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 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 17:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pbqrj4$ah6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #456958 |
On 4/25/2018 5:06 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 3:51:43 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> It appears you don't even know what a closing speed is, Ken. The term >> existed long before Einstein, and it referred to the speed of two >> objects on a collision course as seen by a third observer. >> >> A closing speed is simply the sum of two speeds as seen by a third >> party. It is not the speed of anything, it is the sum of two speeds. For >> the train gedanken, the closing speed of the light would be the sum of >> the speed of light and the speed of the train (train observer) as seen >> by the platform observer. If the train moves at v and light moves at c, >> the closing speeds will be c+v and c-v for the two flashes. It is >> important to remember the closing speed is NOT the speed of light as >> seen by the train observer. >> >> (You can also swap the two observers, the closing speed can also be the >> sum of the speed of light plus the speed of the platform observer as >> seen by the train observer (so it's -v if the train moves at v). These >> closing speeds will also be c+v and c-v. Once again, it is NOT the speed >> of light seen by the platform observer. > > There is no different closing speeds between light and any observer when Einstein posited that the speed of light is isotropic c wrt any observer. > That's the speed of light which is isotropic c wrt any observer. I was talking about the closing speed, which is the sum of two speeds of things about to collide. In this case, light (c) and the train, or anyone on it (v).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 16:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <75633c2a-c993-403e-813e-94f035a386cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456959 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:22:45 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 4/25/2018 5:06 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 3:51:43 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> It appears you don't even know what a closing speed is, Ken. The term > >> existed long before Einstein, and it referred to the speed of two > >> objects on a collision course as seen by a third observer. > >> > >> A closing speed is simply the sum of two speeds as seen by a third > >> party. It is not the speed of anything, it is the sum of two speeds. For > >> the train gedanken, the closing speed of the light would be the sum of > >> the speed of light and the speed of the train (train observer) as seen > >> by the platform observer. If the train moves at v and light moves at c, > >> the closing speeds will be c+v and c-v for the two flashes. It is > >> important to remember the closing speed is NOT the speed of light as > >> seen by the train observer. > >> > >> (You can also swap the two observers, the closing speed can also be the > >> sum of the speed of light plus the speed of the platform observer as > >> seen by the train observer (so it's -v if the train moves at v). These > >> closing speeds will also be c+v and c-v. Once again, it is NOT the speed > >> of light seen by the platform observer. > > > > There is no different closing speeds between light and any observer when Einstein posited that the speed of light is isotropic c wrt any observer. > > > That's the speed of light which is isotropic c wrt any observer. I was > talking about the closing speed, which is the sum of two speeds of > things about to collide. In this case, light (c) and the train, or > anyone on it (v). If the speed of light is isotropic c wrt any observer then such observer cannot have different closing speeds wrt light from any direction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 21:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pbtt6r$o83$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #457026 |
On 4/26/2018 7:38 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:22:45 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 4/25/2018 5:06 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> There is no different closing speeds between light and any observer when Einstein posited that the speed of light is isotropic c wrt any observer. >>> >> That's the speed of light which is isotropic c wrt any observer. I was >> talking about the closing speed, which is the sum of two speeds of >> things about to collide. In this case, light (c) and the train, or >> anyone on it (v). > > If the speed of light is isotropic c wrt any observer then such observer cannot have different closing speeds wrt light from any direction. > By writing that, you show that you don't know what closing speed is, even though I explained it to you. The speed of light is isotropic c to any inertial observer. The closing speed, which is between two objects as seen by a third observer and which is not actually the speed of anything, is not isotropic c. Your sentence does not make sense to anyone who knows what a closing speed is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 12:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <947a0518-34df-4789-ac59-a1f9a0ecf646@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456938 |
El miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 15:35:05 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:39:50 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > El miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 11:17:07 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > > In order for M or M’ to detect the light fronts to be simultaneous the following conditions must exist: > > > 1. The strikes hit the ends of the train simultaneously and leave burnt marks on the track. > > > > Wrong again Seto. You have forgotten to consider such a situation where, for > > example, the strikes hit the ends of the train NOT simultaneously and yet M > > (or M') detects them to be simultaneous. There is an infinity of such possible > > situations, so your condition (1) is pure nonsense. > > This is true but only if the strikes happened at different times. But the gedanken specified that the strikes hit the ends of the train when M and M’ are coincide with each other. So that means that the if M or M’ sees the strikes to be simultaneous, the strikes must happened simultaneously. > Well, Einstein defined quite precisely what simultaneously means: "When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment." Later he explains what happens to M': "Just when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train." Later he explains when M' detects the light fronts: "Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A." As anyone (but you) can see nothing is said about the closing speed. What it is said is that the geometry of the problem (meaning M' has moved closer to B and farther from A) implies the light front are not detected as simultaneous. > > > 3. The speed of light is isotropic in the train and at the track. > > > > This only means that the speed of the light fronts is measured to be equal to c from both the inside the train and the embankment. So for the train observer, the light front coming from point B is approaching him at speed c and M' is moving to the right at speed v. Therefore the CLOSING SPEED between the light front and M' is c+v and, consequently M' will contact the light front coming from point B earlier than the light front coming from point A (whose closing speed is c-v). > > No such different closing speeds in the train because the speed of light in the train is isotropic....they are invented by Einstein and the M observer to get RoS. M’ must make his own decision if the light fronts were simultaneous or not. M cannot assert that the light fronts will not arrive at M’ simultaneously. > See above, as no closing speed is necessary to understand what happens. > > > 5. There is no closing speeds between M’ and the light fronts from the ends of the train. > > > > In your dreams!! > > Not in my dream...go ahead and tell me how do you measure closing speeds in the train. It appears that closing speeds are dreamt up by you and Einstein. > It appears that you are unable to understand logical statements. It is not necessary to "measure" anything in the train. M' will detect first the light front coming from point B (as he is getting closer to that point) and later the light front coming from point A (as he is getting farther appart from that point). This absolutely requires that M' will detect both light front to be NOT simultaneous. period...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 14:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <9c9d03f0-2c88-4612-b6a7-c2f63c4d1e07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456948 |
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 21:56:54 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > > Well, Einstein defined quite precisely what simultaneously means: Yeah, poor halfbrain imagined that events are simultaneous when he says they are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 14:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <2d09b991-38c0-4020-8836-73bf5a6c4d6d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456948 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 3:56:54 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 15:35:05 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:39:50 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > > El miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 11:17:07 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > > > > In order for M or M’ to detect the light fronts to be simultaneous the following conditions must exist: > > > > 1. The strikes hit the ends of the train simultaneously and leave burnt marks on the track. > > > > > > Wrong again Seto. You have forgotten to consider such a situation where, for > > > example, the strikes hit the ends of the train NOT simultaneously and yet M > > > (or M') detects them to be simultaneous. There is an infinity of such possible > > > situations, so your condition (1) is pure nonsense. > > > > This is true but only if the strikes happened at different times. But the gedanken specified that the strikes hit the ends of the train when M and M’ are coincide with each other. So that means that the if M or M’ sees the strikes to be simultaneous, the strikes must happened simultaneously. > > > Well, Einstein defined quite precisely what simultaneously means: > > "When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to > the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where > the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —> B of > the embankment.” So that means that M or M’ must be at the mid point between the strikes to detect the simultaneity of the strikes and indeed they were at the mid point when the strikes happened simultaneously. That’s why both (M and M’) see the flashes arrive at them simultaneously. > > Later he explains what happens to M': > > "Just when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides > with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the > velocity v of the