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 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 15:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pccmhb$v13$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #457355 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 8:57:15 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> >> Incoming speed IS NOT closing speed. >> > Why not? Einstein said that M' is rushed to meet the light front >> > from the front of the train (c+v)--sure sound like closing speed >> > is incoming speed to me. >> Then you are wrong. Even semantically "closing speed" is different >> from "relative speed". Closing speed is between TWO things moving >> wrt you, while relative speed is about ONE thing moving wrt you. >So according to you, M' is rushing to meet the light front front the front >of the train is not closing speed? That's correct as far as M' is concerned. M' considers himself stationary in the inertial frame of the train. The light is coming straight at him, there is only one speed involved here, the speed of the light. With only one speed involved, the speed of the light, there is no closing speed to discuss here. Also, the Postulate of Relativity says that M' will measure the speed of the light to be c since M' is inertial (obviously not on Amtrak...). On the other hand, M sees the M' rushing at the light at a sizeable fraction of c. M can calculate a closing speed of the light and M'. (Remember, the closing speed is not the speed of anything. It can exceed c.) > I think you are wrong. I know you are wrong. >Einstein think that's closing speed and that's what he used to get >RoS. No, Einstein knew what closing speeds were and used them as the sum of two speeds seen by a third person. > Also this closing speed is just the incoming speed from M's point >of view. If it's an incoming speed, it is not a closing speed. Period. > M' can calculate the value of this closing speed between >himself and the light front That's not a closing speed! No second speed involved anywhere. > from the front of the train as follows: >Closing speed=c'=(measured frequency of the incoming light)(source wavelength of the source) Yet again, that's not a definition of a closing speed. No two speeds. You keep confusing yourself. You use the phrase "closing speed" incorrectly. As long as you keep doing so, you will never understand the train gedanken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 16:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pca4cg$m25$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #457272 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 4:06:16 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> Incoming speed IS NOT closing speed. >Why not? Because closing speed was NOT defined to be incoming speed. Closing speed is always the sum of two speeds, and has been defined that way since long before Einstein. >Einstein said that M' is rushed to meet the light front from the front of >the train (c+v)--sure sound like closing speed is incoming speed to me. That's not a closing speed, there isn't the sum of two speeds. Remember, M' is stationary in an inertial frame (the train) so according to the PoR, he will always see the light moving at c. >The problem is that SR asserted that the incoming speed (closing speed) Already wrong, and you haven't even finished the sentence. > of the light front from the front of the train toward M' is still c. That's the PoR. Inertial observers including M' always see light moving at c. >This means that the hypothetical closing speed of (c+v) doesn't exist It does for M watching M' on the train. It does for M' watching M on the embankment. But it's not the actual speed of anything. > or the SR assertion that the incoming speed (closing speed) of light is > still c is wrong. Incoming speed of light is always c. Closing speed is not necessarily c. >My money is on that the SR (Einstein) is wrong. My money is on that the Stupid Ken is wrong. Such an easy bet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 13:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <46cb6069-fd86-4639-932d-5dff13eaf812@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457233 |
El lunes, 30 de abril de 2018, 15:46:45 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: Look Seto. In the following diagram M' is the observer in the train, which is moving at a speed v to the right. A and B are the points where the lightning strikes occur. |-------------M'-------------| -> v A|-------------M--------------|B Now consider that the distance MB is 600000km and the distance AB is also 600000km. 1)How many seconds will the light fronts from B and A take to get to M? Answer: light front from B will take 2 seconds to get to M, the same time light front from A will take. M will detect both strikes to be simultaneous. 2) The train (and M') is moving at speed v=100000 km/sec. Where will be observer M' located after 2 seconds? Answer: M' will be at 200000 km to the right of M. It means then that the light front from A has already arrived to M, but it has to still catch with observer M', since M' is 200000 km farther away to the right of M. 3) Has the light front coming from B arrived before to M' than to M? Yes, since that light front first encountered M' to the right of M and only later it reached M
