30 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 22:32 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 09:41 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 02:51 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 15:51 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 12:48 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-20 11:13 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-20 02:31 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-20 02:34 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-20 03:25 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-19 22:40 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-20 08:08 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 08:46 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-20 08:33 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-20 00:04 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-20 00:34 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-20 00:42 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-20 10:54 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 08:49 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-20 15:59 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-22 01:54 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 12:43 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-22 12:56 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 11:04 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 07:36 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 01:38 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-27 20:00 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 12:06 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-28 09:30 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-28 03:04 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-21 20:36 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-22 07:21 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-26 21:57 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-26 20:57 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-26 21:00 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 15:24 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-27 17:39 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-28 02:52 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-20 10:48 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-20 15:13 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-20 20:19 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-20 20:02 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 09:10 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-21 12:46 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-20 13:14 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2017-09-20 13:27 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 09:29 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-21 14:03 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-21 05:19 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-21 12:42 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-21 07:24 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-21 22:16 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 08:51 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 03:02 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 20:18 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-21 20:39 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 20:42 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-22 07:49 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-21 23:51 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-22 09:04 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-22 09:08 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-22 00:27 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-22 11:52 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-22 04:05 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 07:46 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 12:26 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-28 09:31 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-28 03:01 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-27 20:22 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-28 12:00 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-22 14:08 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 07:41 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 12:28 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-28 09:32 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-28 03:02 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-22 07:03 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-22 19:55 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 07:42 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-23 06:55 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-24 11:17 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 08:30 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-22 13:52 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-22 05:34 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 08:05 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-23 15:38 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 09:12 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-23 16:17 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-24 11:03 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-24 07:11 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 07:38 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 08:43 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-25 14:38 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-25 07:15 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-25 07:38 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-26 04:20 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-26 01:23 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-24 06:48 -0700
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 14:56 +0200 |
| Subject | Train gedanken - again. |
| Message-ID | <opr46v$jhn$1@dont-email.me> |
Here is a variant of Einstein's 'train gedanken'.
Consider the following thought experiment.
Note what is given, and what is NOT given.
Can you answer the questions?
The given scenario:
- A train is moving at some speed along the railway.
- Paul is in the middle of the train.
- Ralph is standing close by the railway.
- At some time, a lightening bolt hits the front
end of the train, leaving a mark at the ground.
- At some time, a lightening bolt hits the aft
end of the train, leaving a mark at the ground.
The observations:
- At some time, Paul passes Ralph.
- At some later time, Ralph sees the flashes
from the lightening bolts simultaneously.
- At some time, Paul sees the flash from the front,
and shortly later, he sees the flash from the aft end.
- Ralph finds that he is midway between the marks in the ground.
The above are given facts, and can not be disputed.
The scenario and observations are obviously possible
in the real world.
Comment --------------------------------------
| The only condition for the observations to be
| possible in the real world is that the speed of
| light is finite. So Newton, Michelson, Lorentz,
| Ritz, Einstein and any other sane person accepting
| that the speed of light is finite would
| accept that the described observations are
| possible. They do not depend on any specific
| theory of physics.
-----------------------------------------------
Now the question is what conclusions we can
draw from the thought experiment.
Comment --------------------------------------
| The interpretation of the observations is
| dependent of what assumptions are made
| for the propagation of light. So different
| theories of physics will give different
| conclusions for what the observations imply.
----------------------------------------------
Version #1
----------
Assumptions:
Assume Galilean relativity, and that the speed
of light is c relative to Ralph.
Question #1:
What must Ralph and Paul conclude about
the temporal sequence of the lightening bolts?
Paul and Ralph may exchange information about
their observations before they draw their conclusions.
Version #2
----------
Assumptions:
Assume Galilean relativity, and that the speed
of light is c relative to Paul.
Question #2:
What must Ralph and Paul conclude about
the temporal sequence of the lightening bolts?
Paul and Ralph may exchange information about
their observations before they draw their conclusions.
Version #3
----------
Assumptions:
Assume that the speed of light is invariant
(the same in all inertial frames).
