Does the point of emission remain at a constant distance from the observer?

[train]

The train thought experiment is well known. Lightning strikes the
tracks. The observer on the platform sees the flashes simultaneously.
The person on the train does not.

Presumably the source of the emission of light are the two strikes of
lightning themselves , situated at a equal distances from the platform
observer.

My question is this: the distances to the source of the ligthning
strikes does not change for the platform observer.

Does it change for the observer on the train?

The speed of light is independent of the source, so it is said. But
the source must have a beginning: that is, work backwards from point
where the observer on the train sees the light, to a point, between
him and infinity, where the light originated from. What is this point
and where is it?


Train
X--------------------------------|||||||----------------------------------
X

Tracks X_________________________________________X


Train
X-----------------------------------|||||||----------------------------------
X

Tracks X_________________________________________X


The diagrams depict what each observer sees in their own FoR only, and
is not meant as a description of how the platform observer sees the
train observer's events.

X is the point in each FoR where the light first appears. Is the above
the correct description of the situation?

[train]

I think this could be simplified as: Does the observer on the train
see a red shifted or blue shifted light due to the Doppler effect?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8bc7ca0c-dfd3-49d9...@a15g2000pbu.googlegroups.com...

=========================================

You’ve been spewing this crap for a year now, isn’t it

time you made some progress and stopped asking if you

have it right yet?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

 

 

[xxein]

xxein: Yes, for each case.

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/11/13 5/11/13 12:30 PM, train wrote:
> My question is this: the distances to the source of the ligthning
> strikes does not change for the platform observer.
> Does it change for the observer on the train?

> [...]

"Change" does not apply, because each lightning strike happens once and only once.


Tom Roberts

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Where does it strike exactly relative to the observer on the train?

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Why should this be? If you take the observer and extend the ray of light backwards to its point of origin, this distance will be at distance ct from the observer. Since the train is moving towards the point of the origin of the light, this distance may be thought to decrease with time.

Well, what if the train is standing still and the tracks are moving? Will it make a difference?

[kenseto]

On May 11, 1:31 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote:

> see a red shifted or blue shifted light due to the Doppler effect?-

No....the speed of light is isotropic in all frames. That means that
no doppler shift in the train. Also, that means that Einstein's
assertion that the train observer M' have different closing speed wrt
the light fronts from the ends of the train is wrong. Also that means
that the concept of relativty of simultaneity is wrong.

[kenseto]

> Where does it strike exactly relative to the observer on the train?-

The gedanken specified that the strikes happened at the ends of the
train.

[Alfonso]

Interesting question. If the lightening hits the train the light -
caused by part of the train vaporising - will have a light source moving
at the same speed as the train so no Doppler. OTOH if it hits the track
and vaporises then the train is moving away from one source and towards
the other so the light will be Doppler shifted towards red from the rear
of the train and towards blue from the front.
Vice-versa for the observer on the platform.
I don't actually see that that has a bearing on the question

Alfonso

[HG Wilson]

Of course it has.
If the light comes from the track, it moves at c+v in the train frame. The track observer receives the flashes simultaneously, the train observer does not.
If it comes from the ends of the train, it moves at c+v in the track frame and the opposite is true.
This is all so simple.

Einstein's train gedanken is a red herring. The real issue is about the synchronization of clocks.

> Alfonso

[HG Wilson]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 3:50:01 AM UTC+10, HG Wilson wrote:

I omitted the fact that the strikes occur ABSOLUTELY simultaneously.
Simultaneity does not depend on what human eyes perceive.

[Alfonso]

What Albert in effect said is that as the speed of light is c in the FoR
of the observer on the train and as the two strikes are equidistant with
the observer on the train then in that FoR the front strike must have
occurred first and rear strike second in order to explain why the light
from the front arrives before that from the rear.



"It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the
'economy' of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the
speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or
believe, with Einstein, that:

its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is
not a wave in a medium;

that nothing can go faster than light;

that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity;

that there exist no rigid bodies;

that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts;

that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not
exactly valid;

and so forth.

Ritz commented that �it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only
a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory
to show that it entails even one of these consequences�.�


It is a very silly idea but the real genius of Einstein was that he got
away with it.

Alfonso

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in message news:PL2dnR4oBI1ZcRLM...@bt.com...

On 12/05/13 18:57, HG Wilson wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 3:50:01 AM UTC+10, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> I omitted the fact that the strikes occur ABSOLUTELY simultaneously.
> Simultaneity does not depend on what human eyes perceive.
>

What Albert in effect said is that as the speed of light is c in the FoR
of the observer on the train and as the two strikes are equidistant with
the observer on the train then in that FoR the front strike must have
occurred first and rear strike second in order to explain why the light
from the front arrives before that from the rear.



"It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the
'economy' of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the
speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or
believe, with Einstein, that:

its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is
not a wave in a medium;

that nothing can go faster than light;

that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity;

that there exist no rigid bodies;

that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts;

that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not
exactly valid;

and so forth.

Ritz commented that “it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only

a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory

to show that it entails even one of these consequences….”

It is a very silly idea but the real genius of Einstein was that he got
away with it.

Alfonso

================================================

There are no rigid bodies.

If you imagine there are then give an example of one.

[Jeff Bennett]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> "Change" does not apply, because each lightning strike happens once and
> only once.

Each lightning is composed by other minor consecutive lightnings. This
can't be instantaneous.

[HG Wilson]

True but don't confuse Roberts with that kind of irrelevant revelation.
The plain fact is, the strikes hit the ground ABSOLUTELY SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Naturally the train observer received the flash from one before the other....but if he corrected for light's travel time, he too would have calculated that the strikes occurred absolutely simultaneously.

[HG Wilson]

He was an excellent salesman with an opportunistic support team...and the situation in Europe at the time undoubtedly helped. There was much discussion about the nature of light.

The major give-away for SR is that it provides no physical mechanism for the unification of light speed from differently moving sources...just a postulate. At least aether theory did just that by way of an absolute medium.
The other piece of nonsense is the claim that a vertical light beam becomes a diagonal one moving at c in a moving frame...Even Paul Andersen was forced to eventually admit the truth about that. ..and it is from that wrong conclusion that the 'gamma' term is directly derived.

Although many people intuitively sensed that SR had to be wrong, nobody has been able to prove the fact because the whole thing is mathematically quite consistent with the second postulate and the RoS. Faced with a problem, its supporter simply pull out the magic RoS and its transforms and, accompanied by masses of confusing logic, appear to demonstrate that SR must be right. All they have invariably shown is that SR is consistent with the second postulate. That proves nothing.

Einstein's theory can only be proved wrong by directly demonstrating that the second postulate is wrong. ...and so far, no known experiment has been sufficiently accurate to either convincingly support it or refute it.

That is why both Andro and I have decided to investigate what should happen to light from distant orbiting stars. ...and guess what?