train." Einstein failed to understand the situation. Once he posited that M’ detects isotropy light speed he cannot assert that M’ is moving wrt the light fronts. > > Later he explains when M' detects the light fronts: > > "Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is > hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead > of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of > light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A.” Here he invented closing speed between M’ and light fronts from the ends of the train. That is a no no when at the same time he posited isotropy light speed. > > As anyone (but you) can see nothing is said about the closing speed. What it is > said is that the geometry of the problem (meaning M' has moved closer to B and > farther from A) implies the light front are not detected as simultaneous. Yes he did.....see above quote you provided. > > > > > 3. The speed of light is isotropic in the train and at the track. > > > > > > This only means that the speed of the light fronts is measured to be equal to c from both the inside the train and the embankment. So for the train observer, the light front coming from point B is approaching him at speed c and M' is moving to the right at speed v. Therefore the CLOSING SPEED between the light front and M' is c+v and, consequently M' will contact the light front coming from point B earlier than the light front coming from point A (whose closing speed is c-v). > > > > No such different closing speeds in the train because the speed of light in the train is isotropic....they are invented by Einstein and the M observer to get RoS. M’ must make his own decision if the light fronts were simultaneous or not. M cannot assert that the light fronts will not arrive at M’ simultaneously. > > > > See above, as no closing speed is necessary to understand what happens. > > > > > > 5. There is no closing speeds between M’ and the light fronts from the ends of the train. > > > > > > In your dreams!! > > > > Not in my dream...go ahead and tell me how do you measure closing speeds in the train. It appears that closing speeds are dreamt up by you and Einstein. > > > > It appears that you are unable to understand logical statements. It is not > necessary to "measure" anything in the train. M' will detect first the light > front coming from point B (as he is getting closer to that point) and later the > light front coming from point A (as he is getting farther appart from that > point). This absolutely requires that M' will detect both light front to be NOT > simultaneous. period...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 15:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <aaec53d2-58bf-4a76-879e-e23112caf651@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456960 |
El miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 18:29:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 3:56:54 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > El miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 15:35:05 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > Well, Einstein defined quite precisely what simultaneously means: > > > > "When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to > > the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where > > the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —> B of > > the embankment.” > > So that means that M or M’ must be at the mid point between the strikes to detect the simultaneity of the strikes and indeed they were at the mid point when the strikes happened simultaneously. That’s why both (M and M’) see the flashes arrive at them simultaneously. > Can´t you read?. There is nothing related to M' in the above text. What it is clear is that observer M' (and the train) is moving to the right at a speed v, relatively to the observer M. Since the light fronts move from their emission point at speed c towards the observer M, this observer at the embankment will receive both light fronts at the same time. But M' (and the train) has already moved to the right and, by basic logic, it can't receive the light fronts at the same time. This has nothing to do with the light fronts being isotropic (they are indeed isotropic since they move right-to-left and left-to-right at the same speed c).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 21:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <2ff4f753-c9fb-459a-9585-036f615c74e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456966 |
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 00:34:11 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 18:29:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 3:56:54 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > > El miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 15:35:05 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > > > Well, Einstein defined quite precisely what simultaneously means: > > > > > > "When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to > > > the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where > > > the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —> B of > > > the embankment.” > > > > So that means that M or M’ must be at the mid point between the strikes to detect the simultaneity of the strikes and indeed they were at the mid point when the strikes happened simultaneously. That’s why both (M and M’) see the flashes arrive at them simultaneously. > > > > Can´t you read?. There is nothing related to M' in the above text. What it is > clear is that observer M' (and the train) is moving to the right at a speed v, > relatively to the observer M. Can't you read? Idiot HAS WRITTEN!!! MUST BE TRUE!