Question #3:
What must Ralph and Paul conclude about
the temporal sequence of the lightening bolts?
Question #4
What does the thought experiment prove about
the relativity of simultaneity?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 06:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <139997db-3500-44e7-b9ad-c539b562b9c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432886 |
No paradox The "Dilated twin" will have more Kinetic Energy (Hotter) when compared to the "reference twin" Or the "Dilated twin" will have more velocity when compared to the "reference twin"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 14:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <opraoc$1ven$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432886 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Here is a variant of Einstein's 'train gedanken'. > > Consider the following thought experiment. > Note what is given, and what is NOT given. > > Can you answer the questions? > > The given scenario: > - A train is moving at some speed along the railway. > - Paul is in the middle of the train. > - Ralph is standing close by the railway. Invalid already. Your gedanken demands standing ON the railway. > - At some time, a lightening bolt hits the front > end of the train, leaving a mark at the ground. > - At some time, a lightening bolt hits the aft > end of the train, leaving a mark at the ground. > > The observations: > - At some time, Paul passes Ralph. See, what I am talking about. > - At some later time, Ralph sees the flashes > from the lightening bolts simultaneously. > - At some time, Paul sees the flash from the front, > and shortly later, he sees the flash from the aft end. This is exactly where you guys are making mistakes. In order for Ralph to see anything, that light/photons has to be DIRECT to him (in space and time, and spacetime). The ONE observed by Ralph, is physically impossible to be observed by Paul. What hits Paul HAS to be some other light. People are confusing EVENTS inhere with motion, photons and light. Good post, however.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 14:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oprb0r$1ven$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432908 |
Kos Etrakis wrote: > People are confusing EVENTS inhere with motion, photons and light. Good > post, however. Let me be more clear here. The emission of a photon IS an EVENT. The emission of the next HAS to be some other EVENTS. Simultaneous emission of photons has to be then impossible, since it can't be made provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 08:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fcdf71bf-e34c-4b38-976b-ff28dd9862da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432909 |
On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 4:53:19 PM UTC+2, Kos Etrakis wrote: > Kos Etrakis wrote: > > > People are confusing EVENTS inhere with motion, photons and light. Good > > post, however. > > Let me be more clear here. The emission of a photon IS an EVENT. The > emission of the next HAS to be some other EVENTS. Simultaneous emission of > photons has to be then impossible, since it can't be made provable beyond > a reasonable doubt. Put a screen midway between the two light sources and call the respective emissions simultaneous when the screen is hit from both sides simultaneously: simultaneity is relative, not impossible. And so it must be: the other half of relativity is how to use light and clocks to make valid measurements, from any frame of reference. Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 09:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c7ccd4d-1327-410e-8537-f6d08eef10d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432915 |
W dniu wtorek, 19 września 2017 17:05:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Julio Di Egidio napisał: > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 4:53:19 PM UTC+2, Kos Etrakis wrote: > > Kos Etrakis wrote: > > > > > People are confusing EVENTS inhere with motion, photons and light. Good > > > post, however. > > > > Let me be more clear here. The emission of a photon IS an EVENT. The > > emission of the next HAS to be some other EVENTS. Simultaneous emission of > > photons has to be then impossible, since it can't be made provable beyond > > a reasonable doubt. > > Put a screen midway between the two light sources and call the respective > emissions simultaneous when the screen is hit from both sides simultaneously: > simultaneity is relative, not impossible. > > And so it must be: the other half of relativity is how to use light and > clocks to make valid measurements, from any frame of reference. No, poor idiot. It doesn't have to be. We can ignore your Shit and use light and clocks our way. And we will. Check at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 09:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7149759a-9885-4ee2-80e8-c465d2eb0b81@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432922 |
