Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #456812 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-24 08:24 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-07 14:15 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 195 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 08:24 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 09:07 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 09:27 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 16:30 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 10:19 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 18:13 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 11:30 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 13:55 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 09:31 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 10:22 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-24 19:25 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 10:31 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 18:13 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 11:31 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-24 18:34 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 10:39 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-24 19:42 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-24 21:40 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 14:22 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 16:27 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 10:14 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-24 19:21 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 18:13 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 13:50 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 00:43 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 21:29 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 04:44 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-25 06:12 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-25 15:21 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-25 06:38 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 07:17 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 08:33 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 11:36 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 16:34 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 21:36 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 11:47 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-25 09:39 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 11:35 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-25 15:50 -0400
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 14:06 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-25 17:21 -0400
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-26 16:38 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-26 21:07 -0400
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-25 12:56 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 14:02 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 14:28 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-25 15:34 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 21:34 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-26 16:50 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-26 18:04 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-28 05:55 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-28 13:10 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-28 07:56 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-28 08:53 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-29 06:03 -0700
Re: Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-28 16:22 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 13:23 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 14:04 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-28 16:50 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-29 06:11 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 18:40 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-30 05:53 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-30 09:09 -0400
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-30 06:24 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-30 16:08 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-30 11:46 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-30 15:04 -0400
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-30 22:06 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-01 05:03 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 12:39 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-01 14:57 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-02 08:02 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-02 17:42 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-02 17:45 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 10:09 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-03 14:53 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-03 06:17 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-03 15:48 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-03 07:13 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-03 16:16 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-03 08:04 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-03 07:08 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-03 16:15 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 15:32 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-03 10:59 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-03 14:33 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-04 06:26 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 07:18 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-05 05:50 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-05 15:27 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-05 06:55 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-05 07:29 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-05 16:40 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 06:40 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-06 16:49 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-05 09:17 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 06:50 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 17:33 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-07 05:20 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 07:26 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-07 18:07 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 12:01 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-07 12:15 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 12:50 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 13:22 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 13:52 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:08 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:12 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:22 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-07 21:18 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-08 04:53 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-08 10:37 -0400
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-08 09:45 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-08 13:21 -0400
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 23:35 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-09 05:46 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 06:48 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-09 11:29 -0400
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-09 14:33 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-09 17:56 -0400
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-10 05:38 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-10 08:49 -0400
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 06:06 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 06:09 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-10 08:19 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 08:34 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-11 07:36 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Adam Stefaniak <adam.stefaniak@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-05-11 07:51 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-11 08:15 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Adam Stefaniak <adam.stefaniak@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-05-11 08:38 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-11 08:47 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Adam Stefaniak <adam.stefaniak@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-05-11 08:52 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-11 08:58 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Adam Stefaniak <adam.stefaniak@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-05-11 09:02 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-11 15:18 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 20:00 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-12 10:52 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-12 05:39 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 07:05 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-12 07:16 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:07 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-12 10:48 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 07:57 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:53 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-08 04:58 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 04:48 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 07:02 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 07:22 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 16:42 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 10:04 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-05 10:54 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:01 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 12:21 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-05 13:06 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-05 13:12 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 20:25 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-06 07:31 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-06 07:54 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-06 09:05 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 06:30 -0700