The analysis overwhelmingly supports the notion of source dependency, at least for light moving through empty space.

[paparios]

Wrong Wilson...You do not understand Einstein gedanken. It does not matter if the strikes were simultaneous or not. The point is that if one of the observers receives the light (information) of the strikes at the same time, He will declare the strikes were simultaneous, while the inertial moving observer will receive the light of the strikes at different times, declaring the strikes were not simultaneous. No instruments nor observers are necessary at the strike locations (even if you may later go to those location and observe the marks left by the strikes). The point of the gedanken is then one of observation, proving logically and without any doubt the Relativity of Simultaneity.

[kenseto]

You are right......the track observer predicts that the train observer
will see the light fronts to be simultaneous but at different time as
follows:
The track observer sees the light fronts from the ends of the train to
be simultaneous at
Delta(L/c) where L is 1/2 the length of the train.
The track observer predicts that the train observer will see the light
fronts to be simultaneous at: gamma*Delta(L/c) on the track clock.
There is no difference in closing velocities between the train
observer and the light fronts from the ends of the train....iow there
is no c+v or c-v between the train observer and the light fronts from
the ends of the train as asserted by Einstein to get his bogus
cocncept of RoS.

[HG Wilson]

That is what I said.

The track observer receives them at the same time because he is midway between them, thus proving they struck absolutely simultaneously.

The train observer will not see them simultaneously because the flashes move at c+v and c-v in his frame.. ..but, knowing his relative movement, he can calculate that they would have reached the track observer simultaneously. Since he also knows that the track observer is located equidistant from the flash origins, he knows they struck the ground absolutely simultaneously.

[HG Wilson]

Relativists ignore the fact that there are likely to be FOUR flashes. Two moving at c wrt the ground and two moving at c wrt the train.

Both observers receive two of those simultaneously and two at different instants. Your bogus length and time transforms make no difference to that fact.

[paparios]

El lunes, 13 de mayo de 2013 20:49:49 UTC-4, HG Wilson escribió:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:43:54 PM UTC+10, paparios wrote:

>
> > Wrong Wilson...You do not understand Einstein gedanken. It does not matter if the strikes were simultaneous or not. The point is that if one of the observers receives the light (information) of the strikes at the same time, He will declare the strikes were simultaneous, while the inertial moving observer will receive the light of the strikes at different times, declaring the strikes were not simultaneous. No instruments nor observers are necessary at the strike locations (even if you may later go to those location and observe the marks left by the strikes). The point of the gedanken is then one of observation, proving logically and without any doubt the Relativity of Simultaneity.
>
>
>
> That is what I said.
>
>

Wrong Wilson, you continue to not understand the gedanken. That one observer (either the train or the track is the same case) detects two light signals to be simultaneous at his location, does not require that the light sources (the lightning strikes) to be also simultaneous. You see the point is precisely that, independently of the timing and or location of the sources, the observations will differ.

> The track observer receives them at the same time because he is midway between them, thus proving they struck absolutely simultaneously.
>
>

Irrelevant as per above.

>
> The train observer will not see them simultaneously because the flashes move at c+v and c-v in his frame.. ..but, knowing his relative movement, he can calculate that they would have reached the track observer simultaneously. Since he also knows that the track observer is located equidistant from the flash origins, he knows they struck the ground absolutely simultaneously.

Irrelevant as per above.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

It is an interesting question all right, and gets to the heart of the matter.
Why should the light hitting the train mean that the light travels at c relative to the train observer? Does the light get "en-trained" ?

There is a distinction between the point of emission and the source of emission: let me explain.

Each observer can be taken to be fixed to a grid. a sort of an infinite square mesh extending in every direction. This is their frame of reference. Coordinates can be marked on this frame of reference (2d for simplicity) - the position of the observer, the position of the train, the position of the lightning strikes, all can be marked on this grid.

There is a point where the light pulse starts off, it is not infinite in length. The light pulse ends at the observer and starts at the point on the grid where the light is emitted, however, since this is a fixed point in the grid, there is no movement of a fixed point on the grid wrt the observer attached to the grid.


Observer point of emission, source of emission

O XS


Observer point of emission, source of emission

O S X

The source moves but not the point of emission.

[John Gogo]

The measurement does not begin until we have a middle. Since our
senses are a game of averages- then I think we should try to thin them
out. A clock at A and a clock at B must be averaged out at C- the mid-
point. This is the way that we will only get anything done. We have
to be practical. There are more points than A,B, and C to make this
work. The point D is what is measured in reference to point A and
point B- synchronized by point C.

[John Gogo]

Point D is the event to be measured.

[John Gogo]

Point D may have a dynamic- in other words- if it cannot be measured
in a single snapshot- it may be possible to measure with a series of
snapshots.

[John Gogo]

We have two eyes which are separated by a distance and have a point C
which is the nose. Point A and point B- observe point D with
synchronicity of A and B.

[John Gogo]

Time all of sudden time becomes the ever important factor.

[John Gogo]

Up until just couple hundred ears ago - before the advent of Fizeau's
1849 toothed-wheel experiment- we had received light instruments in
one-way light fashion.

[John Gogo]

Wow, up until 1849- it was not possible to demonstrate with hometown
physicality that light travels at c- with reference to a distant
mirror and a rotating mirror. Sounds depressing.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

<gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f0192a0e-d4a0-49d4...@googlegroups.com...

===================

A man lobs a tennis ball extremely high, then jumps over the net into

the other court in time to return the ball. The tennis racket moves but

not at the point it struck the ball.

Racket   ball          net

R___B___________N

         

________________N______BR

 

For some reason that eludes me this is “interesting” and gets to the

heart of the matter, if I only knew what matter it got to the heart of.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

The point of the gedanken is then one of observation, proving logically and without any doubt the Relativity of Simultaneity.

Proving without doubt that if you are closer to one of the strikes, you will see it earlier.

What does this have to do with Relativity?