On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 6:10:36 PM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 19 września 2017 17:05:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Julio Di Egidio napisał: > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 4:53:19 PM UTC+2, Kos Etrakis wrote: > > > Kos Etrakis wrote: > > > > > > > People are confusing EVENTS inhere with motion, photons and light. Good > > > > post, however. > > > > > > Let me be more clear here. The emission of a photon IS an EVENT. The > > > emission of the next HAS to be some other EVENTS. Simultaneous emission of > > > photons has to be then impossible, since it can't be made provable beyond > > > a reasonable doubt. > > > > Put a screen midway between the two light sources and call the respective > > emissions simultaneous when the screen is hit from both sides simultaneously: > > simultaneity is relative, not impossible. > > > > And so it must be: the other half of relativity is how to use light and > > clocks to make valid measurements, from any frame of reference. > > No, poor idiot. It doesn't have to be. We can ignore > your Shit and use light and clocks our way. And we will. > Check at GPS. It "must be" within that framework: in fact, the impossibility of simultaneity means the impossibility not only of SR but also of any meaningful use of "light and clocks" in a theory. Look mom, an idiot. Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2c6e7f2-8151-4dbf-92a1-6d6945b9f509@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432925 |
W dniu wtorek, 19 września 2017 18:35:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Julio Di Egidio napisał: > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 6:10:36 PM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 19 września 2017 17:05:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Julio Di Egidio napisał: > > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 4:53:19 PM UTC+2, Kos Etrakis wrote: > > > > Kos Etrakis wrote: > > > > > > > > > People are confusing EVENTS inhere with motion, photons and light. Good > > > > > post, however. > > > > > > > > Let me be more clear here. The emission of a photon IS an EVENT. The > > > > emission of the next HAS to be some other EVENTS. Simultaneous emission of > > > > photons has to be then impossible, since it can't be made provable beyond > > > > a reasonable doubt. > > > > > > Put a screen midway between the two light sources and call the respective > > > emissions simultaneous when the screen is hit from both sides simultaneously: > > > simultaneity is relative, not impossible. > > > > > > And so it must be: the other half of relativity is how to use light and > > > clocks to make valid measurements, from any frame of reference. > > > > No, poor idiot. It doesn't have to be. We can ignore > > your Shit and use light and clocks our way. And we will. > > Check at GPS. > > It "must be" within that framework: in fact, the impossibility of > simultaneity means the impossibility not only of SR but also of any > meaningful use of "light and clocks" in a theory. Look mom, an idiot. Too bad that GPS engineers didn't know it's impossible:( Look mom, an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 22:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ops43f$1ivh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432915 |
Julio Di Egidio wrote: > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 4:53:19 PM UTC+2, Kos Etrakis wrote: >> Kos Etrakis wrote: >> >> > People are confusing EVENTS inhere with motion, photons and light. >> > Good post, however. >> >> Let me be more clear here. The emission of a photon IS an EVENT. The >> emission of the next HAS to be some other EVENTS. Simultaneous emission >> of photons has to be then impossible, since it can't be made provable >> beyond a reasonable doubt. > > Put a screen midway between the two light sources and call the > respective emissions simultaneous when the screen is hit from both sides > simultaneously: simultaneity is relative, not impossible. My frend, I can't make it simplar than already is been made. It can't be my fault.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 07:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29d7d305-6660-4ca1-9ca5-3d41014a25fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432967 |
On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 12:01:26 AM UTC+2, Kos Etrakis wrote: > Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 4:53:19 PM UTC+2, Kos Etrakis wrote: > >> Kos Etrakis wrote: > >> > >> > People are confusing EVENTS inhere with motion, photons and light. > >> > Good post, however. > >> > >> Let me be more clear here. The emission of a photon IS an EVENT. The > >> emission of the next HAS to be some other EVENTS. Simultaneous emission > >> of photons has to be then impossible, since it can't be made provable > >> beyond a reasonable doubt. > > > > Put a screen midway between the two light sources and call the > > respective emissions simultaneous when the screen is hit from both sides > > simultaneously: simultaneity is relative, not impossible. > > My frend, I can't make it simplar than already is been made. It can't be > my fault. Yes, I may have missed your point: but if you meant that simultaneity is impossible because we cannot have exact measurements, then I must warn you that the whole scientific enterprise by that token becomes impossible. Is that your point? Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 20:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <opuhdf$1k7n$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433031 |
