The LT refute the claim of different closing speeds in the observed frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of Simultaneity

[kenseto]

The LT refute the claim of different closing speeds in the observed
frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of simultaneity..
Here's how:
Consider a moving rod with a length of D and an identical rod at rest
with the observer
The stationary observer will determine that the time for light to
traverse his rod is D/c.
The stationary observer uses the LT to predict that the time for light
to travel the length of the moving rod is: gamma*D/c
This prediction is valid for all orientations of the moving rod. This
means that there is no difference in closing speeds in any directions
in the moving frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of
Simultaneity.

[rotchm]

On May 18, 9:57 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> The LT refute the claim of different closing speeds in the observed
> frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of simultaneity..

Hmmm, you are using the expression 'closing speed'. Can you define
that expression? What does it mean?

> Here's how:
> Consider a moving rod with a length of  D and an identical rod at rest
> with the observer

Dont you mean rods with proper length D?

> The stationary observer will determine that the time for light to
> traverse his rod is D/c.
> The stationary observer uses the LT to predict that the time for light
> to travel the length of the moving rod is: gamma*D/c

??? Why? The LT are not needed since the analysis is done in the
observer frame just a the usual highschool (Galilean) kinematics. We
are not transforming event from one frame to another. The LT's are
for jumping from one frame to another.

> This prediction is valid for all orientations of the moving rod. This
> means that there is no difference in closing speeds in any directions
> in the moving frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of
> Simultaneity.

???

what about this: Wr ground: You send light pulse to the right. Your
friend overthere sends a pulse to the left towards you. Those two
pulses are approaching each other with speed 2c, RIGHT? IOW the
distance between them is changing at a rate of 2c RIGHT?

[Elmer Wright]

kenseto wrote:

> The stationary observer uses the LT to predict that the time for light
> to travel the length of the moving rod is: gamma*D/c This prediction is
> valid for all orientations of the moving rod. This means that there is
> no difference in closing speeds in any directions in the moving frame
> and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of Simultaneity.

Ahh yes? Where is the discrepancy? WHat is it I dont understand? What is a
"closing speed", a velocity?

[Elmer Wright]

rotchm wrote:

> On May 18, 9:57 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>> The LT refute the claim of different closing speeds in the observed
>> frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of simultaneity..
>
> Hmmm, you are using the expression 'closing speed'. Can you define that
> expression? What does it mean?

You admit that you don't know, LOL

[Poutnik]

Elmer Wright posted Sat, 18 May 2013 18:50:25 +0000 (UTC)

Closing speed is speed, same as closing velocity is velocity.

Imagine a frame of reference.

2 cars 50 m/s from left and right
each against the other have closing speed 100 m/s.

1 cars 50 m/s from left
and light 300 000 000 m/s from right ( take it for now as c )
have closing speed 300 000 100 m/s.
While speed of light wrt frame is still 300 000 000 m/s.

light 300 000 000 m/s from left
and other light 300 000 000 m/s from right
have closing speed 600 000 000 m/s.
While speed of light wrt frame is still 300 000 000 m/s.




--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Sat, 18 May 2013 21:04:35 +0200

> 1 cars 50 m/s from left
> and light 300 000 000 m/s from right ( take it for now as c )
> have closing speed 300 000 100 m/s.

Of course 300 000 50, of was originally operating with 100 m/s.

> While speed of light wrt frame is still 300 000 000 m/s.

--
Poutnik

[Elmer Wright]

Poutnik wrote:

> 1 cars 50 m/s from left and light 300 000 000 m/s from right ( take it
> for now as c )
> have closing speed 300 000 100 m/s.
> While speed of light wrt frame is still 300 000 000 m/s.

untrue

[Elmer Wright]

I disagree

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/18/2013 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
> The LT refute the claim of different closing speeds in the observed
> frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of simultaneity..

be careful seto. are you trying to make statements about what irt says
or statements about what special relativity says? because sr does _not_
say what you say it says.

you've been warned not to make incorrect claims about what sr says. you
also admitted that you don't give a flying squirrel's left testicle what
sr says.

so stop making wrong claims about what sr says.

[Poutnik]

Elmer Wright posted Sat, 18 May 2013 19:09:39 +0000 (UTC)

In what sense, if we take corrected value 300 000 050 ?

--
Poutnik

[Elmer Wright]

You can't sense nor detect that speed.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/18/2013 9:09 AM, rotchm wrote:
> On May 18, 9:57 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>> The LT refute the claim of different closing speeds in the observed
>> frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of simultaneity..
>
> Hmmm, you are using the expression 'closing speed'. Can you define
> that expression? What does it mean?
>

no, he can't. rather than confess that he doesn't know what it means, he
will tell you lies:
- closing speed doesn't exist
- it was a concept invented by einstein
- closing speed and relative speed are the same thing

[Poutnik]

Elmer Wright posted Sat, 18 May 2013 19:10:50 +0000 (UTC)

> >
> >
> >> 1 cars 50 m/s from left and light 300 000 000 m/s from right ( take it
> >> for now as c )
> >> have closing speed 300 000 100 m/s.
> >

> > Of course 300 000 050, of was originally operating with 100 m/s.

> >
> >> While speed of light wrt frame is still 300 000 000 m/s.
>
> I disagree

This is not enough.
With what and why ?


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Elmer Wright posted Sat, 18 May 2013 19:17:01 +0000 (UTC)

It is not speed of the single object.
it is computed speed as mutual speed of 2 objects in the same frame.

You can sense amd measure closing speed
as 1st time derivative of distance of objects.

At least I can, for speed ranges I have resources to measure it.

If you stand between 2 points, that flash a light pulse against you,
1 microscecond before both wavefronts reach you,
they are 600 m apart each other.

--
Poutnik

[Elmer Wright]

Poutnik wrote:

>> > In what sense, if we take corrected value 300 000 050 ?
>>
>> You can't sense nor detect that speed.
>
> It is not speed of the single object.
> it is computed speed as mutual speed of 2 objects in the same frame.

You mean gedanken, why dont you tell it from the beginning. This is wrong
as a gedanken as well

[Poutnik]

Elmer Wright posted Sat, 18 May 2013 19:27:47 +0000 (UTC)

I do not mean gedanken.
I mean real experiments.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Elmer Wright posted Sat, 18 May 2013 19:27:47 +0000 (UTC)

For closing speed you need not any gedankens,
as it is trivial concept of real world,
that even is not specific to SR at all.



--
Poutnik

[Elmer Wright]

Poutnik wrote:

>> You mean gedanken, why dont you tell it from the beginning. This is
>> wrong as a gedanken as well
>
> I do not mean gedanken. I mean real experiments.