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 05:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <76cc22f7-5515-4cae-aafa-60943724b7dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457247 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 4:12:11 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > El lunes, 30 de abril de 2018, 15:46:45 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > Look Seto. In the following diagram M' is the observer in the train, which is > moving at a speed v to the right. A and B are the points where the lightning > strikes occur. > > > |-------------M'-------------| -> v > A|-------------M--------------|B > > Now consider that the distance MB is 600000km and the distance AB is also > 600000km. Sorry, MB is not equal to AB. > > 1)How many seconds will the light fronts from B and A take to get to M? > > Answer: light front from B will take 2 seconds to get to M, the same time light > front from A will take. M will detect both strikes to be simultaneous. Right. M then use the LT to calculate the time M’ will see the flashes to be simultaneous and the result is: t’=2/gamma Case close.....no RoS and thus all the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate remain valid. > > 2) The train (and M') is moving at speed v=100000 km/sec. Where will be observer > M' located after 2 seconds? > > Answer: M' will be at 200000 km to the right of M. It means then that the light > front from A has already arrived to M, but it has to still catch with observer > M', since M' is 200000 km farther away to the right of M. > > 3) Has the light front coming from B arrived before to M' than to M? > > Yes, since that light front first encountered M' to the right of M and only > later it reached M
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 09:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <686bc8d9-a626-460d-9859-013ccdc724e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457273 |
El martes, 1 de mayo de 2018, 9:17:32 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 4:12:11 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > El lunes, 30 de abril de 2018, 15:46:45 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > > > Look Seto. In the following diagram M' is the observer in the train, which is > > moving at a speed v to the right. A and B are the points where the lightning > > strikes occur. > > > > > > |-------------M'-------------| -> v > > A|-------------M--------------|B > > > > Now consider that the distance MB is 600000km and the distance AB is also > > 600000km. > > Sorry, MB is not equal to AB. > > > > > 1)How many seconds will the light fronts from B and A take to get to M? > > > > Answer: light front from B will take 2 seconds to get to M, the same time light > > front from A will take. M will detect both strikes to be simultaneous. > > Right. M then use the LT to calculate the time M’ will see the flashes to be simultaneous and the result is: > t’=2/gamma > Case close.....no RoS and thus all the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate remain valid. > > > > > > 2) The train (and M') is moving at speed v=100000 km/sec. Where will be observer > > M' located after 2 seconds? > > > > Answer: M' will be at 200000 km to the right of M. It means then that the light > > front from A has already arrived to M, but it has to still catch with observer > > M', since M' is 200000 km farther away to the right of M. > > > > 3) Has the light front coming from B arrived before to M' than to M? > > > > Yes, since that light front first encountered M' to the right of M and only > > later it reached M Sorry, but you are a moron and a troll and I will not waste more time on your nonsense... PLONK!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 08:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <50de2263-ada4-44fc-9e71-74e21678165b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457281 |
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:48:43 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > El martes, 1 de mayo de 2018, 9:17:32 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 4:12:11 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > > El lunes, 30 de abril de 2018, 15:46:45 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > > > > > Look Seto. In the following diagram M' is the observer in the train, which is > > > moving at a speed v to the right. A and B are the points where the lightning > > > strikes occur. > > > > > > > > > |-------------M'-------------| -> v > > > A|-------------M--------------|B > > > > > > Now consider that the distance MB is 600000km and the distance AB is also > > > 600000km. > > > > Sorry, MB is not equal to AB. > > > > > > > > 1)How many seconds will the light fronts from B and A take to get to M? > > > > > > Answer: light front from B will take 2 seconds to get to M, the same time light > > > front from A will take. M will detect both strikes to be simultaneous. > > > > Right. M then use the LT to calculate the time M’ will see the flashes to be simultaneous and the result is: > > t’=2/gamma > > Case close.....no RoS and thus all the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate remain valid. > > > > > > > > > > 2) The train (and M') is moving at speed v=100000 km/sec. Where will be observer > > > M' located after 2 seconds? > > > > > > Answer: M' will be at 200000 km to the right of M. It means then that the light > > > front from A has already arrived to M, but it has to still catch with observer > > > M', since M' is 200000 km farther away to the right of M. > > > > > > 3) Has the light front coming from B arrived before to M' than to M? > > > > > > Yes, since that light front first