Julio Di Egidio wrote: >> >> Let me be more clear here. The emission of a photon IS an EVENT. The >> >> emission of the next HAS to be some other EVENTS. Simultaneous >> >> emission of photons has to be then impossible, since it can't be >> >> made provable beyond a reasonable doubt. >> > >> > Put a screen midway between the two light sources and call the >> > respective emissions simultaneous when the screen is hit from both >> > sides simultaneously: simultaneity is relative, not impossible. >> >> My frend, I can't make it simplar than already is been made. It can't >> be my fault. > > Yes, I may have missed your point: but if you meant that simultaneity is > impossible because we cannot have exact measurements, then I must warn > you that the whole scientific enterprise by that token becomes > impossible. Is that your point? I can see your point in return, but if think the issue is "philosophical", it isn't. You factually can't register two or more events simultaneously. This is fact, not an argument to debate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 07:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3274e5d1-bdf1-41f1-b414-710bf8b6ea4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432886 |
W dniu wtorek, 19 września 2017 14:57:06 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > Here is a variant of Einstein's 'train gedanken'. > > Consider the following thought experiment. > Note what is given, and what is NOT given. > > Can you answer the questions? > > The given scenario: > - A train is moving at some speed along the railway. > - Paul is in the middle of the train. > - Ralph is standing close by the railway. > - At some time, a lightening bolt hits the front > end of the train, leaving a mark at the ground. > - At some time, a lightening bolt hits the aft > end of the train, leaving a mark at the ground. > > The observations: > - At some time, Paul passes Ralph. > - At some later time, Ralph sees the flashes > from the lightening bolts simultaneously. > - At some time, Paul sees the flash from the front, > and shortly later, he sees the flash from the aft end. > - Ralph finds that he is midway between the marks in the ground. > > The above are given facts, and can not be disputed. No, poor idiot. The above is your imagination, as expected from a gedanken experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 14:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oprbat$1ven$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432910 |
mlwozniak wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 19 września 2017 14:57:06 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. > Andersen napisał: >> Here is a variant of Einstein's 'train gedanken'. >> The above are given facts, and can not be disputed. > > No, poor idiot. The above is your imagination, > as expected from a gedanken experiment. I have no choice but to agree with you, Dr. Mlwozniak.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 09:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ops8jj$1rqc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432886 |
On 19/09/17 22:56, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Here is a variant of Einstein's 'train gedanken'.
>
> Consider the following thought experiment.
> Note what is given, and what is NOT given.
>
> Can you answer the questions?
>
> The given scenario:
> - A train is moving at some speed along the railway.
> - Paul is in the middle of the train.
> - Ralph is standing close by the railway.
> - At some time, a lightening bolt hits the front
> end of the train, leaving a mark at the ground.
> - At some time, a lightening bolt hits the aft
> end of the train, leaving a mark at the ground.
HAHAHHAHHAHA! You are hilarious today, Paul.
If the lightning left a mark on the ground it struck the ground and not the train.
> The observations:
> - At some time, Paul passes Ralph.
> - At some later time, Ralph sees the flashes
> from the lightening bolts simultaneously.
> - At some time, Paul sees the flash from the front,
> and shortly later, he sees the flash from the aft end.
> - Ralph finds that he is midway between the marks in the ground.
According to SR:
Since Paul is at the midpoint of the train and the flashes did not reach him simultaneously, the flashes were not
absolutely simultaneous.
Since Ralph is midway between the flashes and DOES see them simultaneously, the flashes WERE absolutely simultaneous.
.... so your experiment is impossible.
Your observations assume the flashes were at rest with the ground and moved at c in that frame.
> The above are given facts, and can not be disputed.
> The scenario and observations are obviously possible
> in the real world.
>
> Comment --------------------------------------
> | The only condition for the observations to be
> | possible in the real world is that the speed of
> | light is finite. So Newton, Michelson, Lorentz,
> | Ritz, Einstein and any other sane person accepting
> | that the speed of light is finite would
> | accept that the described observations are
> | possible. They do not depend on any specific
> | theory of physics.