You got to be kidding, what measurement instrument you use?

[Poutnik]

Elmer Wright posted Sat, 18 May 2013 19:31:51 +0000 (UTC)

As I say, for speed ranges I have resources...
For slow objects is enough chalk, rope and wrist watches.

If I were able to measure light speed,
that I would measure that

From point A 300 m to left the light travels to me 1 us.
From point B 300 m to rightthe light travels to me 1 us.

From points A and B of 600 m distance each other
light takes 1 us to meat at 1 single point.

Closing speed 600 / 1e-6 = 600 000 000 m/s

Any questions ?


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Sat, 18 May 2013 21:39:55 +0200

Or, what is your contraproposal of correct value ?

Do you think the light is travelling slower,
perhaps even by half speed
if travelling from the opposite directions ?

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Sat, 18 May 2013 21:39:55 +0200

Closing speed is very old concept of classical mechanics.

The only difference for light versus massive object closing speed is,
this closing speed is frame dependent.

As light speed is frame independent,
while object speed is frame dependent.


--
Poutnik

[Klaus Günter]

Poutnik wrote:

> Closing speed 600 / 1e-6 = 600 000 000 m/s
>
> Any questions ?

A Nobel Prize is waiting for you being able to measure that speed in a
real experiment.

In any case, you just got yourself a nomination 2013

[Poutnik]

Klaus G�nter posted Sat, 18 May 2013 19:59:15 +0000 (UTC)

That is old thing, I would need something fresh new.
Anybody able measuring light speed is able to do that.

There is only one problem,
you still have troubles with closing speed.

Relative speed is object speed wrt to frame.
Closing speed is object speed wrt to another object in given frame.




--
Poutnik

[Klaus Günter]

Poutnik wrote:

> There is only one problem,
> you still have troubles with closing speed.

Me? You just got yourself a nomination. LOL, or should I say ROTFLOL

[Poutnik]

Klaus G�nter posted Sat, 18 May 2013 20:23:04 +0000 (UTC)

You would have to say why.....


--
Poutnik

[Elmer Wright]

Poutnik wrote:

> Klaus Günter posted Sat, 18 May 2013 20:23:04 +0000 (UTC)

Why does Poland not participate to the Eurovision Melody GP?

[Poutnik]

Elmer Wright posted Sat, 18 May 2013 20:33:23 +0000 (UTC)


>
> Poutnik wrote:
>
> > Klaus G�nter posted Sat, 18 May 2013 20:23:04 +0000 (UTC)

Context ?

--
Poutnik

[Elmer Wright]

Poutnik wrote:

>> Why does Poland not participate to the Eurovision Melody GP?
>
> Context ?

Just a gedanken

[Poutnik]

Elmer Wright posted Sat, 18 May 2013 20:45:27 +0000 (UTC)

Time dependency of object distance is not gedanken.
It is and can be routinely measured.


--
Poutnik

[rotchm]

On May 18, 2:51 pm, Elmer Wright <elme...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> rotchm wrote:
> > On May 18, 9:57 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> >> The LT refute the claim of different closing speeds in the observed
> >> frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of simultaneity..
>
> > Hmmm, you are  using the expression 'closing speed'. Can you define that
> > expression? What does it mean?
>

> You admit that you don't know, LOL

Again, you show your ignorance of the English language.

And, when *you* said,

> There are no known solutions to sin(x) = 1/2

We knew that you are either a fully illiterate or a krank. And that
"or" is not an exclusive "or".

[Elmer Wright]

rotchm wrote:

>> You admit that you don't know, LOL
>
> Again, you show your ignorance of the English language.
>
> And, when *you* said,
>
>> There are no known solutions to sin(x) = 1/2
>
> We knew that you are either a fully illiterate or a krank. And that "or"
> is not an exclusive "or".

Whom are you blavering to, stupid fuck. Go away, you can't sing.

[rotchm]

On May 18, 3:04 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> Closing speed is speed,

"speed" usually refers to an object, a signal, a localized entity with
speed v.
"closing speed" usually refers to TWO entities, the rate of change of
their separation.


> Imagine a frame of reference.
>
> 2 cars 50 m/s from left and right
> each against the other have closing speed 100 m/s.

This was given to seto. His answer was something like
"you are trying to trap me"
"Einstein invented closing velocity to save SR"
"that example dos not apply to light"
etc...



> light 300 000 000 m/s from left
> and other light 300 000 000 m/s from right
> have closing speed 600 000 000 m/s.

> While speed of light wrt frame is still 300 000 000 m/s.

correct, but not according to seto, <sigh>.

[rotchm]

On May 18, 3:18 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> Elmer Wright posted Sat, 18 May 2013 19:10:50 +0000 (UTC)
>

> > >> While speed of light wrt frame is still 300 000 000 m/s.
>
> > I disagree
>
> This is not enough.
> With what and why ?
>
> --
> Poutnik

Ignore him. He is just a troll that has no intention to discus
physics. He cant give apropriate answers so he just babbles like a
retard. He was actually even unable to solve sin(x) = 1/2, claiming
that it had no know solutions. We can humor him, but we cant expect
sensible answers from him, since he is mentally incapable in math and
physics and English.

[Elmer Wright]

rotchm wrote:

> Ignore him. He is just a troll that has no intention to discus physics.
> He cant give apropriate answers so he just babbles like a retard. He was

Idiot, I always give the exact answer. LOL

Listen to him, "apropriate" answer, what on Earth is an apropriate answer??

[kenseto]

On May 18, 10:09 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 9:57 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > The LT refute the claim of different closing speeds in the observed
> > frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of simultaneity..
>
> Hmmm, you are  using the expression 'closing speed'. Can you define
> that expression? What does it mean?

In Einstein's train gedanken he specified that M' has a closing speed
of c+v wrt the light front from the front and c-v wrt the light front
from the rear of the train. These different closing speeds are not
measureable by M'. M' measures the same closing speeds wrt all light
fronts from all directions. What this mean is that Einstein invented
non-existence different closing speeds in the train to get his concept
of RoS.
>
> > Here's how:
> > Consider a moving rod with a length of  D and an identical rod at rest
> > with the observer
>
> Dont you mean rods with proper length D?
>
> > The stationary observer will determine that the time for light to
> > traverse his rod is D/c.
> > The stationary observer uses the LT to predict that the time for light
> > to travel the length of the moving rod is: gamma*D/c
>
> ??? Why? The  LT are not needed since the analysis is done in the
> observer frame just a the usual  highschool (Galilean) kinematics. We
> are not transforming event from one frame to another. The LT's  are
> for jumping from one frame to another

Sigh the LT is the only valid tool to analyze the situation. Are you
saying that M's prediction of gamma*D/c is wrong?
>
> > This prediction is valid for all orientations of the moving rod. This
> > means that there is no difference in closing speeds in any directions
> > in the moving frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of
> > Simultaneity.
>
> ???