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 16:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <d33703e1-a149-4a05-b6c3-29ff9ebb0b44@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456966 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 6:34:11 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 18:29:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 3:56:54 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > > El miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 15:35:05 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > > > Well, Einstein defined quite precisely what simultaneously means: > > > > > > "When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to > > > the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where > > > the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —> B of > > > the embankment.” > > > > So that means that M or M’ must be at the mid point between the strikes to detect the simultaneity of the strikes and indeed they were at the mid point when the strikes happened simultaneously. That’s why both (M and M’) see the flashes arrive at them simultaneously. > > > > Can´t you read?. There is nothing related to M' in the above text. What it is > clear is that observer M' (and the train) is moving to the right at a speed v, > relatively to the observer M. Can’t you read? The above text says that M’ must be at the mid point between the strikes in order for him to detect simultaneity. > > Since the light fronts move from their emission point at speed c towards the > observer M, this observer at the embankment will receive both light fronts at > the same time. But M' (and the train) has already moved to the right and, by basic logic, it can't receive the light fronts at the same time. This is irrelevant. If M’ is at the mid-point between the simultaneous strikes he will detect them to be simultaneous. His relative velocity wrt M has no relevancy. >This has > nothing to do with the light fronts being isotropic (they are indeed isotropic > since they move right-to-left and left-to-right at the same speed c). There is no different closing speeds between M’. If there were different closing speeds between M’ and the light fronts from the ends of the train then the speed of light is not isotropic in the train..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 18:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <17313eea-747d-4944-a4a2-fb68a38bbe9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457027 |
El jueves, 26 de abril de 2018, 20:50:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 6:34:11 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > El miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 18:29:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > > > > Can´t you read?. There is nothing related to M' in the above text. What it is > > clear is that observer M' (and the train) is moving to the right at a speed v, > > relatively to the observer M. > > Can’t you read? The above text says that M’ must be at the mid point between the strikes in order for him to detect simultaneity. > That is a total lie. Again, Einstein wrote: "When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment.” Where is M' in the above text? > > > > Since the light fronts move from their emission point at speed c towards the > > observer M, this observer at the embankment will receive both light fronts at > > the same time. But M' (and the train) has already moved to the right and, by basic logic, it can't receive the light fronts at the same time. > > This is irrelevant. If M’ is at the mid-point between the simultaneous strikes he will detect them to be simultaneous. His relative velocity wrt M has no relevancy. > But you are wrong. M' is moving (don't you see the little v in the diagram which signals M' speed relative to M?). That speed v means M' will not longer be at the location of M and consequently it will not receive the light fronts at the same time, period. > There is no different closing speeds between M’. If there were different closing speeds between M’ and the light fronts from the ends of the train then the speed of light is not isotropic in the train.. Again you are showing your total ignorance of what isotropy means. It means the ligth front moves from left-to-right at speed c and from right-to-left also at speed c, that is the direction of movement of the light fronts does not affect the speed of the light fronts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 05:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <f8d27dc1-334d-48b9-9201-4281149f3237@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457031 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:04:27 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > El jueves, 26 de abril de 2018, 20:50:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 6:34:11 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > > El miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 18:29:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > > > > > > > Can´t you read?. There is nothing related to M' in the above text. What it is > > > clear is that observer M' (and the train) is moving to the right at a speed v, > > > relatively to the observer M. > > > > Can’t you read? The above text says that M’ must be at the mid point between the strikes in order for him to detect simultaneity. > > > > That is a total lie. Again, Einstein wrote: > > "When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to > the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where > the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —> B of > the embankment.” > > Where