> -----------------------------------------------
They are impossible according to SR...as Ken so wisely pointed out.
> Now the question is what conclusions we can
> draw from the thought experiment.
>
> Comment --------------------------------------
> | The interpretation of the observations is
> | dependent of what assumptions are made
> | for the propagation of light. So different
> | theories of physics will give different
> | conclusions for what the observations imply.
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Version #1
> ----------
> Assumptions:
> Assume Galilean relativity, and that the speed
> of light is c relative to Ralph.
> Question #1:
> What must Ralph and Paul conclude about
> the temporal sequence of the lightening bolts?
> Paul and Ralph may exchange information about
> their observations before they draw their conclusions.
Nothing unusual. The flashes were horizontally at rest with the ground, not the train.
> Version #2
> ----------
> Assumptions:
> Assume Galilean relativity, and that the speed
> of light is c relative to Paul.
> Question #2:
> What must Ralph and Paul conclude about
> the temporal sequence of the lightening bolts?
> Paul and Ralph may exchange information about
> their observations before they draw their conclusions.
If the speed of light is c relative to Paul then both sources must have been at rest with Paul...in other words, you
have now assumed the sources of the flashes were at rest with Paul....that is the flashes struck the train. Since they
did not reach Paul simultaneously, he cannot be in the middle ...and so your question is nonsense.
> Version #3
> ----------
> Assumptions:
> Assume that the speed of light is invariant
> (the same in all inertial frames).
> Question #3:
> What must Ralph and Paul conclude about
> the temporal sequence of the lightening bolts?
>
> Question #4
> What does the thought experiment prove about
> the relativity of simultaneity?
>
>
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 04:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2403458.mvXUDI8C0e@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #432974 |
HGW wrote:
> On 19/09/17 22:56, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> The observations:
>> - At some time, Paul passes Ralph.
>> - At some later time, Ralph sees the flashes
>> from the lightening bolts simultaneously.
>> - At some time, Paul sees the flash from the front,
>> and shortly later, he sees the flash from the aft end.
>> - Ralph finds that he is midway between the marks in the ground.
>
> According to SR:
> Since Paul is at the midpoint of the train and the flashes did not reach
> him simultaneously, the flashes were not absolutely simultaneous.
> Since Ralph is midway between the flashes and DOES see them
> simultaneously, the flashes WERE absolutely simultaneous.
That would be the case if the train, on which Ralph is located, were not
moving relative to the places of the flashes. But it is, and so he is: he
is moving away from the place of the one flash and towards the place of the
other, and so he is moving away from the light of the former and towards the
light of the latter.
(Use a fixed-width Unicode font to read the following.)
t₀: ☇ R ☇ Flashes strike
☇ P ☇ Flashes strike
t₁: → R ← Ralph has not seen either flash yet
→ P ← Paul has not seen either flash yet
t₂: → R ← Ralph has not seen either flash yet
→ P ← Paul has not seen either flash yet
t₃: → R← Ralph has just seen the front flash
→ P ← Paul has not seen either flash yet
t₄: → ← R Ralph has already seen the front flash,
but not the rear flash yet
→P← Front and rear flash are simultaneous for Paul
t₅: ← → R Ralph has already seen the front flash,
but not the rear flash yet
←P→ Paul has seen both flashes already
t₆: ← → R Ralph has already seen the front flash,
but not the rear flash yet
← P → Paul has seen both flashes already
t₇: ← → R Ralph has already seen the front flash,
but not the rear flash yet
← P → Paul has seen both flashes already
t₈: ← →R Ralph finally sees the rear flash
← P → Paul has seen both flashes already
(It’s so very simple, isn’t it?)
> .... so your experiment is impossible.
No, your logic is flawed.
> Your observations assume the flashes were at rest with the ground and
> moved at c in that frame.
First of all, not the flashes are moving towards the observers,
but the light from the flashes.
Second, the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference.