Why the question marks?.....M's prediction is valid for all
orientations of the moving rod and thus refutes the SR assertion that
there is different closing speeds in the train.

>
> what about this: Wr ground: You send light pulse to the right. Your
> friend overthere sends a pulse to the left towards you. Those two
> pulses are  approaching each other with speed 2c, RIGHT?  IOW  the
> distance between them is changing at  a rate of 2c RIGHT?

This is not measurable. M' measures the same closing speed for light
fronts from all directions....thus there is no c+v or c-v as claimed
by Einstein.

[kenseto]

On May 18, 3:04 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> Elmer Wright posted Sat, 18 May 2013 18:50:25 +0000 (UTC)

>
>
>
> > kenseto wrote:
>
> > > The stationary observer uses the LT to predict that the time for light

> > > to travel the length of the moving rod is: gamma*D/c This prediction is

> > > valid for all orientations of the moving rod. This means that there is
> > > no difference in closing speeds in any directions in the moving frame
> > > and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of Simultaneity.
>

> > Ahh yes? Where is the discrepancy? WHat is it I dont understand? What is a
> > "closing speed", a velocity?
>
> Closing speed is speed, same as closing velocity is velocity.

>
> Imagine a frame of reference.
>
> 2 cars 50 m/s from left and right
> each against the other have closing speed 100 m/s.

Yes this is measurable....the reason is that closing speed is a valid
concept between two objects. But different closing speed between light
front and any material object is not a valid concept. Why? because
light have the same closing speed wrt any object.

>
> 1 cars 50 m/s from left
> and light 300 000 000 m/s from right ( take it for now as c )
> have closing speed 300 000 100 m/s.

> While speed of light wrt frame is still 300 000 000 m/s.

Bogus assertion. Not measurable.

>
> light 300 000 000 m/s from left
> and other light 300 000 000 m/s from right
> have closing speed 600 000 000 m/s.

> While speed of light wrt frame is still 300 000 000 m/s.
>

> --
> Poutnik

[kenseto]

On May 18, 3:14 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/18/2013 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > The LT refute the claim of different closing speeds in the observed

> > frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of simultaneity..
>
> be careful seto. are you trying to make statements about what irt says
> or statements about what special relativity says? because sr does _not_
> say what you say it says.

I assume that the LT is what SR says. M uses the LT to predicts that a
time of gamma*D/c for light to traverse the moving rod and this
prediction is valid for any orientation of the moving rod. So what is
your objection to this LT prediction?

>
> you've been warned not to make incorrect claims about what sr says. you
> also admitted that you don't give a flying squirrel's left testicle what
> sr says.
>
> so stop making wrong claims about what sr says.

>
>
>
> > Here's how:
> > Consider a moving rod with a length of  D and an identical rod at rest
> > with the observer

> > The stationary observer will determine that the time for light to
> > traverse his rod is D/c.

> > The stationary observer uses the LT to predict that the time for light
> > to travel the length of the moving rod is: gamma*D/c
> > This prediction is valid for all orientations of the moving rod. This
> > means that there is no difference in closing speeds in any directions
> > in the moving frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of

> > Simultaneity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[kenseto]

On May 18, 2:50 pm, Elmer Wright <elme...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> kenseto wrote:
> > The stationary observer uses the LT to predict that the time for light
> > to travel the length of the moving rod is: gamma*D/c This prediction is
> > valid for all orientations of the moving rod. This means that there is
> > no difference in closing speeds in any directions in the moving frame

> > and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of Simultaneity.
>
> Ahh yes? Where is the discrepancy? WHat is it I dont understand? What is a
> "closing speed", a velocity?

There is no different in closing speed between light fronts from
different directions and any observaer.

[Poutnik]

rotchm posted Sat, 18 May 2013 13:56:06 -0700 (PDT)

>
> On May 18, 3:04�pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Closing speed is speed,

By this I was pointing out speed is speed and velocity is velocity.

>
> "speed" usually refers to an object, a signal, a localized entity with
> speed v.
> "closing speed" usually refers to TWO entities, the rate of change of
> their separation.

This is what I says.
speed wrt frame
closing spwwd wrt to other object ( including light )


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Elmer Wright posted Sat, 18 May 2013 21:04:39 +0000 (UTC)

>
> rotchm wrote:
>
> > Ignore him. He is just a troll that has no intention to discus physics.
> > He cant give apropriate answers so he just babbles like a retard. He was
>
> Idiot, I always give the exact answer. LOL

Not even the greatest physicists dared to say
they always gave the exact answer... LOL.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

kenseto posted Sat, 18 May 2013 14:41:41 -0700 (PDT)

> >
> > Closing speed is speed, same as closing velocity is velocity.
> >
> > Imagine a frame of reference.
> >
> > 2 cars 50 m/s from left and right
> > each against the other have closing speed 100 m/s.
>

> But different closing speed between light front and any
> material object is not a valid concept. Why? because light have the
> same closing speed wrt any object.

IF and ONLY IF we evaluate this closing speed
in frame where the object is in the rest.


--
Poutnik

[rotchm]

On May 18, 5:28 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On May 18, 10:09 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hmmm, you are  using the expression 'closing speed'. Can you define
> > that expression? What does it mean?
>
> In Einstein's train gedanken he specified that M' has a closing speed
> of c+v wrt the light front from the front and c-v wrt the light front
> from the rear of the train.

No ken... I did not ask you what E did. I asked you, what is *your*
definition, or concept of, 'closing speed'.... I am asking this
because I am not sure that you are using the same definition that E or
I or we physicist are.

> > Dont you mean rods with proper length D?

You did not answer this...It is important.

> Sigh the LT is the only valid tool to analyze the situation.

No, it is not needed in our situation. The LT's are for transforming
events from one frame to another. In our setup we are discussing only
ONE frame; All the distances, times and speeds are wrt the ground
frame and I am asking to find other x,t,v etc in this frame: Only one
frame, NO LT's are needed.

> Are you
> saying that M's prediction of gamma*D/c is wrong?

If the proper length of the rod is D then its length as it moves with
speed v is D/g wrt the ground frame (if using SR, else its simply
still D) A pulse will take a time of (D/g)/(c-v) to catch up to the
front end of the rod (or D/(c-v) if you are not using SR)

> > > This prediction is valid for all orientations of the moving rod. This
> > > means that there is no difference in closing speeds in any directions
> > > in the moving frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of
> > > Simultaneity.
>
> > ???
>
> Why the question marks?....