is M’ in the above text? Einstein used the ends of the train to defined M’ location...M’ is at the mid point of the train. The strikes happened at the ends of the train and leave marks own the track when M’ and M are coincided. That means that both M and M’ are at the mid point of the strikes.....at the mid point between A and B. > > > > > > > Since the light fronts move from their emission point at speed c towards the > > > observer M, this observer at the embankment will receive both light fronts at > > > the same time. But M' (and the train) has already moved to the right and, by basic logic, it can't receive the light fronts at the same time. > > > > This is irrelevant. If M’ is at the mid-point between the simultaneous strikes he will detect them to be simultaneous. His relative velocity wrt M has no relevancy. Only M’ is able to measure directly if the strikes were simultaneous in his frame. If M wants to know he can use the LT to determine if M’ will see the strikes to be simultaneous or not. M measure distance of the strike marks and the time of simultaneity is t=L/c snd he figure out that M’ will see the light flashes at time t’ and the relationship[p between t and t’ is t’=gamma*t =gamma(L/c). > > > > But you are wrong. M' is moving (don't you see the little v in the diagram which > signals M’ speed relative to M?). Little v is irrelevant. The speed of light in the train is isotropic. > > That speed v means M’ will not longer be at the location of M and consequently it will not receive the light fronts at the same time, period. That’s irrelevant.... Little v has no effect on the simultaneity of the two event. > > > > There is no different closing speeds between M’. If there were different closing speeds between M’ and the light fronts from the ends of the train then the speed of light is not isotropic in the train.. > > Again you are showing your total ignorance of what isotropy means. It means the > ligth front moves from left-to-right at speed c and from right-to-left also at > speed c, that is the direction of movement of the light fronts does not affect > the speed of the light fronts.t No you are showing your ignorance. Once you declared that speed of light is isotropic c there cannot be any different closing velocity between light and any object. You can have different closing speeds between material objects but a material object doesn’t have isotropic speed in all frames.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 13:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pc1rsk$1c11$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457094 |
kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:04:27 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >> That is a total lie. Again, Einstein wrote: >> "When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with >> respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the >> places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the >> mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment.” >> Where is M’ in the above text? > > Einstein used the ends of the train to defined M’ location...M’ is at > the mid point of the train. How many ends has that train?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 07:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <0327f8f9-6e15-4888-8af5-6d540835d522@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457094 |
El sábado, 28 de abril de 2018, 9:55:24 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:04:27 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > El jueves, 26 de abril de 2018, 20:50:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > Einstein used the ends of the train to defined M’ location...M’ is at the mid point of the train. > The strikes happened at the ends of the train and leave marks own the track when M’ and M are coincided. That means that both M and M’ are at the mid point of the strikes.....at the mid point between A and B. > Sure, but you forgot that the light fronts from the strikes take a finite time to arrive to M and M'. After that time lapse M will detect both light fronts to be simultaneous. However M' is no longer at M location (it has moved to the right). Hence it is evident that M', being to the right of M, has already detected the light front coming from B and also M' has yet to detect the light front coming from A. > > > > > > > > > > Since the light fronts move from their emission point at speed c towards the > > > > observer M, this observer at the embankment will receive both light fronts at > > > > the same time. But M' (and the train) has already moved to the right and, by basic logic, it can't receive the light fronts at the same time. > > > > > > This is irrelevant. If M’ is at the mid-point between the simultaneous strikes he will detect them to be simultaneous. His relative velocity wrt M has no relevancy. > Only M’ is able to measure directly if the strikes were simultaneous in his frame. If M wants to know he can use the LT to determine if M’ will see the strikes to be simultaneous or not. M measure distance of the strike marks and the time of simultaneity is t=L/c snd he figure out that M’ will see the light flashes at time t’ and the relationship[p between t and t’ is t’=gamma*t =gamma(L/c). > > > > > > > But you are wrong. M' is moving (don't you see the little v in the diagram which > > signals M’ speed relative to M?). > > Little v is irrelevant. The speed of light in the train is isotropic. > Which has nothing to do with the movement of the train and M' > > > > That speed v means M’ will not longer be at the location of M and consequently it will not receive the light fronts at the same