Experimentally confirmed.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 13:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <opsod0$im2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432979 |
On 20/09/17 12:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>
>> On 19/09/17 22:56, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> The observations:
>>> - At some time, Paul passes Ralph.
>>> - At some later time, Ralph sees the flashes
>>> from the lightening bolts simultaneously.
>>> - At some time, Paul sees the flash from the front,
>>> and shortly later, he sees the flash from the aft end.
>>> - Ralph finds that he is midway between the marks in the ground.
>>
>> According to SR:
>> Since Paul is at the midpoint of the train and the flashes did not reach
>> him simultaneously, the flashes were not absolutely simultaneous.
>> Since Ralph is midway between the flashes and DOES see them
>> simultaneously, the flashes WERE absolutely simultaneous.
>
> That would be the case if the train, on which Ralph is located, were not
> moving relative to the places of the flashes.
But your colleagues have insisted that the flashes have no 'places'.
> But it is, and so he is: he
> is moving away from the place of the one flash and towards the place of the
> other, and so he is moving away from the light of the former and towards the
> light of the latter.
You have assumed the flashes are at rest with the ground.
> (Use a fixed-width Unicode font to read the following.)
>
> t₀: ☇ R ☇ Flashes strike
> ☇ P ☇ Flashes strike
>
> t₁: → R ← Ralph has not seen either flash yet
> → P ← Paul has not seen either flash yet
>
> t₂: → R ← Ralph has not seen either flash yet
> → P ← Paul has not seen either flash yet
>
> t₃: → R← Ralph has just seen the front flash
> → P ← Paul has not seen either flash yet
>
> t₄: → ← R Ralph has already seen the front flash,
> but not the rear flash yet
> →P← Front and rear flash are simultaneous for Paul
>
> t₅: ← → R Ralph has already seen the front flash,
> but not the rear flash yet
> ←P→ Paul has seen both flashes already
>
> t₆: ← → R Ralph has already seen the front flash,
> but not the rear flash yet
> ← P → Paul has seen both flashes already
>
> t₇: ← → R Ralph has already seen the front flash,
> but not the rear flash yet
> ← P → Paul has seen both flashes already
>
> t₈: ← →R Ralph finally sees the rear flash
> ← P → Paul has seen both flashes already
>
> (It’s so very simple, isn’t it?)
Simple to a simpleton....Ken is far smarter than any dingleberry here even though he is silly enough to believe in an
aether.
>> .... so your experiment is impossible.
>
> No, your logic is flawed.
Your logic doesn't exist.
>> Your observations assume the flashes were at rest with the ground and
>> moved at c in that frame.
>
> First of all, not the flashes are moving towards the observers,
> but the light from the flashes.
Yes I have told everyone here about that.
> Second, the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference.
> Experimentally confirmed.
Your stupidity confirmed...as Ken so wisely pointed out.
If the speed from both ends of the train is c in the train frame then Paul, who is at the centre, MUST receive them
simultaneously.
End of RoS...End of Einstein!
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 14:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5079786.DvuYhMxLoT@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #432980 |
HGW wrote: > On 20/09/17 12:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HGW wrote: >>> On 19/09/17 22:56, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> The observations: >>>> - At some time, Paul passes Ralph. >>>> - At some later time, Ralph sees the flashes >>>> from the lightening bolts simultaneously. >>>> - At some time, Paul sees the flash from the front, >>>> and shortly later, he sees the flash from the aft end. >>>> - Ralph finds that he is midway between the marks in the ground. >>> >>> According to SR: >>> Since Paul is at the midpoint of the train and the flashes did not reach >>> him simultaneously, the flashes were not absolutely simultaneous. >>> Since Ralph is midway between the flashes and DOES see them >>> simultaneously, the flashes WERE absolutely simultaneous. >> That would be the case if the train, on which Ralph is located, were not >> moving relative to the places of the flashes. > > But your colleagues have insisted that the flashes have no 'places'. First of all, they are not my colleagues. Second, you have misunderstood them. >>> Your observations assume the flashes were at rest with the ground and >>> moved at c in that frame. >> First of all, not the flashes are moving towards the observers, >> but the light from the flashes. > > Yes I have told everyone here about that. But you have neglected to consider the simple, experimentally confirmed, fact that light does not propagate instantly, and that light “does not care” how an observer is moving. That is, its speed is *finite* and *constant*. It takes time before the light rays/pulses of the flashes from opposite directions reach the observers. It takes *less* time if the observer moves towards the light, *more* time if the observer moves away from the light. Because in the first case the observer is catching up with the light, and in the second case the light has to catch up with him. So an observer moving relative to the places from where the light rays/pulses originated *cannot* observe both at the same time. While an observer at rest to those places must observe them at the same time. When events are observed at the same time, they are said to be simultaneous. But in this case, they are not observed at the same time by all observers. That is the *relativity* of simultaneity. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 09:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <opus8e$72i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433027 |
On 20/09/17 22:33, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>
>> But your colleagues have insisted that the flashes have no 'places'.