It is also easy to see if you are closer to one of the strikes, due to the intensity of the flash, heat radiated etc.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:26:11 AM UTC+5:30, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f0192a0e-d4a0-49d4...@googlegroups.com...On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:12:24 PM UTC+5:30, Alfonso wrote: > On 11/05/13 18:31, train wrote:> > > On May 11, 10:30 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> The train thought experiment is well known. Lightning strikes the > > >> tracks. The observer on the platform sees the flashes simultaneously. > > >> The person on the train does not.> > >>> > >> Presumably the source of the emission of light are the two strikes of > > >> lightning themselves , situated at a equal distances from the platform > > >> observer.> > >>> > >> My question is this: the distances to the source of the ligthning > > >> strikes does not change for the platform observer. > > >>> > >> Does it change for the observer on the train?> > >>> > >> The speed of light is independent of the source, so it is said. But > > >> the source must have a beginning: that is, work backwards from point > > >> where the observer on the train sees the light, to a point, between > > >> him and infinity, where the light originated from. What is this point > > >> and where is it?> > >>> > >> Train> > >> X--------------------------------|||||||---------------------------------- > > >> X> > >>> > >> Tracks X_________________________________________X > > >>> > >> Train> > >> X-----------------------------------|||||||-------------------------------- -- > > >> X> > >>> > >> Tracks X_________________________________________X > > >>> > >> The diagrams depict what each observer sees in their own FoR only, and > > >> is not meant as a description of how the platform observer sees the > > >> train observer's events.> > >> > > >> X is the point in each FoR where the light first appears. Is the above > > >> the correct description of the situation?> > >> > > I think this could be simplified as: Does the observer on the train > > > see a red shifted or blue shifted light due to the Doppler effect? > > >> > > > Interesting question. If the lightening hits the train the light - > > caused by part of the train vaporising - will have a light source moving > > at the same speed as the train so no Doppler. OTOH if it hits the track > > and vaporises then the train is moving away from one source and towards > > the other so the light will be Doppler shifted towards red from the rear > > of the train and towards blue from the front.> > Vice-versa for the observer on the platform.> > I don't actually see that that has a bearing on the question> > > > AlfonsoIt is an interesting question all right, and gets to the heart of the matter. Why should the light hitting the train mean that the light travels at c relative to the train observer? Does the light get "en-trained" ? There is a distinction between the point of emission and the source of emission: let me explain. Each observer can be taken to be fixed to a grid. a sort of an infinite square mesh extending in every direction. This is their frame of reference. Coordinates can be marked on this frame of reference (2d for simplicity) - the position of the observer, the position of the train, the position of the lightning strikes, all can be marked on this grid. There is a point where the light pulse starts off, it is not infinite in length. The light pulse ends at the observer and starts at the point on the grid where the light is emitted, however, since this is a fixed point in the grid, there is no movement of a fixed point on the grid wrt the observer attached to the grid. Observer                     point of emission, source of emission O                                 XS Observer                     point of emission, source of emission O                            S     X The source moves but not the point of emission.===================A man lobs a tennis ball extremely high, then jumps over the net into the other court in time to return the ball. The tennis racket moves butnot at the point it struck the ball. Racket   ball          netR___B___________N          ________________N______BR For some reason that eludes me this is “interesting” and gets to theheart of the matter, if I only knew what matter it got to the heart of. -- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway. When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

The heart of the matter is if does the point of light emission move relative to the observer or not?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

<gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d2a46436-1d69-4e6f...@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:26:11 AM UTC+5:30, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f0192a0e-d4a0-49d4...@googlegroups.com...On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:12:24 PM UTC+5:30, Alfonso wrote: > On 11/05/13 18:31, train wrote:> > > On May 11, 10:30 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> The train thought experiment is well known. Lightning strikes the > > >> tracks. The observer on the platform sees the flashes simultaneously. > > >> The person on the train does not.> > >>> > >> Presumably the source of the emission of light are the two strikes of > > >> lightning themselves , situated at a equal distances from the platform > > >> observer.> > >>> > >> My question is this: the distances to the source of the ligthning > > >> strikes does not change for the platform observer. > > >>> > >> Does it change for the observer on the train?> > >>> > >> The speed of light is independent of the source, so it is said. But > > >> the source must have a beginning: that is, work backwards from point > > >> where the observer on the train sees the light, to a point, between > > >> him and infinity, where the light originated from. What is this point > > >> and where is it?> > >>> > >> Train> > >> X--------------------------------|||||||---------------------------------- > > >> X> > >>> > >> Tracks X_________________________________________X > > >>> > >> Train> > >> X-----------------------------------|||||||-------------------------------- -- > > >> X> > >>> > >> Tracks X_________________________________________X > > >>> > >> The diagrams depict what each observer sees in their own FoR only, and > > >> is not meant as a description of how the platform observer sees the > > >> train observer's events.> > >> > > >> X is the point in each FoR where the light first appears. Is the above > > >> the correct description of the situation?> > >> > > I think this could be simplified as: Does the observer on the train > > > see a red shifted or blue shifted light due to the Doppler effect? > > >> > > > Interesting question. If the lightening hits the train the light - > > caused by part of the train vaporising - will have a light source moving > > at the same speed as the train so no Doppler. OTOH if it hits the track > > and vaporises then the train is moving away from one source and towards > > the other so the light will be Doppler shifted towards red from the rear > > of the train and towards blue from the front.> > Vice-versa for the observer on the platform.> > I don't actually see that that has a bearing on the question> > > > AlfonsoIt is an interesting question all right, and gets to the heart of the matter. Why should the light hitting the train mean that the light travels at c relative to the train observer? Does the light get "en-trained" ? There is a distinction between the point of emission and the source of emission: let me explain. Each observer can be taken to be fixed to a grid. a sort of an infinite square mesh extending in every direction. This is their frame of reference. Coordinates can be marked on this frame of reference (2d for simplicity) - the position of the observer, the position of the train, the position of the lightning strikes, all can be marked on this grid. There is a point where the light pulse starts off, it is not infinite in length. The light pulse ends at the observer and starts at the point on the grid where the light is emitted, however, since this is a fixed point in the grid, there is no movement of a fixed point on the grid wrt the observer attached to the grid. Observer                     point of emission, source of emission O                                 XS Observer                     point of emission, source of emission O                            S     X The source moves but not the point of emission.===================A man lobs a tennis ball extremely high, then jumps over the net into the other court in time to return the ball. The tennis racket moves butnot at the point it struck the ball. Racket   ball          netR___B___________N          ________________N______BR For some reason that eludes me this is “interesting” and gets to theheart of the matter, if I only knew what matter it got to the heart of. -- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway. When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

The heart of the matter is if does the point of light emission move relative to the observer or not?

==========================================

A man lobs a tennis ball extremely high, then jumps over the net into

the other court in time to return the ball. The tennis racket moves but

not at the point it struck the ball.

Racket   ball          net

R___B___________N

 

________________N______BR

 

For some reason that eludes me this is “interesting” and gets to the

heart of the matter, if I only knew what matter it got to the heart of.

Oh, wait a moment, I forgot to use relativity words like “observer”

and “inertial” and “frame of reference” and all the rest of the bullshit

words that morons like Roberts likes to use. Plain English is no

good anymore.

WHAT FUCKING OBSERVER?

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/13/2013 7:49 PM, HG Wilson wrote:

> That is what I said.
>
> The track observer receives them at the same time because he is midway between them,
> thus proving they struck absolutely simultaneously.

don't be silly. this just proves that they are simultaneous in the frame
of the track observer, not absolutely.