Re: Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-02 15:46 +0000
Re: Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-01 16:24 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-30 13:12 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-01 05:17 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-01 09:48 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-02 08:07 -0700
Re: Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-30 15:37 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 13:29 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-30 09:09 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 11:42 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 13:35 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 07:22 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 14:29 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 07:52 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 15:08 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 11:41 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 19:59 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 11:44 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 13:51 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 00:47 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 21:29 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 04:56 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 13:35 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 14:31 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-24 21:20 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-24 21:17 +0200
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 14:13 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 17:09 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 05:25 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 17:10 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 17:20 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 17:27 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 05:33 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 04:49 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE letitside1234@gmail.com - 2018-05-07 14:15 -0700
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 08:24 -0700 |
| Subject | EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <74a738ba-a59c-4386-844e-f0711a06d26e@googlegroups.com> |
1. M is at the embankment. 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously. Why? Because M’ is at the middle of the train and when the strikes happened simultaneously he is coincided with M. Also the speed of light in the train is isotopic. 7. The math of the LT supports the above conclusions. M sees the strikes to be simultaneous at time t=L/c and M’ sees the strikes to be simultaneous at time t’ and the relationship between t and t’ is as follows: t’=gamma*t 8. CONCLUSION: SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE AND EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY IS DISPROVED.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 09:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626da612-d03c-4b90-9038-a14fb0b5bcb4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456812 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > 1. M is at the embankment. > 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. > 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. > 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. > 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal > to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. > 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at > [Bull plop deleted] Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever assertions you want. It's circular reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 09:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e8c86e5-9325-4613-ae45-0aff96bdc831@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456822 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > 1. M is at the embankment. > > 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. > > 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. > > 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. > > 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal > > to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. > > 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at > > [Bull plop deleted] > > Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever > assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning. Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? Does that mean that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 16:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pbnm2k$1jhb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456825 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>> >>> 1. M is at the embankment. >>> 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. >>> 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. >>> 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. >>> 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal >>> to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. >>> 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at >>> [Bull plop deleted] >> >> Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever >> assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning. > > Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? Does that mean > that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop? > The gedankens by Einstein were not intended, nor do they, prove anything. Neither does yours. What matters is observational data. Period, end of story. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 10:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <123edfe9-fd46-4834-a56a-10ca68908425@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456828 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:30:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > >>> > >>> 1. M is at the embankment. > >>> 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. > >>> 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. > >>> 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. > >>> 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal > >>> to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. > >>> 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at > >>> [Bull plop deleted] > >> > >> Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever > >> assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning. > > > > Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? Does that mean > > that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop? > > > > The gedankens by Einstein were not intended, nor do they, prove anything. > Neither does yours. > > What matters is observational data. Period, end of story. But Einstein used them to provide the bogus concept of RoS and RoS is the corner stone of his SR. Without RoS there is no way to explain all the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 18:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pbns4v$1ubt$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456840 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:30:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 1. M is at the embankment. >>>>> 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. >>>>> 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. >>>>> 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. >>>>> 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal >>>>> to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. >>>>> 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at >>>>> [Bull plop deleted] >>>> >>>> Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever >>>> assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning. >>> >>> Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? Does that mean >>> that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop? >>> >> >> The gedankens by Einstein were not intended, nor do they, prove anything. >> Neither does yours. >> >> What matters is observational data. Period, end of story. > > But Einstein used them to provide the bogus concept of RoS and RoS is the > corner stone of his SR. No he did not prove anything, including ROS. The only thing that determined the truth of SR was data. Lots of it. > Without RoS there is no way to explain all the paradoxes derived from the > constant light speed postulate. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 11:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <ed099e9f-9355-44dc-bee4-f90fe7d61094@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456852 |