encountered M' to the right of M and only > > > later it reached M > > Sorry, but you are a moron and a troll and I will not waste more time on your nonsense... > > PLONK! Good, you are wasting my time.....you are not at the level of my understanding new physics and you refuse to learn any new physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 15:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pc7d74$r7i$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #457211 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:11:07 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 4/30/2018 8:53 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 2:40:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> >>> Hey doofus.....only the sources observer (not a third party observer) >> >>> can determine the closing speed of an incoming light front. >> >> >> >> That is simply not true, by the DEFINITION of closing speed. >> > Sigh....the third party's assertion does not apply to light once >> > you declared that the speed of light is isotropic in all frames. Why >> > can't you see that different closing speeds is anti-isotropy??????? >> Because that is the DEFINITION of the closing speed, as he said! >Then the DEFINITION for closing speeds is wrong for light. How can a definition be wrong? A closing speed is DEFINED as the sum of two speeds as seen by a third observer, and has been for centuries. And don't forget, closing speed involves two speeds. Saying something like "the closing speed of light" doesn't even make sense since there is only one speed mentioned. It's like saying "New York City is between Boston." The word "between" requires two things to be meaningful. > Or the SR postulate for constant isotropy light speed is wrong. The postulate is that the speed of light is constant. It does not say anything about the closing speed of light and something else. > You can't have it both way. Nobody has anything both ways. The speed of light is a constant for inertial observers. The closing speed of light and trains (or whatever) is never postulated to be a constant. >> You seem to be using the phrase "closing speed" for something else. I >> don't know what. You must use the correct terminology, otherwise you'll >> just get very confused and start meaningless arguments. This is true. You are very confused, Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 13:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pc75nm$1me6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457208 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 2:40:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> That is simply not true, by the DEFINITION of closing speed. >> >> I even told you how the third party finds the closing speed. But you can’t >> remember what you had for breakfast yesterday so it doesn’t matter. > > Sigh....the third party’s assertion does not apply to light once you > declared that the speed of light is isotropic in all frames. Why can’t > you see that different closing speeds is anti-isotropy??????? No it’s not. Light speed is isotropic. NOBODY claims closing speed must be isotropic. It is not counter to any light speed isotropy claim. The third party is not making an assertion. The third party is making a calculation, one that is the DEFINITION of closing speed. The result of that very simple calculation is an anisotropic closing speed, not an anisotropic light speed. > >> >>> And the result is c not 2c. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 09:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <6e70def9-8e15-44ea-8734-2db98fda3501@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457212 |
On Monday, 30 April 2018 15:29:29 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 2:40:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> That is simply not true, by the DEFINITION of closing speed. > >> > >> I even told you how the third party finds the closing speed. But you can’t > >> remember what you had for breakfast yesterday so it doesn’t matter. > > > > Sigh....the third party’s assertion does not apply to light once you > > declared that the speed of light is isotropic in all frames. Why can’t > > you see that different closing speeds is anti-isotropy??????? > > No it’s not. Light speed is isotropic. Even your idiot guru was unable to hold this nonsense for a long time and his GR shit has rejected it. Of course, you're much stupider.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 11:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <40949547-10d4-49c4-86b4-5cee9fe2dc25@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456914 |
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 15:13:02 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > Furthermore, for sure, M' could say he detected the light fronts to be > simultaneous and M say for him they were not simultaneous. And he could also say that walking a street he sees trees and lanrterns running around him. If he was stupid enough to listen idiots like you, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 13:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pbq06d$16ea$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456907 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:43:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 2:13:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:27:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> I assumed no such thing. The gedanken specified that the strikes happened >>>>> when