Because I have no idea what you re talking about anymore.

> > what about this: Wr ground: You send light pulse to the right. Your
> > friend overthere sends a pulse to the left towards you. Those two
> > pulses are  approaching each other with speed 2c, RIGHT?  IOW  the
> > distance between them is changing at  a rate of 2c RIGHT?
>
> This is not measurable.

Yes it is !!! Two tranks are a proaching each other. we can easily
measure their closing speed.
Two pulses are aproching each other; we just a easily measure the
closing speed.

>M' measures the same closing speed for light

??? There is no M' in the problem !!! What are you talking about???

Scenario: One rod of proper length D. It moves wrt the ground (say,
observer M).
How much time (wrt M) does the pulse reach the end of the rod? That
is all what we are talking about.

[Elmer Wright]

rotchm wrote:

> am not sure that you are using the same definition that E or I or we
> physicist are.

"We"!?

rotchm, paparios and Poutnik: a fraud and insult directed decency. Which
one of you is more stupid? I always get it wrong.

[kenseto]

On May 18, 4:11 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> Klaus G nter posted Sat, 18 May 2013 19:59:15 +0000 (UTC)

Right different closing speeds is between two material objects. There
is no difference in clocing speed between a material object and light
and that's why the speed of light is isotropic wrt any observer.

[kenseto]

No the LT says that the time for light to cover a distance D in the
moving frame is the same in all directions.

[Poutnik]

kenseto posted Sat, 18 May 2013 15:37:05 -0700 (PDT)

Wrong.
There are same closing speeds between two material objects for v << c.

There are differences in closing speed between a material object and
light, as being frame dependent.

And it is not why the speed of light is isotropic wrt any observer,
but because of that.



--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

kenseto posted Sat, 18 May 2013 15:42:36 -0700 (PDT)

Exactly.
But follow the consequences.

Speed of light wrt frame does not change,
if object is moving in the frame.

--
Poutnik

[paparios]

That is for sure: you always get it wrong as you are a proven incompetent idiot, posting from a lousy site and changing names to evade the Police. Besides that you are, by your own confession, a CRT TV set learn by book repairman.

[xxein]

On May 18, 9:57 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> The LT refute the claim of different closing speeds in the observed

> frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of simultaneity..

> Here's how:
> Consider a moving rod with a length of  D and an identical rod at rest
> with the observer
> The stationary observer will determine that the time for light to
> traverse his rod is D/c.

> The stationary observer uses the LT to predict that the time for light
> to travel the length of the moving rod is: gamma*D/c

> This prediction is valid for all orientations of the moving rod. This
> means that there is no difference in closing speeds in any directions
> in the moving frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of
> Simultaneity.

xxein: Apparently, as time passes, you get stupider and stupider.
You got a theory on that?

[Elmer Wright]

paparios wrote:

>> rotchm, paparios and Poutnik: a fraud and insult directed decency.
>> Which
>>
>> one of you is more stupid? I always get it wrong.
>
> That is for sure: you always get it wrong as you are a proven
> incompetent idiot, posting from a lousy site and changing names to evade
> the Police. Besides that you are, by your own confession, a CRT TV set
> learn by book repairman.

In your, now legendary proven with facts, stupidity, you confuse people
with some other people.

Even a decent shoemaker knows more Physics than you do. You seems mental
retarded. I tell this for your benefit of course. Do something!

[Elmer Wright]

Poutnik wrote:

>> Idiot, I always give the exact answer. LOL
>
> Not even the greatest physicists dared to say they always gave the exact
> answer... LOL.

See, this because you are an idiot, never done Physics for real. In Math
Modelling one ALWAYS needs to evaluate the exact solution.

[Poutnik]

Elmer Wright posted Sun, 19 May 2013 06:37:02 +0000 (UTC)

I will wait until you understand what I have meant by previous post.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Klaus G�nter posted Sat, 18 May 2013 19:59:15 +0000 (UTC)

>
> Poutnik wrote:
>
> > Closing speed 600 / 1e-6 = 600 000 000 m/s
> >
> > Any questions ?
>
> A Nobel Prize is waiting for you being able to measure that speed in a
> real experiment.
>
> In any case, you just got yourself a nomination 2013

Anobody able to measure light speed can measure
light is coming
3e8 m/s from one side,
3e8 m/s from the other side,

and they approaching each other 6e8 m/s.

As closing speed, in opposite to relative frame speed,
is not speed of any mass object nor light.

It is speed of approaching of 2 points.

Unless you say light starts to travle slower,
if you start shining in the oposite direction.

--
Poutnik

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Do you realise you're always talking to the same person?
Klaus Gunther = Elmer Wright = Wafe Jenkins = Leslie Burns =
Wayne Callahan = Ryan Scott = JImmy Kensler = Steve Watson =
Pete Weber = Tyler Dresden = etc...

Do you also realise he's just pretending to be an idiot?

Dirk Vdm

[Poutnik]

Dirk Van de moortel posted Sun, 19 May 2013 11:17:49 +0200

>
> Do you realise you're always talking to the same person?
> Klaus Gunther = Elmer Wright = Wafe Jenkins = Leslie Burns =
> Wayne Callahan = Ryan Scott = JImmy Kensler = Steve Watson =
> Pete Weber = Tyler Dresden = etc...

With Wafe I do not talk for long time
and the other nicks I do not even know.

I usually do not bother to analyze msg headers,
one can notice the similarities on the style.

>
> Do you also realise he's just pretending to be an idiot?
>

Yes, I do.
Idiots are not able to communicate on Usenet.


--
Poutnik

[Elmer Wright]

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Do you realise you're always talking to the same person?
> Klaus Gunther = Elmer Wright = Wafe Jenkins = Leslie Burns = Wayne

The next will be to tell the Moon Landing really happened.

[kenseto]

But no difference closing speed between a material object and light
ever been observed. In Einstein's train gedanken the track observer
makes a bogus assertion the the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts from the ends of the train.....such assertion is not in
agreement with the LT which predicts that the train observer have no
difference in closing speed wrt the light fronts from the ends of the
train.

>
> And it is not why the speed of light is isotropic wrt any observer,
> but because of that.
>

No this is a bogus assertion. You cannot have isotropy and at the same
time have anisotropy. Different closing speeds for an observer is
invented by Einstein to get the bogus concept of RoS.

[kenseto]

The consequence is that there is no difference in closing speed.

>
> Speed of light wrt frame does not change,
> if object is moving in the frame.