>
> The train observer will not see them simultaneously because the flashes move at c+v and c-v
> in his frame.. ..but, knowing his relative movement, he can calculate that they would have
> reached the track observer simultaneously. Since he also knows that the track observer is
> located equidistant from the flash origins, he knows they struck the ground absolutely
> simultaneously.
>

fascinating, so it is your belief that light travels at speed c relative
to the tracks, but at c+v and c-v relative to the train. so in this
case, the speed of light is locked to the surface of the earth? and so
when the earth's surface passes from the near side of the sun to the far
side, does the speed of light somehow remain locked to the surface of
the earth?

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/13/2013 7:55 PM, HG Wilson wrote:

> Relativists ignore the fact that there are likely to be FOUR flashes.
> Two moving at c wrt the ground and two moving at c wrt the train.

not to mention two more flashes moving at c with respect to a car
driving on the road in the opposite direction. not to mention two more
flashes moving at c with respect to the moon. and amazingly, these
flashes all are magically pointed directly at the observers at rest with
respect to all four frames, so that there is no cross-reception.

>
> Both observers receive two of those simultaneously and two at different instants.

aha! so you are a seto convert!

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/13/2013 8:09 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> It is an interesting question all right, and gets to the heart of the matter.
> Why should the light hitting the train mean that the light travels at c relative to the
> train observer? Does the light get "en-trained" ?
>

i asked you a qeustion about this earlier. why do you think that this
means that the light starts out at one speed relative to the train and
then _changes_ to a different speed by the time it gets to the train
observer.

if the light is traveling at c with respect to the track, at what speed
do you think this means light is traveling with respect to the train?
(say the train is traveling at v.) and _why_ do you think your answer is
what it is?

[Dirk Van de moortel]

train <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The train thought experiment is well known. Lightning strikes the
> tracks. The observer on the platform sees the flashes simultaneously.
> The person on the train does not.
>
> Presumably the source of the emission of light are the two strikes of
> lightning themselves , situated at a equal distances from the platform
> observer.
>
> My question is this: the distances to the source of the ligthning
> strikes does not change for the platform observer.
>
> Does it change for the observer on the train?

The lightnings strike at the front and the endpoint
of the train.
For the observer in the middle of the train, these
points on the train remain at the same distance.

Dirk Vdm

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:47:24 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/13/2013 7:55 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
>> Relativists ignore the fact that there are likely to be FOUR flashes.
>> Two moving at c wrt the ground and two moving at c wrt the train.
>
>not to mention two more flashes moving at c with respect to a car
>driving on the road in the opposite direction. not to mention two more
>flashes moving at c with respect to the moon. and amazingly, these
>flashes all are magically pointed directly at the observers at rest with
>respect to all four frames, so that there is no cross-reception.

what the hell are you talking about?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:44:28 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/13/2013 7:49 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
>> That is what I said.
>>
>> The track observer receives them at the same time because he is midway between them,
>> thus proving they struck absolutely simultaneously.
>
>don't be silly. this just proves that they are simultaneous in the frame
>of the track observer, not absolutely.

If a spherical light signal is sent to two observers that are equidistance
from a source at rest with them, it arrives at the two absolutely
simultaneously. Clocks can be absolutely synched in this way.

>> The train observer will not see them simultaneously because the flashes move at c+v and c-v
>> in his frame.. ..but, knowing his relative movement, he can calculate that they would have
>> reached the track observer simultaneously. Since he also knows that the track observer is
>> located equidistant from the flash origins, he knows they struck the ground absolutely
>> simultaneously.
>>
>
>fascinating, so it is your belief that light travels at speed c relative
>to the tracks, but at c+v and c-v relative to the train. so in this
>case, the speed of light is locked to the surface of the earth? and so
>when the earth's surface passes from the near side of the sun to the far
>side, does the speed of light somehow remain locked to the surface of
>the earth?

Light moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an object
moving at v towards that source.

That's obviously far too hard for you..

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 7:31 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:47:24 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2013 7:55 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Relativists ignore the fact that there are likely to be FOUR flashes.
>>> Two moving at c wrt the ground and two moving at c wrt the train.
>>
>> not to mention two more flashes moving at c with respect to a car
>> driving on the road in the opposite direction. not to mention two more
>> flashes moving at c with respect to the moon. and amazingly, these
>> flashes all are magically pointed directly at the observers at rest with
>> respect to all four frames, so that there is no cross-reception.
>
> what the hell are you talking about?

it's very simple. you claim there must be four flashes, not two, because
there are two observers and two twice is four. but there aren't just two
observers. there are more. so there are more than four flashes, by your
own argument.

yes, it is idiotic.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

This needs clarification: I must specify the observer in each case. If the light is travelling at c wrt the track as seen by the observer on the track,
it means that light is travelling at c+v relative to the train - closing speed, which you all accept as real - as seen by the track observer.

Is this clear and correct?

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 7:49 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:44:28 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2013 7:49 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> That is what I said.
>>>
>>> The track observer receives them at the same time because he is midway between them,
>>> thus proving they struck absolutely simultaneously.
>>
>> don't be silly. this just proves that they are simultaneous in the frame
>> of the track observer, not absolutely.
>
> If a spherical light signal is sent to two observers that are equidistance
> from a source at rest with them, it arrives at the two absolutely
> simultaneously. Clocks can be absolutely synched in this way.

do keep track. before we were talking about two sources and one
observer, not one source and two observers. rope-a-dope?

>
>>> The train observer will not see them simultaneously because the flashes move at c+v and c-v
>>> in his frame.. ..but, knowing his relative movement, he can calculate that they would have
>>> reached the track observer simultaneously. Since he also knows that the track observer is
>>> located equidistant from the flash origins, he knows they struck the ground absolutely
>>> simultaneously.
>>>
>>
>> fascinating, so it is your belief that light travels at speed c relative
>> to the tracks, but at c+v and c-v relative to the train. so in this
>> case, the speed of light is locked to the surface of the earth? and so
>> when the earth's surface passes from the near side of the sun to the far
>> side, does the speed of light somehow remain locked to the surface of
>> the earth?
>
> Light moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an object
> moving at v towards that source.

i notice that you didn't answer the question. rope-a-dope?

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Yes but can we make a distinction between the endpoints of the train where lightning strikes and the x,y,z coordinates of the point of emission of light relative to the train observer? The train observer is situated at the origin of the frame of reference or grid of coordinates that is his frame of reference.

My point is that origin and extinction of light pulses, photons, short laser beams of light etc have a definite point on the grid or FoR where they start off, where their length is zero and keeps increasing.

Do you see or accept the difference?