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 20:13:55 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:30:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. M is at the embankment. > >>>>> 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. > >>>>> 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. > >>>>> 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. > >>>>> 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal > >>>>> to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. > >>>>> 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at > >>>>> [Bull plop deleted] > >>>> > >>>> Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever > >>>> assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning. > >>> > >>> Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? Does that mean > >>> that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop? > >>> > >> > >> The gedankens by Einstein were not intended, nor do they, prove anything. > >> Neither does yours. > >> > >> What matters is observational data. Period, end of story. > > > > But Einstein used them to provide the bogus concept of RoS and RoS is the > > corner stone of his SR. > > No he did not prove anything, including ROS. The only thing that determined > the truth of SR was data. Lots of it. Lots of data from imagined twins of imagined rockets. Real GPS clocks data, however, indicates t'=t, just as expected from serious clocks data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 13:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <8f080c90-5f32-4be3-85e6-8297edf8be52@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456852 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:30:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. M is at the embankment. > >>>>> 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. > >>>>> 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. > >>>>> 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. > >>>>> 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal > >>>>> to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. > >>>>> 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at > >>>>> [Bull plop deleted] > >>>> > >>>> Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever > >>>> assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning. > >>> > >>> Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? Does that mean > >>> that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop? > >>> > >> > >> The gedankens by Einstein were not intended, nor do they, prove anything. > >> Neither does yours. > >> > >> What matters is observational data. Period, end of story. > > > > But Einstein used them to provide the bogus concept of RoS and RoS is the > > corner stone of his SR. > > No he did not prove anything, including ROS. The only thing that determined > the truth of SR was data. Lots of it. That’s because the LET math gave all the supporting data and the SR math copied the LET math. > > > Without RoS there is no way to explain all the paradoxes derived from the > > constant light speed postulate. > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc571ff7-417a-4276-9ed8-f548ed2fe765@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456825 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:27:23 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > 1. M is at the embankment. > > > 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. > > > 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. > > > 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. > > > 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal > > > to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. > > > 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at > > > [Bull plop deleted] > > > > Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever > > assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning. > > Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? Does that mean > that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop? One makes assumptions and then do thought experiments to see where they lead. The problem with your thoughtless experiment is that you assumed the conclusion. One must examine the assumptions. Do they agree with experimental evidence? Saint Albert's did. Yours don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 10:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ecfa32b-fbe7-4875-9d43-dbf2dc0c38b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456829 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:31:56 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:27:23 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > 1. M is at the embankment. > > > > 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. > > > > 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. > > > > 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. > > > > 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal > > > > to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. > > > > 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at > > > > [Bull plop deleted] > > > > > > Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever > > > assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning. > > > > Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? Does that mean > > that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop? > > One makes assumptions and then do thought experiments to see where they > lead. The problem with your thoughtless experiment is that you assumed > the conclusion. One must examine the assumptions. Do they agree with > experimental evidence? Saint Albert's did. Yours don't. Einstein’s assumptions of RoS do not agree with experiments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 19:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5adf6882$0$7185$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #456842 |
kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:31:56 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:27:23 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 1. M is at the embankment. >>>>> 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. >>>>> 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. >>>>> 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. >>>>> 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal >>>>> to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. >>>>> 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at >>>>> [Bull plop deleted] >>>> >>>> Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever >>>> assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning. >>> >>> Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? Does that mean >>> that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop? >> >> One makes assumptions and then do thought experiments to see where they >> lead. The problem with your thoughtless experiment is that you assumed >> the conclusion. One must examine the assumptions. Do they agree with >> experimental evidence? Saint Albert's did. Yours don't. > > Einstein’s assumptions of RoS do not agree with experiments. You're taking it backward Ken. There is no RoS assumption. Assumption is "light speed is c in both frames" Conclusion is Relativity of simultaneity. It shouldn't bother you as you assume that light speed is not invariant (this is ruled out by experiments, by the way, but this is another story)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 10:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62e0b955-81de-45d9-83a5-add71ab9dc4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456842 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 11:22:24 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:31:56 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:27:23 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 1. M is at the embankment. > > > > > 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. > > > > > 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. > > > > > 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to > > > > > be equal to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts > > > > > arrive at > > > > > [Bull plop deleted] > > > > > > > > Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with > > > > whatever assertions you want. It's circular reasoning. > > > > > > Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? Does that mean > > > that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop? > > > > One makes assumptions and then do thought experiments to see where they > > lead. The problem with your thoughtless experiment is that you assumed > > the conclusion. One must examine the assumptions. Do they agree with > > experimental evidence? Saint Albert's did. Yours don't. > > Einstein’s assumptions of RoS do not agree with experiments. Einstein didn't assume ROS, lying dimwit. He assumed constant speed of light and showed that ROS was a consequence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 18:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pbns50$1ubt$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456842 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:31:56 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:27:23 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 1. M is at the embankment. >>>>> 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. >>>>> 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. >>>>> 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. >>>>> 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal >>>>> to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. >>>>> 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at >>>>> [Bull plop deleted] >>>> >>>> Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever >>>> assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning. >>> >>> Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? Does that mean >>> that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop? >> >> One makes assumptions and then do thought experiments to see where they >> lead. The problem with your thoughtless experiment is that you assumed >> the conclusion. One must examine the assumptions. Do they agree with >> experimental evidence? Saint Albert's did. Yours don't. > > Einstein’s assumptions of RoS do not agree with experiments. > Of course they do. What prediction from ROS do you think is in conflict with a documented experimental result? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 11:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <f3ff28cc-aad2-41c5-843e-7e6e6c41b229@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456853 |
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 20:13:56 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Of course they do. What prediction from ROS do you think is in conflict > with a documented experimental result? Documented by an imagined twins of imagined rocket! In the imagination of a poor fanatic woodworker idiot!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 18:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5adf5c9c$0$5194$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #456825 |
kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. M is at the embankment.
>>> 2. M’ is at the middle of the train.
>>> 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M.
>>> 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously.
>>> 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal
>>> to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously.