time, period. > > That’s irrelevant.... Little v has no effect on the simultaneity of the two event. > It sure has, as anyone but you can see from the diagram. M' has moved to the right of the diagram, since the time of the strikes. > > > > > > > > > There is no different closing speeds between M’. If there were different closing speeds between M’ and the light fronts from the ends of the train then the speed of light is not isotropic in the train.. > > > > Again you are showing your total ignorance of what isotropy means. It means the > > ligth front moves from left-to-right at speed c and from right-to-left also at > > speed c, that is the direction of movement of the light fronts does not affect > > the speed of the light fronts.t > > No you are showing your ignorance. Once you declared that speed of light is isotropic c there cannot be any different closing velocity between light and any object. > You can have different closing speeds between material objects but a material object doesn’t have isotropic speed in all frames. You clearly do not have a clue about isotropy and closing speeds and the speed of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 08:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <525d8c16-b9ab-48e1-bdc4-db3f2fba27dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457100 |
On Saturday, 28 April 2018 16:56:55 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 28 de abril de 2018, 9:55:24 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:04:27 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > > El jueves, 26 de abril de 2018, 20:50:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > > > > Einstein used the ends of the train to defined M’ location...M’ is at the mid point of the train. > > The strikes happened at the ends of the train and leave marks own the track when M’ and M are coincided. That means that both M and M’ are at the mid point of the strikes.....at the mid point between A and B. > > > > Sure, but you forgot that the light fronts from the strikes take a finite time > to arrive to M and M'. After that time lapse M will detect both light fronts to > be simultaneous. And he will see trees and buildings running around him. An idiot has a theory! The theory of anidiot can't be wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 06:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <c3385246-bbb2-4366-abb9-19cc8f5af176@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457100 |
On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 10:56:55 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 28 de abril de 2018, 9:55:24 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:04:27 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > > El jueves, 26 de abril de 2018, 20:50:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > > > > Einstein used the ends of the train to defined M’ location...M’ is at the mid point of the train. > > The strikes happened at the ends of the train and leave marks own the track when M’ and M are coincided. That means that both M and M’ are at the mid point of the strikes.....at the mid point between A and B. > > > > Sure, but you forgot that the light fronts from the strikes take a finite time > to arrive to M and M'. That’s why M must use the LT to figure out the time of simultaneity of the flashes in the train. M cannot assert that M’ is moving wrt the light fronts to reach the bogus conclusion that M’ will not see the flashes to be simultaneous.....the isotropy of the speed of light in the train prevents that M’ have different closing velocity wrt the light front from the ends of the train. >After that time lapse M will detect both light fronts to > be simultaneous. After a different time M’ will detect both light fronts to be simultaneous. For example: M sees the flashes to be simultaneous at time t and M’sees the flashes to be simultaneous at time t’ the relationship between t and t’ is as follows: t’=gamma*t >However M' is no longer at M location (it has moved to the > right). Hence it is evident that M', being to the right of M, has already > detected the light front coming from B and also M' has yet to detect the light > front coming from A. This is bogus assertion. It appears that you don’t understand the conditions for observing simultaneity: 1. The events must be simultaneous to begin with. 2. The observer must be located at the mid-point between the two events. 3. The speed of light is isotropy with the observer’s frame. That means no different closing speeds between the light fronts from the events. 4. Both M and M’ meet these conditions and thus they both see the flashes arrive at them simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the light fronts move from their emission point at speed c towards the > > > > > observer M, this observer at the embankment will receive both light fronts at > > > > > the same time. But M' (and the train) has already moved to the right and, by basic logic, it can't receive the light fronts at the same time. > > > > > > > > This is irrelevant. If M’ is at the mid-point between the simultaneous strikes he will detect them to be simultaneous. His relative velocity wrt M has no relevancy. > > Only M’ is able to measure directly if the strikes were simultaneous in his frame. If M wants to know he can use the LT to determine if M’ will see the strikes to be simultaneous or not. M measure distance of the strike marks and the time of simultaneity is t=L/c snd he figure out that M’ will see the light flashes at time t’ and the relationship[p between t and t’ is t’=gamma*t =gamma(L/c). > > > > > > > > > > But you are wrong. M' is moving (don't you see the little v in the