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 9:29 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> This needs clarification: I must specify the observer in each case.
> If the light is travelling at c wrt the track as seen by the observer on the track,
> it means that light is travelling at c+v relative to the train - closing speed,
> which you all accept as real - as seen by the track observer.

first of all, closing speed is a numerical result of a calculation. it
is the difference between two observed speeds: the speed of the train v
and the speed of the light c.

but the question is not what speed the _track_ observer sees the light
relative to the train, but what the _train_ observer sees.

keep in mind that _neither_ observer sees a _change_ in speed from c+v
to c. or from c to c+v. the light does not change speed.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

"first of all, closing speed is a numerical result of a calculation. it
is the difference between two observed speeds: the speed of the train v
and the speed of the light c. "

Agreed on the term 'closing speed'. But allow me to digress - why call this the closing speed at all? How is the track observer to distinguish between 'closing speed' between the light and the train and 'relative speed' between the light and the train? After all it has to do with the light images on the retina of the observer after all, and why not simply call a spade a spade?

This is one thing I could never quite understand, maybe the group can enlighten me on this one.

What does the train observer see? According to SRT, he will see the light coming to him at speed c, just as it would have been from a stationary source, since the movement of the source has no effect on the speed of light according to SRT.

If you need proof that the observer on the train will have a way of knowing exactly at what distance from him the light travelled in his frame, and the point of origin of the light in his frame, let me know, a simple thought experiment will illustrate this.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

<gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0ee85b45-faae-4115...@googlegroups.com...

"first of all, closing speed is a numerical result of a calculation. it
is the difference between two observed speeds: the speed of the train v
and the speed of the light c. "

Agreed on the term  'closing speed'.

===================================================

Closing speed is a bullshitting relativist’s frame jump from the train

to the track. The train doesn’t observe its own speed, v, it observes

the speed of light as c+v and the speed of the track as v.

Never agree with a squirming liar like the one you are answering.

Zeroth of all, relative speed is a numerical result of a calculation.

It is the distance between the light source and train divided by the

time it takes for light to travel that distance at (c+v), d1 +d2 = ct +vt.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:22:36 PM UTC+5:30, Dirk Van de moortel
> wrote:
>> train <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The train thought experiment is well known. Lightning strikes the
>>> tracks. The observer on the platform sees the flashes
>>> simultaneously. The person on the train does not.
>>> Presumably the source of the emission of light are the two strikes
>>> of lightning themselves , situated at a equal distances from the
>>> platform observer.
>>>
>>> My question is this: the distances to the source of the ligthning
>>> strikes does not change for the platform observer.
>>>
>>> Does it change for the observer on the train?
>>
>> The lightnings strike at the front and the endpoint
>> of the train.
>> For the observer in the middle of the train, these
>> points on the train remain at the same distance.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Yes but can we make a distinction between the endpoints of the train
> where lightning strikes and the x,y,z coordinates of the point of
> emission of light relative to the train observer? The train observer
> is situated at the origin of the frame of reference or grid of
> coordinates that is his frame of reference.

Yes, and the endpoints of his train are fixed in his frame.

>
> My point is that origin and extinction of light pulses, photons,
> short laser beams of light etc have a definite point on the grid or
> FoR where they start off, where their length is zero and keeps
> increasing.
>
> Do you see or accept the difference?

An event (such as a lightning strike) has an idealised zero "length"
in space and in time. For any observer an event happens at a
certain place and at a certain time.
Something that has an origin and an extinction, or a beginning
and and ending, can be called a process of you like, but not an
event.
In the setup of the train, the lightling strikes are modeled as
events -- not as processes. That means that, for both observers,
the strikes have a definite place and time.
The train observer can *associate* the strikes with the endpoints
of his train, and of course these endpoints stay where the are
for the train observer, but not for the embankment observer.
The embankment observer can *associate* the strikes with some
points on the track, and of course these track points stay where
the are for the embankment observer, but not for the train
observer.

These are the things that matter in the train setup
(http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html)
1. The observers know that they are (and stay, if you like) in
the exact middle between the fixed places that they
associate with the lightning events.
2. Both observers assume that the signals travel with the
same speed (c) in both directions.
3. The two light signals reach the embankment observer
simultaneously, so for him the strike events happened
simultaneously as well (same distance, same speed)
4. The light signals do not reach the train observer simultaneously,
so for her the strike events did not happen simultaneously
(same distance, same speed).

Therefore, *if* you assume that the light speed in every direction
is the same for everyone, then you must accept that simultaneity
is relative. No way out.

Dirk Vdm

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:32:02 -0500, Absolutely Vertical

fool

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:10:59 -0500, Absolutely Vertical

<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/14/2013 7:31 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:47:24 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
>> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2013 7:55 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Relativists ignore the fact that there are likely to be FOUR flashes.
>>>> Two moving at c wrt the ground and two moving at c wrt the train.
>>>
>>> not to mention two more flashes moving at c with respect to a car
>>> driving on the road in the opposite direction. not to mention two more
>>> flashes moving at c with respect to the moon. and amazingly, these
>>> flashes all are magically pointed directly at the observers at rest with
>>> respect to all four frames, so that there is no cross-reception.
>>
>> what the hell are you talking about?
>
>it's very simple. you claim there must be four flashes, not two, because
>there are two observers and two twice is four. but there aren't just two
>observers. there are more. so there are more than four flashes, by your
>own argument.
>
>yes, it is idiotic.

poor dopey idiot.

The lightning strikes both the train and the ground simultaneously.
Two reflections bounce off the ground at c wrt the ground and two bounce of
the train at c wrt ground.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

...and why would any sane person want to do that?

>then you must accept that simultaneity
>is relative. No way out.

The way out is to explain to indoctinated idiots like you that Einstein's
second postulate and all that follows from it is absolute nonsense from
start to finish.

>Dirk Vdm

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

"The train observer can *associate* the strikes with the endpoints
of his train, and of course these endpoints stay where the are
for the train observer, but not for the embankment observer.
The embankment observer can *associate* the strikes with some
points on the track, and of course these track points stay where
the are for the embankment observer, but not for the train
observer. "

Taking the scenario as described, if the strikes are at the endpoints of the train, and the emission point of the light reaching the train observer is from the endpoints of the train, then the emission point of the light does not move with respect to the observer on the train.

So we have the emission of light from two points that are effectively stationary wrt the observer for the train observer and track observer as well.

Both strikes are simultaneous for both observers.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message news:kmvgps$qnb$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

==============================================

 

Bwahahahaha!

Only kooks, cranks and faggots assume things that are

not so.

“But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v”

That imbecile Einstein needs to make up his stupid mind.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "The train observer can *associate* the strikes with the endpoints
> of his train, and of course these endpoints stay where the are
> for the train observer, but not for the embankment observer.
> The embankment observer can *associate* the strikes with some
> points on the track, and of course these track points stay where
> the are for the embankment observer, but not for the train
> observer. "
>
> Taking the scenario as described, if the strikes are at the
> endpoints of the train,

The strikes burn part of the train and part of the embankment.

> and the emission point of the light reaching
> the train observer is from the endpoints of the train, then the
> emission point of the light does not move with respect to the
> observer on the train.