??????

[kenseto]

Idiot.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/18/13 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
> The LT refute the claim of different closing speeds in the observed
> frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of simultaneity..
> Here's how:
> Consider a moving rod with a length of D and an identical rod at rest
> with the observer
> The stationary observer will determine that the time for light to
> traverse his rod is D/c.
> The stationary observer uses the LT to predict that the time for light
> to travel the length of the moving rod is: gamma*D/c
> This prediction is valid for all orientations of the moving rod. This
> means that there is no difference in closing speeds in any directions
> in the moving frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of
> Simultaneity.
>

Ken, all your muddled misconceptions have not changed over the
decades. As other posters point out your flaws in thinking, you will
digress to calling everyone an "idiot".

There is empirically nothing wrong with special relativity. It remains
one of the most fruitful tools of physics ever derived.

[rotchm]

On May 19, 8:23 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On May 18, 6:46 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> But no difference closing speed between a material object and light
> ever been observed.

Ken, you still havent answered my question: What is YOUR definition
of, concept of, "closing speed"?
***define it*** so that we my understand what you are talking about.

[rotchm]

> The consequence is that there is no difference in closing speed.

ken, are you that afraid to answer "what is your definition of
closing speed" ??

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

this is teh whole paradigm, and one can easily see the causitive
(physical)
processes, if one does not ass-ume that space is "zero-point vacuum."

the index of refraction is always somewhat greater than "one,"
because "space hath atoms."

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/18/2013 4:50 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On May 18, 3:14 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>> On 5/18/2013 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> The LT refute the claim of different closing speeds in the observed
>>> frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of simultaneity..
>>

>> be careful seto. are you trying to make statements about what irt says
>> or statements about what special relativity says? because sr does _not_
>> say what you say it says.
>
> I assume that the LT is what SR says.

not if you use the lorentz transform incorrectly. idiot.

> M uses the LT to predicts that a
> time of gamma*D/c for light to traverse the moving rod and this
> prediction is valid for any orientation of the moving rod. So what is
> your objection to this LT prediction?

no sir, that is not what sr says. all you are doing is using the lorentz
transform incorrectly.

you have absolutely no idea what you're doing.

>
>>
>> you've been warned not to make incorrect claims about what sr says. you
>> also admitted that you don't give a flying squirrel's left testicle what
>> sr says.
>>
>> so stop making wrong claims about what sr says.

>>
>>
>>
>>> Here's how:
>>> Consider a moving rod with a length of D and an identical rod at rest
>>> with the observer
>>> The stationary observer will determine that the time for light to
>>> traverse his rod is D/c.
>>> The stationary observer uses the LT to predict that the time for light
>>> to travel the length of the moving rod is: gamma*D/c
>>> This prediction is valid for all orientations of the moving rod. This
>>> means that there is no difference in closing speeds in any directions
>>> in the moving frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of

>>> Simultaneity.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

[Absolutely Vertical]

he doesn't know how to do that.

you can't even ask him to define acceleration. he doesn't know how to do
that either.

you can't even ask him to define reference frame. he doesn't know how to
do that either.

[kenseto]

No I am not afraid.....closing speed between light and any observer is
a term invented by you SRians (and Einstein?). Therefore it is up to
you SRians to give it a definition. As far as I am concerned there is
no difference in closing speed between light fronts from different
directions and any observer. Einstein claimed that the train observer
have closing speeds of c+v and c-v wrt the light fronts from the ends
of the train. I need you to explain who determine these different
closing speeds. If the track observer makes these determinations then
how does he explains that when he uses the LT he gets the result that
there is no difference in closing speed for the train observer.

[kenseto]

On May 19, 5:53 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On 5/18/2013 4:50 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 3:14 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/18/2013 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>> The LT refute the claim of different closing speeds in the observed
> >>> frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of simultaneity..
>
> >> be careful seto. are you trying to make statements about what irt says
> >> or statements about what special relativity says? because sr does _not_
> >> say what you say it says.
>
> > I assume that the LT is what SR says.
>
> not if you use the lorentz transform incorrectly. idiot.
>
>  > M uses the LT to predicts that a
>
> > time of gamma*D/c for light to traverse the moving rod and  this
> > prediction is valid for any orientation of the moving rod. So what is
> > your objection to this LT prediction?
>
> no sir, that is not what sr says. all you are doing is using the lorentz
> transform incorrectly.

Idiot.

>
> you have absolutely no idea what you're doing.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> you've been warned not to make incorrect claims about what sr says. you
> >> also admitted that you don't give a flying squirrel's left testicle what
> >> sr says.
>
> >> so stop making wrong claims about what sr says.
>
> >>> Here's how:
> >>> Consider a moving rod with a length of  D and an identical rod at rest
> >>> with the observer
> >>> The stationary observer will determine that the time for light to
> >>> traverse his rod is D/c.
> >>> The stationary observer uses the LT to predict that the time for light
> >>> to travel the length of the moving rod is: gamma*D/c
> >>> This prediction is valid for all orientations of the moving rod. This
> >>> means that there is no difference in closing speeds in any directions
> >>> in the moving frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of
> >>> Simultaneity.- Hide quoted text -
>

> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[kenseto]

Closing speed between light and any observer is a term invented by you

SRians (and Einstein?). Therefore it is up to you SRians to give it a
definition. As far as I am concerned there is no difference in closing
speed between light fronts from different directions and any observer.

Einstein claimed that the train observer have different closing speeds

of c+v and c-v wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. I need

you to explain who determine these different closing speeds and how it
is measured. If the track observer makes these determinations then how
does he explains that when he uses the LT he gets the results that
there is no difference in closing speeds for the train observer.

[Poutnik]

kenseto posted Sun, 19 May 2013 05:23:20 -0700 (PDT)

> > Wrong.
> > There are same closing speeds between two material objects for v << c.
> >
> > There are differences in closing speed between a material object and
> > light, as being frame dependent.
>
> But no difference closing speed between a material object and light
> ever been observed.

Interesting. As it is observed routinely.
Even I can observe it.

>
> No this is a bogus assertion. You cannot have isotropy and at the same
> time have anisotropy. Different closing speeds for an observer is
> invented by Einstein to get the bogus concept of RoS.

It is much older than Einstein.

--
Poutnik

[rotchm]

On May 19, 6:16 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On May 19, 11:06 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Ken, you still havent answered my question: What is YOUR definition
> > of, concept of, "closing speed"?
> > ***define it*** so that we my understand what you are talking about.
>
> Closing speed between light and any observer is a term invented by you
> SRians (and Einstein?).

"closing speed" does not require light; you can have a closing speed
between two cars.