M and M’ are concided with each other. Both M and M’ are at equal >>>>> distance from the marks of the strikes. The speed of light is isotropic >>>>> in the embankment and inside the train. With these specifications if M >>>>> sees the flashes to be simultaneous then M‘ must also sees the flashes >>>>> to be simultaneous. >>>> >>>> And that is obviously wrong. And the gedanken points out that this is >>>> wrong. Since the strikes were not simultaneous in S’ (only in S) then light >>>> speed’s isotropy and the equidistance of M’ from the strikes will require >>>> that the light will arrive at M’ nonsimultaneously. >>> >>> No what I said is not wrong. Light speed’s isotropy and the equidistance >>> of M’ from the strikes will require >>> that the light will arrive at M’ simultaneously. >> >> No Ken that’s wrong. Einstein showed that those two things imply the >> opposite, and you just don’t understand the logic. > > You are wrong. What Einstein showed is wrong as follows: > 1. M asserts that M’ have different closing speeds between M’ and the > light fronts from the ends of the train. Clearly this is wrong because > the speed of light in the train is isotropic. Mistake is yours. Light speed and closing speed are two different things, as different as velocity and acceleration. > 2. Both M and M’ are at equal footing. So you can’t say that M saw M’ > moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. And M’ saw M moving wrt light fronts. Equal footing. > 3. In any case why can’t we say that M’ sees the light front arrive at > him simultaneously and he said that M is moving wrt the light fronts from > the strike marks and thus M will not see the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously. Because that’s not what M observes. You’re making up an observation that doesn’t happen. As I said earlier, gedankens don’t prove anything. Observation is what matters. > > > > > wrong > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 07:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <5410b98c-0f7e-43f5-ad71-a866ee4597b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456917 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:35:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:43:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 2:13:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:27:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>>> I assumed no such thing. The gedanken specified that the strikes happened > >>>>> when M and M’ are concided with each other. Both M and M’ are at equal > >>>>> distance from the marks of the strikes. The speed of light is isotropic > >>>>> in the embankment and inside the train. With these specifications if M > >>>>> sees the flashes to be simultaneous then M‘ must also sees the flashes > >>>>> to be simultaneous. > >>>> > >>>> And that is obviously wrong. And the gedanken points out that this is > >>>> wrong. Since the strikes were not simultaneous in S’ (only in S) then light > >>>> speed’s isotropy and the equidistance of M’ from the strikes will require > >>>> that the light will arrive at M’ nonsimultaneously. > >>> > >>> No what I said is not wrong. Light speed’s isotropy and the equidistance > >>> of M’ from the strikes will require > >>> that the light will arrive at M’ simultaneously. > >> > >> No Ken that’s wrong. Einstein showed that those two things imply the > >> opposite, and you just don’t understand the logic. > > > > You are wrong. What Einstein showed is wrong as follows: > > 1. M asserts that M’ have different closing speeds between M’ and the > > light fronts from the ends of the train. Clearly this is wrong because > > the speed of light in the train is isotropic. > > Mistake is yours. Light speed and closing speed are two different things, > as different as velocity and acceleration. There is no such thing as closing speed between M’ and the light fronts from the ends of the train. This is invented to get RoS. In any case ROS has no relevancy on any physical processes. Einstein invented it to resolve the paradoxes derived from his constant light speed postulate. > > > 2. Both M and M’ are at equal footing. So you can’t say that M saw M’ > > moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. > > And M’ saw M moving wrt light fronts. Equal footing. > > > 3. In any case why can’t we say that M’ sees the light front arrive at > > him simultaneously and he said that M is moving wrt the light fronts from > > the strike marks and thus M will not see the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously. > > Because that’s not what M observes. You’re making up an observation that > doesn’t happen. As I said earlier, gedankens don’t prove anything. > Observation is what matters. > > > > > > > > > > > wrong > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 14:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pbq3cc$1bh9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456921 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:35:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:43:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 2:13:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:27:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I assumed no such thing. The gedanken specified that the strikes happened >>>>>>> when M and M’ are concided with each other. Both M and M’ are at equal >>>>>>> distance from the marks of the strikes. The speed of light is isotropic >>>>>>> in the embankment and inside the train. With these specifications