The parts of the train that are burnt, do not move w.r.t.
the train observer, but they do move w.r.t. the embankment
observer.
The parts of the embankment that are burnt, do not move
w.r.t. the embankment observer, but they do move w.r.t.
the train observer.

> So we have the emission of light from two points that are effectively
> stationary wrt the observer for the train observer and track observer
> as well.
>
> Both strikes are simultaneous for both observers.

No, reread this (-- I have made some modifications-):

These are the things that matter in the train setup
(http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html)
1. The observers know that they are (and stay, if you like) in
the exact middle between the fixed places that they

associate with the lightning events. They can go and
check the burn marks afterwards and verify that they
are in the middle.

2. Both observers assume that the signals travel with the
same speed (c) in both directions.
3. The two light signals reach the embankment observer
simultaneously, so for him the strike events happened
simultaneously as well (same distance, same speed)

This is GIVEN.
4. THEREFORE the light signals CANNOT reach the train

observer simultaneously, so for her the strike events

CANNOT have happened simultaneously (same
distance, same speed).

Therefore, if you assume that the light speed in every direction

is the same for everyone, then you must accept that simultaneity
is relative. No way out.

Items 3 and 4 can be modified of course. If it is GIVEN
that the train observer receives the signals simultaneously
and thus decides that the strikes were simultateous, then
the embankment observer CANNOT receive them
simultaneously and must decide that the emmissions were
not simultateous

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 11:51 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> "first of all, closing speed is a numerical result of a calculation. it
> is the difference between two observed speeds: the speed of the train v
> and the speed of the light c. "
>
> Agreed on the term 'closing speed'. But allow me to digress - why call this the closing speed
> at all? How is the track observer to distinguish between 'closing speed' between the light and
> the train and 'relative speed' between the light and the train? After all it has to do with the
> light images on the retina of the observer after all, and why not simply call a spade a spade?
>

that's just it. the track observer cannot measure the _relative_ speed
between the light and the train. the train observer can. the track
observer can obtain a closing speed. that's why there is a distinction.

furthermore, observation does not necessarily mean receiving the light
in the eye. if you think about it, the eye is completely incapable of
measuring the speed of the incoming light anyway. the question really is
how an observer would arrange to measure the speed of light in the
reference frame in which he is at rest. _that_ is what observation of
the speed of light means. do you have any ideas about how to measure the
speed of light, without receiving the measured light in your eyes?

> This is one thing I could never quite understand, maybe the group can enlighten me on this one.
>
> What does the train observer see? According to SRT, he will see the light coming to him at
> speed c, just as it would have been from a stationary source, since the movement of the source
> has no effect on the speed of light according to SRT.

yes.

>
> If you need proof that the observer on the train will have a way of knowing exactly at what
> distance from him the light travelled in his frame, and the point of origin of the light in
> his frame, let me know, a simple thought experiment will illustrate this.
>

see my comments above.

[Absolutely Vertical]

another rope-a-dope?
pretty shameless, there, rabbidge.
that's the problem with having a limited repertoire of avoidance
maneuvers. once you've done the lap of them, it's plain you have nothing
of substance between your ears.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/15/2013 4:35 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:10:59 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/14/2013 7:31 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:47:24 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
>>> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2013 7:55 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Relativists ignore the fact that there are likely to be FOUR flashes.
>>>>> Two moving at c wrt the ground and two moving at c wrt the train.
>>>>
>>>> not to mention two more flashes moving at c with respect to a car
>>>> driving on the road in the opposite direction. not to mention two more
>>>> flashes moving at c with respect to the moon. and amazingly, these
>>>> flashes all are magically pointed directly at the observers at rest with
>>>> respect to all four frames, so that there is no cross-reception.
>>>
>>> what the hell are you talking about?
>>
>> it's very simple. you claim there must be four flashes, not two, because
>> there are two observers and two twice is four. but there aren't just two
>> observers. there are more. so there are more than four flashes, by your
>> own argument.
>>
>> yes, it is idiotic.
>
> poor dopey idiot.
>
> The lightning strikes both the train and the ground simultaneously.
> Two reflections bounce off the ground at c wrt the ground and two bounce of
> the train at c wrt ground.
>

oh. my. god.
this is rich, even for you.
you are now saying that the two observers do not observe the flashes
directly but only see light reflected from some other surface. and
moreover that the train observer only sees light reflected from the
train, and the ground observer only sees light reflected from the ground.
you know what mothers tell their children about webs of lies, don't you?
it's hard work keeping a jerry-rigged fabrication of ever-increasing
complexity together without it becoming transparently idiotic. and
you're not capable of hard work.
this must have been the point where any female companion in your life
narrowed her eyes and told you outright, 'you lie to my face. goodbye.'

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/15/2013 4:50 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> "The train observer can *associate* the strikes with the endpoints
> of his train, and of course these endpoints stay where the are
> for the train observer, but not for the embankment observer.
> The embankment observer can *associate* the strikes with some
> points on the track, and of course these track points stay where
> the are for the embankment observer, but not for the train
> observer. "

the way the scenario is set up, each strike leaves a scorch mark at the
junction of the train and the track, so that the single strike leaves
evidence of its location on the track and on the train as well. this
way, there is no ambiguity about the location of the strike for either
observer, and they can check that location at any time later in the
afternoon, simply by walking to the place where the scorch mark is.

[kenseto]

On May 13, 8:55 pm, HG Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:11:41 AM UTC+10, kenseto wrote:
> > On May 12, 1:50 pm, HG Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > On Sunday, May 12, 2013 11:42:24 PM UTC+10, Alfonso wrote:
>
> > > > On 11/05/13 18:31, train wrote:
>

> > > > > On May 11, 10:30 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> The train thought experiment is well known. Lightning strikes the
>
> > > > >> tracks. The observer on the platform sees the flashes simultaneously.
>
> > > > >> The person on the train does not.
>
> > > > >> Presumably the source of the emission of light are the two strikes of
>
> > > > >> lightning themselves , situated at a equal distances from the platform
>
> > > > >> observer.
>
> > > > >> My question is this: the distances to the source of the ligthning
>
> > > > >> strikes does not change for the platform observer.
>
> > > > >> Does it change for the observer on the train?
>

> > > > >> The speed of light is independent of the source, so it is said. But
>
> > > > >> the source must have a beginning: that is, work backwards from point
>
> > > > >> where the observer on the train sees the light, to a point, between
>
> > > > >> him and infinity, where the light originated from. What is this point
>