> Therefore it is up to you SRians to give it a definition.

NO, YOU used that expression so it is up to YOU to define it.
*I* have defined to you "closing speed" as I understand it. Now you do
the same; what does it mean to you?

More, "closing speed" existed well before Einstein. Even Newton,
Galileo and much prior scientist were using 'closing speed".

> As far as I am concerned there is no difference in closing
> speed between light fronts from different directions and any observer.

Scientists have "closing speed" and "speed". Both notions are defined
differently; they are NOT the same thing by definition. What is then
YOUR definition of "closing speed"? I gave you my definition, now be
honest and give yours.

> Einstein claimed that the train observer have different closing speeds
> of c+v and c-v wrt

Forget what E did. Our current discussion is about the definition of
closing speed. Once we understand what that means, then we can start
using it to analyze situations.

> I need
> you to explain who determine these different closing speeds and how it
> is measured.

Ok, I will tell you as soon as you give me YOUR definition of closing
speed, since I am not sure what YOU mean by it.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/19/2013 5:10 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On May 19, 11:08 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The consequence is that there is no difference in closing speed.
>>
>> ken, are you that afraid to answer "what is your definition of
>> closing speed" ??
>
> No I am not afraid.....closing speed between light and any observer is
> a term invented by you SRians (and Einstein?).

bzzzzzt. wrong.

> Therefore it is up to
> you SRians to give it a definition.

aha. so you do not know how to define closing speed. and yet you try to
talk about it as though you do, you miserable fucking lying faker.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/19/2013 5:12 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On May 19, 5:53 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2013 4:50 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> On May 18, 3:14 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/2013 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>>>> The LT refute the claim of different closing speeds in the observed
>>>>> frame and thus refutes the SR claim of Relativity of simultaneity..
>>
>>>> be careful seto. are you trying to make statements about what irt says
>>>> or statements about what special relativity says? because sr does _not_
>>>> say what you say it says.
>>
>>> I assume that the LT is what SR says.
>>
>> not if you use the lorentz transform incorrectly. idiot.
>>
>> > M uses the LT to predicts that a
>>
>>> time of gamma*D/c for light to traverse the moving rod and this
>>> prediction is valid for any orientation of the moving rod. So what is
>>> your objection to this LT prediction?
>>
>> no sir, that is not what sr says. all you are doing is using the lorentz
>> transform incorrectly.
>
> Idiot.

nice knee jerk response. you still don't know how to use the lorentz
transform. at all.

[rotchm]

On May 19, 6:12 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On May 19, 5:53 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>

> > no sir, that is not what sr says. all you are doing is using the lorentz
> > transform incorrectly.
>
> Idiot.

No ken, he is right... You are using the LT's incorrectly.

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>On May 18, 8:38=A0pm, xxein <xxe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> xxein: Apparently, as time passes, you get stupider and stupider.
>> You got a theory on that?

>Idiot.

Is that your theory? Your posts get stupider and stupider until you reach
the level of idiot? Is that using the old definition of "idiot", a
mentally disabled person with a mental age of less than 3 years old, or
an IQ of less than 30?

[kenseto]

No I didn't.

[kenseto]

On May 19, 6:38 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > there is no difference in closing speed for the train observer.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Idiot.

[rotchm]

On May 19, 8:52 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:

> No I didn't.

Then I still await YOUR definition of 'closing speed' to see if its
the same as ours.

[kenseto]

On May 19, 6:27 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 6:16 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 11:06 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ken, you still havent answered my question: What is YOUR definition
> > > of, concept of, "closing speed"?
> > > ***define it*** so that we my understand what you are talking about.
>
> > Closing speed between light and any observer is a term invented by you
> > SRians (and Einstein?).
>
> "closing speed" does not require light; you can have a closing speed
> between two cars.

But we are talking about closing speeds between light and the train
observer. According to Einstein M' have different closing speeds of c

+v and c-v wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train.
>

> > Therefore it is up to you SRians to give it a definition.
>
> NO, YOU used that expression so it is up to YOU to define it.
> *I* have defined to you "closing speed" as I understand it. Now you do
> the same; what does it  mean to you?

No you didn't do anyhting of the sort. Tell me how you explain closing
speeds according to Einstein's train gedanken

>
> More, "closing speed" existed well before Einstein. Even Newton,
> Galileo and much prior scientist were using 'closing speed".
>

Not wrt light.

> > As far as I am concerned there is no difference in closing
> > speed between light fronts from different directions and any observer.
>
> Scientists have "closing speed"  and "speed". Both notions are defined
> differently; they are NOT the same thing  by definition. What is then
> YOUR definition of "closing speed"? I gave  you my definition, now be
> honest and give yours.

No you didn't give me your understanding....you merely asserted that
closing speed and speed are different.
My understanding of closing speeds is as defined in Einstein's
gedanken. He said that M' is moving wrt the light fronts from the ends
of the train at c+v and c-v. Such speeds never been observed or
measurable by M' the train observer.

>
> > Einstein claimed that the train observer have different closing speeds
> > of c+v and c-v wrt
>
> Forget what  E did.

No I am not going to forget what E said.

>Our current discussion is about the definition of
> closing speed. Once we understand what that means, then we can start
> using it to analyze situations.

So what is your definition of closing speed between light and any
observer?????

>
> > I need
> > you to explain who determine these different closing speeds and how it
> > is measured.
>
> Ok, I will tell you as soon as you give me YOUR definition of closing
> speed, since I am not sure what YOU mean by it.

Delay tactic....eh?

[kenseto]

On May 19, 6:16 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> kenseto posted Sun, 19 May 2013 05:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > > Wrong.
> > > There are same closing speeds between two material objects for v << c.
>
> > > There are differences in closing speed between a material object and
> > > light, as being frame dependent.
>
> > But no difference closing speed between a material object and light
> > ever been observed.
>
> Interesting. As it is observed routinely.
> Even I can observe it.

So what is the closing speed of light from you left side and from your
right side?????

>
>
>
> > No this is a bogus assertion. You cannot have isotropy and at the same
> > time have anisotropy. Different closing speeds for an observer is
> > invented by Einstein to get the bogus concept of RoS.
>
> It is much older than Einstein.
>

No.

[rotchm]

On May 19, 9:12 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On May 19, 6:27 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > "closing speed" does not require light; you can have a closing speed
> > between two cars.
>
> But we are talking about closing speeds between light and the train
> observer.

yes, but your comprehension of 'closing speed' is flawed. That is why
we need to first agree on the meaning of 'closing speed'.

> According to Einstein

Forget E. you are still stuck at the level to comprehend the concept
of 'closing speed'. Once you understand that we can proceed.