if M >>>>>>> sees the flashes to be simultaneous then M‘ must also sees the flashes >>>>>>> to be simultaneous. >>>>>> >>>>>> And that is obviously wrong. And the gedanken points out that this is >>>>>> wrong. Since the strikes were not simultaneous in S’ (only in S) then light >>>>>> speed’s isotropy and the equidistance of M’ from the strikes will require >>>>>> that the light will arrive at M’ nonsimultaneously. >>>>> >>>>> No what I said is not wrong. Light speed’s isotropy and the equidistance >>>>> of M’ from the strikes will require >>>>> that the light will arrive at M’ simultaneously. >>>> >>>> No Ken that’s wrong. Einstein showed that those two things imply the >>>> opposite, and you just don’t understand the logic. >>> >>> You are wrong. What Einstein showed is wrong as follows: >>> 1. M asserts that M’ have different closing speeds between M’ and the >>> light fronts from the ends of the train. Clearly this is wrong because >>> the speed of light in the train is isotropic. >> >> Mistake is yours. Light speed and closing speed are two different things, >> as different as velocity and acceleration. > > There is no such thing as closing speed between M’ and the light fronts > from the ends of the train. This is invented to get RoS. Factually incorrect. Closing speed is a concept from 1700’s. > In any case ROS has no relevancy on any physical processes. Einstein > invented it to resolve the paradoxes derived from his constant light speed postulate. Also factually, historically incorrect. Fabricating false history is not going to help your cause. > >> >>> 2. Both M and M’ are at equal footing. So you can’t say that M saw M’ >>> moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. >> >> And M’ saw M moving wrt light fronts. Equal footing. >> >>> 3. In any case why can’t we say that M’ sees the light front arrive at >>> him simultaneously and he said that M is moving wrt the light fronts from >>> the strike marks and thus M will not see the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously. >> >> Because that’s not what M observes. You’re making up an observation that >> doesn’t happen. As I said earlier, gedankens don’t prove anything. >> Observation is what matters. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> wrong >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 07:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <775bf7a2-3cc7-4f33-8a9b-deda6ace4e90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456922 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:29:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:35:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:43:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 2:13:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:27:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I assumed no such thing. The gedanken specified that the strikes happened > >>>>>>> when M and M’ are concided with each other. Both M and M’ are at equal > >>>>>>> distance from the marks of the strikes. The speed of light is isotropic > >>>>>>> in the embankment and inside the train. With these specifications if M > >>>>>>> sees the flashes to be simultaneous then M‘ must also sees the flashes > >>>>>>> to be simultaneous. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And that is obviously wrong. And the gedanken points out that this is > >>>>>> wrong. Since the strikes were not simultaneous in S’ (only in S) then light > >>>>>> speed’s isotropy and the equidistance of M’ from the strikes will require > >>>>>> that the light will arrive at M’ nonsimultaneously. > >>>>> > >>>>> No what I said is not wrong. Light speed’s isotropy and the equidistance > >>>>> of M’ from the strikes will require > >>>>> that the light will arrive at M’ simultaneously. > >>>> > >>>> No Ken that’s wrong. Einstein showed that those two things imply the > >>>> opposite, and you just don’t understand the logic. > >>> > >>> You are wrong. What Einstein showed is wrong as follows: > >>> 1. M asserts that M’ have different closing speeds between M’ and the > >>> light fronts from the ends of the train. Clearly this is wrong because > >>> the speed of light in the train is isotropic. > >> > >> Mistake is yours. Light speed and closing speed are two different things, > >> as different as velocity and acceleration. > > > > There is no such thing as closing speed between M’ and the light fronts > > from the ends of the train. This is invented to get RoS. > > Factually incorrect. Closing speed is a concept from 1700’s. In the 1700’s they don’t even know that light has a speed. In any case there is no closing speed between M’ and the light fronts from the ends of the train. > > > In any case ROS has no relevancy on any physical processes. Einstein > > invented it to resolve the paradoxes derived from his constant light speed postulate. > > Also factually, historically incorrect. Fabricating false history is not > going to help your cause. It is factually and historically correct. > > > > >> > >>> 2. Both M and M’ are at equal footing. So you can’t say that M saw M’ > >>> moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. > >> > >> And M’ saw M moving wrt light fronts. Equal footing. > >> > >>> 3. In any case why can’t we say that M’ sees the light front arrive at > >>> him simultaneously and he said that M is moving wrt the light fronts from > >>> the strike marks and thus M will not see the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously. > >> > >> Because that’s not what M observes. You’re making up an observation that > >> doesn’t happen. As I said earlier, gedankens don’t prove anything. > >> Observation is what matters. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> wrong > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 15:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pbq5ku$1fce$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456923 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:29:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:35:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:43:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 2:13:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:27:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I assumed no such thing. The gedanken specified that the strikes happened >>>>>>>>> when M and M’ are concided with each other. Both M and M’ are at equal >>>>>>>>> distance from the marks of the strikes. The speed of light is isotropic >>>>>>>>> in the embankment and inside the train. With these specifications if M >>>>>>>>> sees the flashes to be simultaneous then M‘ must also sees the flashes >>>>>>>>> to be simultaneous. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And that is obviously wrong. And the gedanken points out that this is >>>>>>>> wrong. Since the strikes were not simultaneous in S’ (only in S) then light >>>>>>>> speed’s isotropy and the equidistance of M’ from the strikes will require >>>>>>>> that the light will arrive at M’ nonsimultaneously. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No what I said is not wrong. Light speed’s isotropy and the equidistance >>>>>>> of M’ from the strikes will require >>>>>>> that the light will arrive at M’ simultaneously. >>>>>> >>>>>> No Ken that’s wrong. Einstein showed that those two things imply the >>>>>> opposite, and you just don’t understand the logic. >>>>> >>>>> You are wrong. What Einstein showed is wrong as follows: >>>>> 1. M asserts that M’ have different closing speeds between M’ and the >>>>> light fronts from the ends of the train. Clearly this is wrong because >>>>> the speed of light in the train is isotropic. >>>> >>>> Mistake is yours. Light speed and closing speed are two different things, >>>> as different as velocity and acceleration. >>> >>> There is no such thing as closing speed between M’ and the light fronts >>> from the ends of the train. This is invented to get RoS. >> >> Factually incorrect. Closing speed is a concept from 1700’s. > > In the 1700’s they don’t even know that light has a speed. That is factually incorrect. Roemer actually measured the speed of light in the 1600s. > In any case there is no closing speed between M’ and the light fronts > from the ends of the train. That is also factually incorrect. Closing speed between light and other objects has been understood since the 1700s. > >> >>> In any case ROS has no relevancy on any physical processes. Einstein >>> invented it to resolve the paradoxes derived from his constant light speed postulate. >> >> Also factually, historically incorrect. Fabricating false history is not >> going to help your cause. > > It is factually and historically correct. No it is not. The history of the development of relativity is well documented and is much different than your lies. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> 2. Both M and M’ are at equal footing. So you can’t say that M saw M’ >>>>> moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. >>>> >>>> And M’ saw M moving wrt light fronts. Equal footing. >>>> >>>>> 3. In any case why can’t we say that M’ sees the light front arrive at >>>>> him simultaneously and he said that M is moving wrt the light fronts from >>>>> the strike marks and thus M will not see the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously. >>>> >>>> Because that’s not what M observes. You’re making up an observation that >>>> doesn’t happen. As I said earlier, gedankens don’t prove anything. >>>> Observation is what matters. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> wrong >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 11:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <5b4544af-7981-4fff-9a29-ec8c44931cf1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456924 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 11:08:18 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:29:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:35:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:43:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 2:13:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:27:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I assumed no such thing. The gedanken specified that the strikes happened > >>>>>>>>> when M and M’ are concided with each other. Both M and M’ are at equal > >>>>>>>>> distance from the marks of the strikes. The speed of light is isotropic > >>>>>>>>> in the embankment and inside the train. With these specifications if M > >>>>>>>>> sees the flashes to be simultaneous then M‘ must also sees the flashes > >>>>>>>>> to be simultaneous. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And that is obviously wrong. And the gedanken points out that this is > >>>>>>>> wrong. Since the strikes were not simultaneous in S’ (only in S) then light > >>>>>>>> speed’s isotropy and the equidistance of M’ from the strikes will require > >>>>>>>> that the light will arrive at M’ nonsimultaneously. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No what I said is not wrong. Light speed’s isotropy and the equidistance > >>>>>>> of M’ from the strikes will require > >>>>>>> that the light will arrive at M’ simultaneously. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No Ken that’s wrong. Einstein showed that those two things imply the > >>>>>> opposite, and you just don’t understand the logic. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are wrong. What Einstein showed is wrong as follows: > >>>>> 1. M asserts that M’ have different closing speeds between M’ and the > >>>>> light fronts from the ends of the train. Clearly this is wrong because > >>>>> the speed of light in the train is isotropic. > >>>> > >>>> Mistake is yours. Light speed and closing speed are two different things, > >>>> as different as velocity and acceleration. > >>> > >>> There is no such thing as closing speed between M’ and the light fronts > >>> from the ends of the train. This is invented to get RoS. > >> > >> Factually incorrect. Closing speed is a concept from 1700’s. > > > > In the 1700’s they don’t even know that light has a speed. > > That is factually incorrect. Roemer actually measured the speed of light in > the 1600s. > > > In any case there is no closing speed between M’ and the light fronts > > from the ends of the train. > > That is also factually incorrect. Closing speed between light and other > objects has been understood since the 1700s. Why don’t you tell us how to measure closing speeds in the train and at the same time maintain constant isotropy light speed in the train. > > > > >> > >>> In any case ROS has no relevancy on any physical processes. Einstein > >>> invented it to resolve the paradoxes derived from his constant light speed postulate. > >> > >> Also factually, historically incorrect. Fabricating false history is not > >> going to help your cause. > > > > It is factually and historically correct. > > No it is not. The history of the development of relativity is well > documented and is much different than your lies. > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> 2. Both M and M’ are at equal footing. So you can’t say that M saw M’ > >>>>> moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. > >>>> > >>>> And M’ saw M moving wrt light fronts. Equal footing. > >>>> > >>>>> 3. In any case why can’t we say that M’ sees the light front arrive at > >>>>> him simultaneously and he said that M is moving wrt the light fronts from > >>>>> the strike marks and thus M will not see the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously. > >>>> > >>>> Because that’s not what M observes. You’re making up an observation that > >>>> doesn’t happen. As I said earlier, gedankens don’t prove anything. > >>>> Observation is what matters. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> wrong > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 19:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pbqmmu$d7l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456941 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 11:08:18 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:29:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:35:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:43:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 2:13:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:27:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I assumed no such thing. The gedanken specified that the strikes happened >>>>>>>>>>> when M and M’ are concided with each other. Both M and M’ are at equal >>>>>>>>>>> distance from the marks of the strikes. The speed of light is isotropic >>>>>>>>>>> in the embankment and inside the train. With these specifications if M >>>>>>>>>>> sees the flashes to be simultaneous then M‘ must also sees the flashes >>>>>>>>>>> to be simultaneous. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And that is obviously wrong. And the gedanken points out that this is >>>>>>>>>> wrong. Since the strikes were not simultaneous in S’ (only in S) then light >>>>>>>>>> speed’s isotropy and the equidistance of M’ from the strikes will require >>>>>>>>>> that the light will arrive at M’ nonsimultaneously. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No what I said is not wrong. Light speed’s isotropy and the equidistance >>>>>>>>> of M’ from the strikes will require >>>>>>>>> that the light will arrive at M’ simultaneously. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No Ken that’s wrong. Einstein showed that those two things imply the >>>>>>>> opposite, and you just don’t understand the logic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are wrong. What Einstein showed is wrong as follows: >>>>>>> 1. M asserts that M’ have different closing speeds between M’ and the >>>>>>> light fronts from the ends of the train. Clearly this is wrong because >>>>>>> the speed of light in the train is isotropic. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mistake is yours. Light speed and closing speed are two different things, >>>>>> as different as velocity and acceleration. >>>>> >>>>> There is no such thing as closing speed between M’ and the light fronts >>>>> from the ends of the train. This is invented to get RoS. >>>> >>>> Factually incorrect. Closing speed is a concept from 1700’s. >>> >>> In the 1700’s they don’t even know that light has a speed. >> >> That is factually incorrect. Roemer actually measured the speed of light in >> the 1600s. >> >>> In any case there is no closing speed between M’ and the light fronts >>> from the ends of the train. >> >> That is also factually incorrect. Closing speed between light and other >> objects has been understood since the 1700s. > > Why don’t you tell us how to measure closing speeds in the train and at > the same time maintain constant isotropy light speed in the train. Well first of all in the gedanken, the closing speed is measured from the ground, not from the train. To measure the closing speed from the ground between the light front and an end of the train, you measure the speed of the light front from the ground, and you measure the speed of the train from the ground, and you take the difference. Notice that the first part of that, measuring the speed of the light front from the ground will yield the same value regardless of direction: ie it is isotropic. The closing speed, which is the DIFFERENCE between speed values of train and light, will not be isotropic. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> In any case ROS has no relevancy on any physical processes. Einstein >>>>> invented it to resolve the paradoxes derived from his constant light speed postulate. >>>> >>>> Also factually, historically incorrect. Fabricating false history is not >>>> going to help your cause. >>> >>> It is factually and historically correct. >> >> No it is not. The history of the development of relativity is well >> documented and is much different than your lies. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Both M and M’ are at equal footing. So you can’t say that M saw M’ >>>>>>> moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. >>>>>> >>>>>> And M’ saw M moving wrt light fronts. Equal footing. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. In any case why can’t we say that M’ sees the light front arrive at >>>>>>> him simultaneously and he said that M is moving wrt the light fronts from >>>>>>> the strike marks and thus M will not see the light fronts arrive at him >>>>>>> simultaneously. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because that’s not what M observes. You’re making up an observation that >>>>>> doesn’t happen. As I said earlier, gedankens don’t prove anything. >>>>>> Observation is what matters. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrong >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 11:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <dd95cad9-3bf8-4a85-bf65-5efb833d3f55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456917 |
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 15:35:12 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Because that’s not what M observes. What he observes is trres and buildings running around him! An idiot said! An idiot simply can't be wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 13:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <dfe9901c-ac2b-411a-8aab-498fccff92e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456851 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 2:13:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:27:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> 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. > > > > I assumed no such thing. The gedanken specified that the strikes happened > > when M and M’ are concided with each other. Both M and M’ are at equal > > distance from the marks of the strikes. The speed of light is isotropic > > in the embankment and inside the train. With these specifications if M > > sees the flashes to be simultaneous then M‘ must also sees the flashes to be simultaneous. > > And that is obviously wrong. And the gedanken points out that this is > wrong. Since the strikes were not simultaneous in S’ (only in S) then light > speed’s isotropy and the equidistance of M’ from the strikes will require > that the light will arrive at M’ nonsimultaneously. The strikes were determined by M to be simultaneous. > > > It appears that it is you, the moron woodworker, can’t think his way out > > of a paper bag. <sad> > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 00:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN’S TRAIN GEDANKEN PROVED THAT SIMULTAN EITY IS ABSOLUTE |
| Message-ID | <pboj76$14b5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456865 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 2:13:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:27:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> I assumed no such thing. The gedanken specified that the strikes happened >>> when M and M’ are concided with each other. Both M and M’ are at equal >>> distance from the marks of the strikes. The speed of light is isotropic >>> in the embankment and inside the train. With these specifications if M >>> sees the flashes to be simultaneous then M‘ must also sees the flashes >>> to be simultaneous. >> >> And that is obviously wrong. And the gedanken points out that this is >> wrong. Since the strikes were not simultaneous in S’ (only in S) then light >> speed’s isotropy and the equidistance of M’ from the strikes will require >> that the light will arrive at M’ nonsimultaneously. > > The strikes were determined by M to be simultaneous. And they are simultaneous in S. Just not in S’, which is what Einstein showed. You can’t argue that simultaneous in S requires simultaneous in S’ without assuming your conclusion. Faulty logic. But I know you can’t sort out logic. > >> >>> It appears that it is you, the moron woodworker, can’t think his way out >>> of a paper bag. <sad> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web