> > > > >> and where is it?
>
> > > > >> Train

>
> > > > >> X--------------------------------|||||||----------------------------------
>
> > > > >> X
>
> > > > >> Tracks X_________________________________________X
>
> > > > >> Train
>
> > > > >> X-----------------------------------|||||||-------------------------------- --
>
> > > > >> X
>
> > > > >> Tracks X_________________________________________X
>
> > > > >> The diagrams depict what each observer sees in their own FoR only, and
>
> > > > >> is not meant as a description of how the platform observer sees the
>
> > > > >> train observer's events.
>
> > > > >> X is the point in each FoR where the light first appears. Is the above
>
> > > > >> the correct description of the situation?
>
> > > > > I think this could be simplified as: Does the observer on the train
>
> > > > > see a red shifted or blue shifted light due to the Doppler effect?
>
> > > > Interesting question. If the lightening hits the train the light -
>
> > > > caused by part of the train vaporising - will have a light source moving
>
> > > > at the same speed as the train so no Doppler. OTOH if it hits the track
>
> > > > and vaporises then the train is moving away from one source and towards
>
> > > > the other so the light will be Doppler shifted towards red from the rear
>
> > > > of the train and towards blue from the front.
>
> > > > Vice-versa for the observer on the platform.
>
> > > > I don't actually see that that has a bearing on the question
>

> > > Of course it has.
>
> > > If the light comes from the track, it moves at c+v in the train frame. The track observer receives the flashes simultaneously, the train  observer does not.
> > > If it comes from the ends of the train, it moves at c+v in the track frame and the opposite is true.
> > > This is all so simple.
> > > Einstein's train gedanken is a red herring. The real issue is about the synchronization of clocks.
> > You are right......the track observer predicts that the train observer
> > will see the light fronts to be simultaneous but at different time as
> > follows:
> > The track observer sees the light fronts from the ends of the train to
> > be simultaneous at
> > Delta(L/c) where L is 1/2 the length of the train.
> > The track observer predicts that the train observer will see the light
> > fronts to be simultaneous at: gamma*Delta(L/c) on the track clock.
> > There is no difference in closing velocities between the train
> > observer and the light fronts from the ends of the train....iow there
> > is no c+v or c-v between the train observer and the light fronts from
> > the ends of the train as asserted by Einstein to get his bogus
> > cocncept of RoS.

>
> Relativists ignore the fact that there are likely to be FOUR flashes. Two moving at c wrt the ground and two moving at c wrt the train.

No there are only two flashes. Both observers see the flashes to be
simultaneous but at different times. Why? Because the speed of light
is isotropic in all frames.....that means that if one see them to be
simultaneous the other must also see them to be simultaneous. There is
no difference in closing velocity between light fronts from diffeent
directions as Einstein bogously assumed to derive his bogus concept of
RoS.
>
> Both observers receive two of those simultaneously and two at different instants. Your bogus length and time transforms make no difference to that fact.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[kenseto]

On May 13, 8:49 pm, HG Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The track observer receives them at the same time because he is midway between them, thus proving they struck absolutely simultaneously.
>

> The train observer will not see them simultaneously because the flashes move at c+v and c-v in his frame.. ..but, knowing his relative movement, he can calculate that they would have reached the track observer simultaneously. Since he also knows that the track observer is located equidistant from the flash origins, he knows they struck the ground absolutely simultaneously.- Hide quoted text -

This is wrong....there is no difference in closing speed in the train
as you asserted. THe speed of light is isotropic in the train. At the
time the flashes happened simultaneously both observers were at equal
distance from the flashes and thus they both will see the flashes to

[kenseto]

On May 15, 6:48 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:

No the signals travel isotropically in both frames and that's why both
observers see them to be simultaneous.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 07:40:43 -0500, Absolutely Vertical

Well maybe or maybe not...
Are the flashes vertical?
Are the flashes vertical wrt the train or a point on the ground.
The gedanken doesn't specify which.
You see how stupid Einstein's whole idea was?
Why did he use lightning instead of flashing lights?
Purely to attract attention...sensationalism...

>you are now saying that the two observers do not observe the flashes
>directly but only see light reflected from some other surface. and
>moreover that the train observer only sees light reflected from the
>train, and the ground observer only sees light reflected from the ground.

I didn't say that at all. In previous posts I have pointed out that both
observers will receive FOUR flashes, two of which are reflected.

>you know what mothers tell their children about webs of lies, don't you?
>it's hard work keeping a jerry-rigged fabrication of ever-increasing
>complexity together without it becoming transparently idiotic. and
>you're not capable of hard work.
>this must have been the point where any female companion in your life
>narrowed her eyes and told you outright, 'you lie to my face. goodbye.'

well at least I have female companions and not little boys like you and your
poofey mates do.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

I see the problem.

It deserves a new thread.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Absolutely Vertical]

idiot.
when a lightning bolt happens, is the light directed in any particular
direction? are there people perhaps on one side of the lightning bolt
who can't see it because all the light is going in the other direction?
idiot, idiot, idiot.

> You see how stupid Einstein's whole idea was?
> Why did he use lightning instead of flashing lights?

that's obvious. he wanted a light source that left a lasting mark on the
tracks and on the train where the event(s) happened. he explicitly talks
about the scorch marks and how they're used. what's wrong with you? do
you not read? can you not understand what you read?

no _wonder_ you don't believe relativity. you can't understand a word of
anything you've read about it.

> Purely to attract attention...sensationalism...
>
>> you are now saying that the two observers do not observe the flashes
>> directly but only see light reflected from some other surface. and
>> moreover that the train observer only sees light reflected from the
>> train, and the ground observer only sees light reflected from the ground.
>
> I didn't say that at all. In previous posts I have pointed out that both
> observers will receive FOUR flashes, two of which are reflected.
>
>> you know what mothers tell their children about webs of lies, don't you?
>> it's hard work keeping a jerry-rigged fabrication of ever-increasing
>> complexity together without it becoming transparently idiotic. and
>> you're not capable of hard work.
>> this must have been the point where any female companion in your life
>> narrowed her eyes and told you outright, 'you lie to my face. goodbye.'
>
> well at least I have female companions and not little boys like you and your
> poofey mates do.

oh sure you do. nymphs from wilson energy density bubbles, i'm sure.

i'll be sure to ask your female companion on barlings about you when i
come for a visit later. just got back from ireland, headed to bahamas
soon, australia and california a little later.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:21:04 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/15/2013 10:40 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>
>idiot.
>when a lightning bolt happens, is the light directed in any particular
>direction? are there people perhaps on one side of the lightning bolt
>who can't see it because all the light is going in the other direction?
>idiot, idiot, idiot.
>
>> You see how stupid Einstein's whole idea was?
>> Why did he use lightning instead of flashing lights?
>
>that's obvious. he wanted a light source that left a lasting mark on the
>tracks and on the train where the event(s) happened. he explicitly talks
>about the scorch marks and how they're used. what's wrong with you? do
>you not read? can you not understand what you read?

Well he could have used flashing lights firmly attached to the ground.