> > NO, YOU used that expression so it is up to YOU to define it.
> > *I* have defined to you "closing speed" as I understand it. Now you do
> > the same; what does it  mean to you?
>
> No you didn't do anyhting of the sort.

Yes I did define it to you and gave you numerous examples.

> > More, "closing speed" existed well before Einstein. Even Newton,
> > Galileo and much prior scientist were using 'closing speed".
>
> Not wrt light.

Closing speed is not restricted to light.

> > I gave  you my definition, now be honest and give yours.
>
> No you didn't give me your understanding....

Yes I did.

> you merely asserted that closing speed and speed are different.

I did more than that. I gave you the definitions and the definitions
differ.

> My understanding of closing speeds is as defined in Einstein's
> gedanken.

He did not define closing speed in his works. He simply used closing
speeds w/o detailing it since they are so obvious. for those people as
you who did not get that, then they/you must go back a step and
familiarize yourself with its definition.

> He said that M' is moving wrt the light fronts from the ends
> of the train at c+v and c-v.

Dont take what he said. Take what he meant.

> Such speeds never been observed or measurable by M' the train observer.

Exactly because 'closing speed' belonged to M, NOT M'.

> >Our current discussion is about the definition of
> > closing speed. Once we understand what that means, then we can start
> > using it to analyze situations.
>
> So what is your definition of closing speed between light and any
> observer?????

<sigh> Again I will define it to you, in one short sentence:

** Closing speed is the rate of change of the distance between two
systems**

Note_1: TWO systems as in objects, signals, pulses... are needed to
evaluate a closing speed.
Note_2: This is wrt a given reference frame, usually implicit.
Note_3: Mathematically, its [x2(t) - x1(t)]' = x2'(t) - x1'(t) = v2 -
v1.
Note_4: From note_3, it is the subtraction of the speeds of the TWO
systems.

Example_1: TWO trains are approaching each other, one with speed 30
km/h and the other 40 km/h.
The closing speed (wrt ground) is 30 - (-40) = 70 km/h.

Example_2: TWO cars, one following the other, each traveling with
speed 10 m/s.
The closing speed is 10 - 10 = 0 m/s.

Example_3: WRT to you, a dog is running away with speed 8 km/h. The
closing speed between the TWO (you and the dog) is 8 - 0 = 8 km/h.

Example_4: A train is traveling to the right with speed v and a light
pulse with speed c. The closing speed between the TWO (train and
pulse) is [...what goes here ken?...] .

Do you now understand what closing speed is and where E got his
results?

[kenseto]

I don't have a definition for closing speed between light and any
observer. Now what is your definition for closing speed between light
and any observer?

[rotchm]

On May 19, 9:15 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:

> So what is the closing speed of light from you left side and from your
> right side?????

Say the light pulses are approaching you. The frame of reference will
be you and your associated iframe.
The closing speed between the TWO pulses is the speed of one minus
the speed of the other, by definition. Hence its c - (-c) = 2c. If
the TWO pulses were traveling in the same direction then the closing
speed would be c - (c) = 0. This latter result means that the
distance between the TWO pulses is not changing. (remember the
definition of closing speed).

ken this stuff is taught in highschool physics courses!!

> > It is much older than Einstein.
>
> No.

Yes. Newton used closing speeds, Galileo used it and many prior...far
prior...

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/19/13 8:44 PM, kenseto wrote:
> I don't have a definition for closing speed between light and any
> observer.

Get rid of the term, "closing speed", Seto, as it has no place in
discussions about relativity theory.

[rotchm]

On May 19, 9:44 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:

> I don't have a definition for closing speed between light and any
> observer.

Then DONT USE IT. Dont use things that you do not know how to operate.
Dont use the expression 'closing speed' if you do not know what it
means.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/19/2013 7:53 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On May 19, 6:38 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 5/19/2013 5:10 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> On May 19, 11:08 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The consequence is that there is no difference in closing speed.
>>
>>>> ken, are you that afraid to answer "what is your definition of
>>>> closing speed" ??
>>
>>> No I am not afraid.....closing speed between light and any observer is
>>> a term invented by you SRians (and Einstein?).
>>
>> bzzzzzt. wrong.
>>
>>> Therefore it is up to
>>> you SRians to give it a definition.
>>
>> aha. so you do not know how to define closing speed. and yet you try to
>> talk about it as though you do, you miserable fucking lying faker.
>>
>

> Idiot.
>

yes, you are an idiot. and a miserable fucking lying faker. and you
_know_ you are.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/19/2013 8:44 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On May 19, 8:58 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 19, 8:52 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No I didn't.
>>
>> Then I still await YOUR definition of 'closing speed' to see if its
>> the same as ours.
>
> I don't have a definition for closing speed between light and any
> observer.

well, there you go. at last you admit that you don't know what closing
speed means.

after denying that for ... what ... weeks?

you fucking miserable lying faker.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/19/2013 8:49 PM, rotchm wrote:
> ken this stuff is taught in highschool physics courses!!

that's just it. ken can't do any of the homework from a high school
physics textbook. pointing out that he doesn't know what high school
kids know is just pointing out the obvious.

[Absolutely Vertical]

kenseto would rather pretend and be a miserable faker about physics than
to stay out of it. if you take away pretending about physics, he'll have
to face the reality of his life, and that's intolerable to him.

[Poutnik]

kenseto posted Sun, 19 May 2013 18:15:01 -0700 (PDT)

>
> On May 19, 6:16�pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > kenseto posted Sun, 19 May 2013 05:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > > > Wrong.
> > > > There are same closing speeds between two material objects for v << c.
> >
> > > > There are differences in closing speed between a material object and
> > > > light, as being frame dependent.
> >
> > > But no difference closing speed between a material object and light
> > > ever been observed.
> >
> > Interesting. As it is observed routinely.
> > Even I can observe it.
>
> So what is the closing speed of light from you left side and from your
> right side?????

2c, as 1 microsecond before they meet are 600 apart.
Easy, is not it ?
Speed of light wrt the frame does not change,
if there is another light coming from other direction.

> >
> >
> >
> > > No this is a bogus assertion. You cannot have isotropy and at the same
> > > time have anisotropy. Different closing speeds for an observer is
> > > invented by Einstein to get the bogus concept of RoS.
> >
> > It is much older than Einstein.
> >
> No.

Sure it is.
Even cavemen could observe closing speed of fighting animals.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

kenseto posted Sun, 19 May 2013 18:44:43 -0700 (PDT)

> I don't have a definition for closing speed between light and any
> observer. Now what is your definition for closing speed between light
> and any observer?