diagram which > > > signals M’ speed relative to M?). > > > > Little v is irrelevant. The speed of light in the train is isotropic. > > > > Which has nothing to do with the movement of the train and M' > > > > > > > That speed v means M’ will not longer be at the location of M and consequently it will not receive the light fronts at the same time, period. > > > > That’s irrelevant.... Little v has no effect on the simultaneity of the two event. > > > > It sure has, as anyone but you can see from the diagram. M' has moved to the > right of the diagram, since the time of the strikes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no different closing speeds between M’. If there were different closing speeds between M’ and the light fronts from the ends of the train then the speed of light is not isotropic in the train.. > > > > > > Again you are showing your total ignorance of what isotropy means. It means the > > > ligth front moves from left-to-right at speed c and from right-to-left also at > > > speed c, that is the direction of movement of the light fronts does not affect > > > the speed of the light fronts.t > > > > No you are showing your ignorance. Once you declared that speed of light is isotropic c there cannot be any different closing velocity between light and any object. > > You can have different closing speeds between material objects but a material object doesn’t have isotropic speed in all frames. > > You clearly do not have a clue about isotropy and closing speeds and the speed > of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 16:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pc273m$ap4$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #457094 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:04:27 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >> > This is irrelevant. If M' is at the mid-point between the simultaneous >> > strikes he will detect them to be simultaneous. His relative velocity >> > wrt M has no relevancy. >Only M' is able to measure directly if the strikes were simultaneous in >his frame. If M wants to know he can use the LT to determine if M' >will see the strikes to be simultaneous or not. That's right, Ken. And the Lorentz Transform states that t'=gamma(t-vx/c^2). v is the speed of the train and x is the amount the train moved between the time of the strikes and the light reached the midpoint. Since the strike light is from opposite directions, v is positive for light from one end and negative for the other, so the vx/c^2 terms are different, so t' are different for the two strikes, so M' sees the strikes as not simultaneous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 13:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <1097b346-0055-4149-ba69-1e215e758b40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457094 |
Hey, doofus. If the lightning bolts hit 2 light-years apart in distance, how long till the flash fronts met? One year. So what is that speed of one front with regard to the other is not c. They close at 2c and cover 2 light years in a year. SR does apply to closing speeds seen by third parties. No single ray or particle goes that fast, so simple addition tells the tale.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 14:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <f19e22a3-56bb-4b99-a76a-c1bbfa7b560f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457094 |
Hey, doofus. If the lightning bolts hit 2 light-years apart in distance, how long till the flash fronts met? One year. So speed of one front with regard to the other is not c. They close at 2c, and cover 2 light years in a year. SR velocity addition does apply to closing speeds seen by third parties. No single ray or particle goes that fast, AS SEEN BY anyother, so simple addition tells the tale and can up to 2c. Einstein agrees.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 16:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <235ab170-eb43-4674-9a18-f47f8e59ff80@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457135 |
Steve BH correctly wrote Hey, doofus. If the lightning bolts hit 2 light-years apart in distance, how long till the flash fronts met? One year. So speed of one front with regard to the other is not c. They close at 2c, and cover 2 light years in a year. SR velocity addition does apply to closing speeds seen by third parties. No single ray or particle goes that fast, AS SEEN BY anyother, so simple addition tells the tale and can up to 2c. Einstein agrees. Yes .... Exactly ... very smart of Mr BH Bulk Modulus & Wave Speed of an Ideal Fluid https://photos.app.goo.gl/vcsw9gNZnE3UX30F3 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html#c1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 06:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <5250d8f7-4059-42e2-aa6a-4c98f4e56f80@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457135 |
On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 5:04:13 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote: > Hey, doofus. If the lightning bolts hit 2 light-years apart in distance, how long till the flash fronts met? > > One year. > > So speed of one front with regard to the other is not c. They close at 2c, and cover 2 light years in a year. > > SR velocity addition does apply to closing speeds seen by third parties. No single ray or particle goes that fast, AS SEEN BY anyother, so simple addition tells the tale and can up to 2c. Einstein agrees. Hey doofus.....only the sources observer (not a third party observer) can determine the closing speed of an incoming light front. And the result is c not 2c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web