>>> 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at
>>> [Bull plop deleted]
>>
>> Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever
>> assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning.
>
> Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR?
> Does that mean that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop?
No Ken. The gedandken is there to illustrate the consequences
of different set of assumptions.
I'm quoting here a recent post from Paul B. Andersen about
this specific gedanken (the questions were addressed to your
fellow crank Ed Lake):
=== begin quote
Below are the explanations according to two different
theories:
Explanation #1:
Assumptions (postulates):
The speed of light in the ground frame is isotropic c,
and Galilean relativity applies, so the speed of light
in the train frame is c+v for light moving towards
the back of the train, and c-v for light moving towards
the front of the train.
Conclusion:
Y will conclude that the lightening bolts struck simultaneously.
M knows that the flash from the front approaches him faster
than the flash from back, so since he saw the flash from
the front before the flash from the back he sees no reason
to disagree with Y.
The lightening bolts struck simultaneously in both frames.
(Simultaneity is absolute.)
Question #1:
Do you agree that this is a possible conclusion when
the stated assumptions are made?
------------------
Explanation #2:
Assumptions (postulates):
The speed of light is invariant which means
that the speed of light is c in the ground frame,
AND the speed of light is c in the train frame.
Conclusion:
Observer Y must conclude that the lightening
bolts struck simultaneously, while observer M
can only conclude that the front lightening bolt
struck before the aft lightening bolt.
That can only mean that "simultaneity" is frame
dependent. (Relativity of simultaneity.)
Question #2:
Do you agree that this is the only possible conclusion
when the stated assumptions are made?
----------------
=== end quote
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 10:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0f693bd-1ffa-4b23-8bb4-3f9a734d3051@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456830 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:34:38 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > >>> > >>> 1. M is at the embankment. > >>> 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. > >>> 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. > >>> 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. > >>> 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal > >>> to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. > >>> 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at > >>> [Bull plop deleted] > >> > >> Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever > >> assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning. > > > > Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? > > Does that mean that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop? > > No Ken. The gedandken is there to illustrate the consequences > of different set of assumptions. > > I'm quoting here a recent post from Paul B. Andersen about > this specific gedanken (the questions were addressed to your > fellow crank Ed Lake): > > === begin quote > Below are the explanations according to two different > theories: > > Explanation #1: > Assumptions (postulates): > The speed of light in the ground frame is isotropic c, > and Galilean relativity applies, so the speed of light > in the train frame is c+v for light moving towards > the back of the train, and c-v for light moving towards > the front of the train. > Conclusion: > Y will conclude that the lightening bolts struck simultaneously. > M knows that the flash from the front approaches him faster > than the flash from back, so since he saw the flash from > the front before the flash from the back he sees no reason > to disagree with Y. > The lightening bolts struck simultaneously in both frames. > (Simultaneity is absolute.) > > Question #1: > Do you agree that this is a possible conclusion when > the stated assumptions are made? I don’t agree. Y erroneously assumes what M will see. M must do his own evaluation and he does not see c+v and c-v in his frame. If the strikes did happened simultaneously and he is at equal distance from the strikes than he (M) will see the strikes to be simultaneous. > > ------------------ > > Explanation #2: > Assumptions (postulates): > The speed of light is invariant which means > that the speed of light is c in the ground frame, > AND the speed of light is c in the train frame. > Conclusion: > Observer Y must conclude that the lightening > bolts struck simultaneously, while observer M > can only conclude that the front lightening bolt > struck before the aft lightening bolt. > That can only mean that "simultaneity" is frame > dependent. (Relativity of simultaneity.) > > Question #2: > Do you agree that this is the only possible conclusion > when the stated assumptions are made? No I don’t agree. Paul’s line of reasoning is based on the assumption of RoS to get RoS. > > ---------------- > === end quote
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 19:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5adf6c6f$0$3318$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #456847 |
kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:34:38 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 1. M is at the embankment. >>>>> 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. >>>>> 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. >>>>> 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. >>>>> 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal >>>>> to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. >>>>> 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at >>>>> [Bull plop deleted] >>>> >>>> Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever >>>> assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning. >>> >>> Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? >>> Does that mean that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop? >> >> No Ken. The gedandken is there to illustrate the consequences >> of different set of assumptions. >> >> I'm quoting here a recent post from Paul B. Andersen about >> this specific gedanken (the questions were addressed to your >> fellow crank Ed Lake): >> >> === begin quote >> Below are the explanations according to two different >> theories: >> >> Explanation #1: >> Assumptions (postulates): >> The speed of light in the ground frame is isotropic c, >> and Galilean relativity applies, so the speed of light >> in the train frame is c+v for light moving towards >> the back of the train, and c-v for light moving towards >> the front of the train. >> Conclusion: >> Y will conclude that the lightening bolts struck simultaneously. >> M knows that the flash from the front approaches him faster >> than the flash from back, so since he saw the flash from >> the front before the flash from the back he sees no reason >> to disagree with Y. >> The lightening bolts struck simultaneously in both frames. >> (Simultaneity is absolute.) >> >> Question #1: >> Do you agree that this is a possible conclusion when >> the stated assumptions are made? > > I don’t agree. Y erroneously assumes what M will see. M must do his own evaluation and he does not see c+v and c-v in his frame. If the strikes did happened simultaneously and he is at equal distance from the strikes than he (M) will see the strikes to be simultaneous. > >> >> ------------------ >> >> Explanation #2: >> Assumptions (postulates): >> The speed of light is invariant which means >> that the speed of light is c in the ground frame, >> AND the speed of light is c in the train frame. >> Conclusion: >> Observer Y must conclude that the lightening >> bolts struck simultaneously, while observer M >> can only conclude that the front lightening bolt >> struck before the aft lightening bolt. >> That can only mean that "simultaneity" is frame >> dependent. (Relativity of simultaneity.) >> >> Question #2: >> Do you agree that this is the only possible conclusion >> when the stated assumptions are made? > > No I don’t agree. Paul’s line of reasoning is based on the assumption of RoS to get RoS. Good. So my not-so-gedanken experiment about proving that Ken Seto is a nut succeeded: Ken Seto is a nut. (Without any kind of assumption)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1LLDC.9760$zt5.6423@fx11.am4> |
| In reply to | #456825 |
Den 24.04.2018 18.27, skrev kenseto:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>
>> Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever
>> assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning.
>
> Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? Does that mean that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop?
A thought experiment can illustrate the logical
consequences of a set of assumptions, but it can't
prove anything about the validity of the assumptions,
only real experiments can do that.
Einstein's train thought experiment proves that
relativity of simultaneity is an inevitable
logical consequence of the postulates of SR.
("simultaneity" as defined by Einstein)
You have to be very ignorant to believe
that Einstein thought gedankens could prove SR.
It is however very common that cranks believe
thought experiments can falsify SR.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <354a5070-c58f-4e05-8ada-77f767a62dfb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456861 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 24.04.2018 18.27, skrev kenseto: > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> > >> Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever > >> assertions you dankenwant. It's circular reasoning. > > > > Then Why did Einstein used gedanken to illustrate his SR? Does that mean that Einstein’s SR is a bunch of Bull plop? > > A thought experiment can illustrate the logical > consequences of a set of assumptions, but it can't > prove anything about the validity of the assumptions, > only real experiments can do that. > > Einstein's train thought experiment proves that > relativity of simultaneity is an inevitable > logical consequence of the postulates of SR. > (“simultaneity" as defined by Einstein) No it is not a logical consequence of the SR postulate. There is no closing speeds posited in Einstein’s postulates. Closing speeds between M’ and the light fronts from the ends of the train are wrongly assumed and besides it violate the SR postulate. That means that RoS is wrongly assumed but without RoS all the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate remain true paradoxes. > > You have to be very ignorant to believe > that Einstein thought gedankens could prove SR. > > It is however very common that cranks believe > thought experiments can falsify SR. > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 16:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pbnlua$1j95$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456822 |
Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >> >> 1. M is at the embankment. >> 2. M’ is at the middle of the train. >> 3. Lightning strikes when M’ is coincided with M. >> 4. M saw the light fronts from the strikes arrives at him simultaneously. >> 5. M measures the distance from the strike marks and found it to be equal >> to L. Therefore he concluded that the strikes happened simultaneously. >> 6. Based on what M saw M’ must also see that the light fronts arrive at >> [Bull plop deleted] > > Gedankens can't "prove" anything, Ken. You can set them up with whatever > assertions you want. It's circular reasoning. > Including here where he assumed absolute simultaneity to prove absolute simultaneity. Not that this will make a dent. Ken hasn’t been able to think his way out of a paper bag for some years now. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web