Speed as a quantity is the norm of velocity vector.

In case of speed of an object,
Velocity vector is time derivative of object position vector.

In case of closing speed of 2 objects,
Velocity vector is time derivative
of the vector of mutual relative position of these objects.

Such an object can be as well
a single photon or light wavefront of propagating light.

Closing speed is not limited by c barrier,
as closing speed is not speed of the object.

c barrier applies only to propagation of mass, energy and information.


--
Poutnik

[kenseto]

On May 20, 4:50 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> kenseto posted Sun, 19 May 2013 18:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 6:16 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > > kenseto posted Sun, 19 May 2013 05:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > There are same closing speeds between two material objects for v << c.
>
> > > > > There are differences in closing speed between a material object and
> > > > > light, as being frame dependent.
>
> > > > But no difference closing speed between a material object and light
> > > > ever been observed.
>
> > > Interesting. As it is observed routinely.
> > > Even I can observe it.
>
> > So what is the closing speed of light from you left side and from your
> > right side?????
>
> 2c, as 1 microsecond before they meet are 600 apart.
> Easy, is not it ?
> Speed of light wrt the frame does not change,
> if there is another light coming from other direction.

Sigh....I didn't ask you what is the closing speed of light wrt light.
I asked you to tell me what is the closing speed of light wrt you.

>
>
>
> > > > No this is a bogus assertion. You cannot have isotropy and at the same
> > > > time have anisotropy. Different closing speeds for an observer is
> > > > invented by Einstein to get the bogus concept of RoS.
>
> > > It is much older than Einstein.
>
> > No.
>
> Sure it is.
> Even cavemen could observe closing speed of fighting animals.
>
> --

> Poutnik- Hide quoted text -

[kenseto]

On May 19, 9:49 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 9:15 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > So what is the closing speed of light from you left side and from your
> > right side?????
>
> Say the light pulses are approaching you.

So what is that closing speed wrt you.

The frame of reference will
> be you and your associated iframe.
> The closing speed between  the TWO pulses

Sigh....I asked you to give me the closing speed of light wrt you. Not
the closing speed between two light fronts. Einstein said that M' have
a closing speed of c+v wrt the light front from the front of the train
and c-v from the rear of the train. Do you agree with that?

>is the speed of one minus
> the speed of the other, by definition.  Hence its c - (-c) = 2c. If
> the TWO pulses were traveling in the same direction then the closing
> speed would be c - (c)  = 0. This latter result means that the
> distance between the TWO pulses is not changing. (remember the
> definition of closing speed).
>
> ken this stuff is taught in highschool physics courses!!
>
> > > It is much older than Einstein.
>
> > No.
>
> Yes. Newton used closing speeds, Galileo used it and many prior...far
> prior...

No they think the speed of light is instanteous.

[kenseto]

Einstein used closinng speeds between M' and the light fronts from the
ends of the train in his train gedanken. I reject his definition.
There is no difference in closing speed between M' and light fronts
from any directions.

[kenseto]

So get rid of the closing speed in Einstein's train gedanken? Then Get
rid of RoS???

[Poutnik]

kenseto posted Mon, 20 May 2013 04:53:35 -0700 (PDT)

> >
> > 2c, as 1 microsecond before they meet are 600 apart.
> > Easy, is not it ?
> > Speed of light wrt the frame does not change,
> > if there is another light coming from other direction.
>
> Sigh....I didn't ask you what is the closing speed of light wrt light.
> I asked you to tell me what is the closing speed of light wrt you.

It depends on frame, where it is evaluated.
As vacuum light speed is c wrt every frame,
but my speed is frame dependent.

So our closing speed is
norm of ( light_velocity - my_velocity)

If I am in the rest in evaluated frame,
the light speed and closing light speed wrt me
are numerically the same,
as vector of my velocity
is null vector {0,0,0}

--
Poutnik

[kenseto]

On May 20, 12:12 am, Absolutely Vertical

<absolutelyverti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/2013 8:44 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 8:58 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 19, 8:52 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>> No I didn't.
>
> >> Then I still await YOUR definition of 'closing speed' to see if  its
> >> the same as ours.
>
> > I don't have a definition for closing speed between light and any
> > observer.
>
> well, there you go. at last you admit that you don't know what closing
> speed means.

Hey moron I reject Einstein's definition of closing speeds in his
train gedanken. He said that the train observer M' moving c+v and c-v
wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. You are so fucking
stupid.

>
> after denying that for ... what ... weeks?
>
> you fucking miserable lying faker.
>
>
>
> > Now what is your definition for closing speed between light

> > and any observer?- Hide quoted text -

[kenseto]

Word salad.

[kenseto]

On May 19, 9:49 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 19, 9:15 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > So what is the closing speed of light from you left side and from your
> > right side?????
>
> Say the light pulses are approaching you. The frame of reference will
> be you and your associated iframe.
> The closing speed between  the TWO pulses is the speed of one minus
> the speed of the other, by definition.  Hence its c - (-c) = 2c. If
> the TWO pulses were traveling in the same direction then the closing
> speed would be c - (c)  = 0. This latter result means that the
> distance between the TWO pulses is not changing. (remember the
> definition of closing speed).

Sigh....I asked you the closing speed of light wrt you. According to
Einstein M' have clocsing speed of c+v and c-v wrt the light fronts
from the ends of the train....do you agree with that?

[kenseto]

On May 20, 12:14 am, Absolutely Vertical

PD is a Moron.

[kenseto]

On May 20, 4:50 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> kenseto posted Sun, 19 May 2013 18:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 6:16 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > > kenseto posted Sun, 19 May 2013 05:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > There are same closing speeds between two material objects for v << c.
>
> > > > > There are differences in closing speed between a material object and
> > > > > light, as being frame dependent.
>
> > > > But no difference closing speed between a material object and light
> > > > ever been observed.
>
> > > Interesting. As it is observed routinely.
> > > Even I can observe it.
>
> > So what is the closing speed of light from you left side and from your
> > right side?????
>
> 2c, as 1 microsecond before they meet are 600 apart.
> Easy, is not it ?
> Speed of light wrt the frame does not change,
> if there is another light coming from other direction.

So what is the closing speed between M' and the light fronts coming
from the ends of the train?

>
>
>
> > > > No this is a bogus assertion. You cannot have isotropy and at the same
> > > > time have anisotropy. Different closing speeds for an observer is
> > > > invented by Einstein to get the bogus concept of RoS.
>
> > > It is much older than Einstein.
>
> > No.
>
> Sure it is.
> Even cavemen could observe closing speed of fighting animals.
>
> --

> Poutnik- Hide quoted text -