>
> First of all, they are not my colleagues.
Well I cannot blame you for not wanting them....
>>>> Your observations assume the flashes were at rest with the ground and
>>>> moved at c in that frame.
>>> First of all, not the flashes are moving towards the observers,
>>> but the light from the flashes.
>>
>> Yes I have told everyone here about that.
>
> But you have neglected to consider the simple, experimentally confirmed,
> fact that light does not propagate instantly, and that light “does not care”
> how an observer is moving. That is, its speed is *finite* and *constant*.
>
> It takes time before the light rays/pulses of the flashes from opposite
> directions reach the observers.
>
> It takes *less* time if the observer moves towards the light,
> *more* time if the observer moves away from the light.
That is obvious and it is also where you are completely missing the point.
According to SR, the train observer is not moving relative to the flashes. They came from the train ends.
Therefore, being at the midpoint of the train, he SHOULD see the flashes simultaneously.
> Because in the first case the observer is catching up with the light,
> and in the second case the light has to catch up with him.
You have followed Paul Andersen into his own trap by assuming the flashes were at rest with the ground and its light
moved at c relative to the embankment.
> So an observer moving relative to the places from where the light
> rays/pulses originated *cannot* observe both at the same time.
That is obvious to any sane person... BUT NOT TO ALBERT EINSTEIN AND HIS FOLLOWERS.
> While an observer at rest to those places must observe them at the same
> time.
yOU ARE MUMBLING TRIVIA... WE KNOW IT ALREADY.
Like Paul Andersen, you are assuming the ground is at rest in an absolute 'aether' which determines the speed of the
light from the flashes..
> When events are observed at the same time, they are said to be simultaneous.
> But in this case, they are not observed at the same time by all observers.
>
> That is the *relativity* of simultaneity.
It is not related to the RoS. It is merely a consequence of an observer moving relative to the light sources. If he
corrects for light travel time he will agree with the rest observer ,, that the flashes were simultaneous.
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 16:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d061d56f-2aa2-484c-8658-97e6a80e15f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433115 |
Your leaving out the speed of Causality
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-22 01:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2067019.ElGaqSPkdT@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #433115 |
HGW wrote: > On 20/09/17 22:33, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HGW wrote: >>>>> Your observations assume the flashes were at rest with the ground and >>>>> moved at c in that frame. >>>> First of all, not the flashes are moving towards the observers, >>>> but the light from the flashes. >>> Yes I have told everyone here about that. >> >> But you have neglected to consider the simple, experimentally confirmed, >> fact that light does not propagate instantly, and that light “does not >> care” how an observer is moving. That is, its speed is *finite* and >> *constant*. >> >> It takes time before the light rays/pulses of the flashes from opposite >> directions reach the observers. >> >> It takes *less* time if the observer moves towards the light, >> *more* time if the observer moves away from the light. > > That is obvious and it is also where you are completely missing the point. Not at all. > According to SR, the train observer is not moving relative to the flashes. Wrong. > [ex falso quodlibet] -- PointedEars FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix> <https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/> Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web