>no _wonder_ you don't believe relativity. you can't understand a word of
>anything you've read about it.
>
>> Purely to attract attention...sensationalism...
>>
>>> you are now saying that the two observers do not observe the flashes
>>> directly but only see light reflected from some other surface. and
>>> moreover that the train observer only sees light reflected from the
>>> train, and the ground observer only sees light reflected from the ground.
>>
>> I didn't say that at all. In previous posts I have pointed out that both
>> observers will receive FOUR flashes, two of which are reflected.
>>
>>> you know what mothers tell their children about webs of lies, don't you?
>>> it's hard work keeping a jerry-rigged fabrication of ever-increasing
>>> complexity together without it becoming transparently idiotic. and
>>> you're not capable of hard work.
>>> this must have been the point where any female companion in your life
>>> narrowed her eyes and told you outright, 'you lie to my face. goodbye.'
>>
>> well at least I have female companions and not little boys like you and your
>> poofey mates do.
>
>oh sure you do. nymphs from wilson energy density bubbles, i'm sure.
>
>i'll be sure to ask your female companion on barlings about you when i
>come for a visit later. just got back from ireland, headed to bahamas
>soon, australia and california a little later.

I would invite you to my Sydney waterfront if you didn't talk so much.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:18:23 PM UTC+5:30, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> train wrote: > "The train observer can *associate* the strikes with the endpoints > of his train, and of course these endpoints stay where the are > for the train observer, but not for the embankment observer. > The embankment observer can *associate* the strikes with some > points on the track, and of course these track points stay where > the are for the embankment observer, but not for the train > observer. " > > Taking the scenario as described, if the strikes are at the > endpoints of the train, The strikes burn part of the train and part of the embankment. > and the emission point of the light reaching > the train observer is from the endpoints of the train, then the > emission point of the light does not move with respect to the > observer on the train. The parts of the train that are burnt, do not move w.r.t. the train observer, but they do move w.r.t. the embankment observer. The parts of the embankment that are burnt, do not move w.r.t. the embankment observer, but they do move w.r.t. the train observer. > So we have the emission of light from two points that are effectively > stationary wrt the observer for the train observer and track observer > as well. > > Both strikes are simultaneous for both observers. No, reread this (-- I have made some modifications-): These are the things that matter in the train setup (http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html) 1. The observers know that they are (and stay, if you like) in the exact middle between the fixed places that they associate with the lightning events. They can go and check the burn marks afterwards and verify that they are in the middle. 2. Both observers assume that the signals travel with the same speed (c) in both directions. 3. The two light signals reach the embankment observer simultaneously, so for him the strike events happened simultaneously as well (same distance, same speed) This is GIVEN. 4. THEREFORE the light signals CANNOT reach the train observer simultaneously, so for her the strike events CANNOT have happened simultaneously (same distance, same speed). Therefore, if you assume that the light speed in every direction is the same for everyone, then you must accept that simultaneity is relative. No way out. Items 3 and 4 can be modified of course. If it is GIVEN that the train observer receives the signals simultaneously and thus decides that the strikes were simultateous, then the embankment observer CANNOT receive them simultaneously and must decide that the emmissions were not simultateous No way out. Dirk Vdm

Ok so here is proof that the point of emission remains at a fixed distance from the observer on the train. No once cares about the platform observer since in Galilean as well as Relativistic conditions, he sees the light flashes simulataneously.

The front window of the train is tinted blue and allows light to pass through.

When the train observer receives the light from the flashes, he see it tinted blue, which means that it passed through the blue filter.

He knows that the blue window is a distance x from him, either by prior knowledge or by inspection.

This means that the point of emission was at a distance x from him, and he is at a distance x from the rear of the train as well.

Therefore the person on the train will see the flashes simultaneuosly, according to SRT, since light travels at c from one point to another in the observer's fraem, regardless of the motion of the source

[Dirk Van de moortel]

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:18:23 PM UTC+5:30, Dirk Van de moortel
> wrote:

[snip]

The embankment sees them simultaneously, so the train
observer cannot see them simultaneously. See below

>
> The front window of the train is tinted blue and allows light to pass
> through.
>
> When the train observer receives the light from the flashes, he see
> it tinted blue, which means that it passed through the blue filter.
>
> He knows that the blue window is a distance x from him, either by
> prior knowledge or by inspection.
>
> This means that the point of emission was at a distance x from him,
> and he is at a distance x from the rear of the train as well.

Yes, absolutely, and that is one of the essential ingredients.

>
> Therefore the person on the train will see the flashes
> simultaneuosly, according to SRT, since light travels
> at c from one point to another in the observer's fraem,
> regardless of the motion of the source

No, he CANNOT POSSIBLY see them simultaneously
because the embankment observer already sees them
simultaneously, and the rays can only cross at ONE point
in space, and it is given that they do that in the eye of the
embankment observer.
The train observer could ONLY see them also simultaneously
if he would be AT THE SAME PLACE as the embankment
observer, but HE IS NOT THERE ANYMORE. He WAS
there when the flashes were emitted, but when the flashes
meet in the embankment observer's eye, he is no longer
there: he has moved in the direction of the front flash and
away from the back flash, so he MUST first see the front
flash, and then the back flash. This is GIVEN.
Now, here comes the real essence:
4a. IF, for the train observer, the light speed would
depend on the train speed, THEN he could still
conclude that the flashes happened simultaneously,
since the front flash could have gone faster than the
back flash.
BUT
4b. IF, for the train observer, the light speed is the
same in both directions, THEN he MUST conclude
that the flashes cannot NOT have happened
simultaneously, because (1) he does not *see* them
simultaneously AND (2) the distances are the same
AND (3) the speeds are the same.

This is so simple. Surely you must understand that.

The ultimate trick is to be able to ASSUME that the
light speed is the same in both directions for both
observers, and then investigate the consequences.

I know, many people are not able to do that, but I
hoped you would. See also my replies to HG Wilson's
new thread "Train Gedanken Demonstrates Einstein's
Incompetence and Dishonesty".

Dirk Vdm

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote:

[snip]

> 4b. IF, for the train observer, the light speed is the
> same in both directions, THEN he MUST conclude
> that the flashes cannot NOT have happened

Should be:
that the flashes CANNOT have happened

Dirk Vdm

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message news:kn2436$je8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote:

[snip]

===========================

So you fucking should.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/15/2013 5:48 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:21:04 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/15/2013 10:40 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>>
>> idiot.
>> when a lightning bolt happens, is the light directed in any particular
>> direction? are there people perhaps on one side of the lightning bolt
>> who can't see it because all the light is going in the other direction?
>> idiot, idiot, idiot.
>>
>>> You see how stupid Einstein's whole idea was?
>>> Why did he use lightning instead of flashing lights?
>>
>> that's obvious. he wanted a light source that left a lasting mark on the
>> tracks and on the train where the event(s) happened. he explicitly talks
>> about the scorch marks and how they're used. what's wrong with you? do
>> you not read? can you not understand what you read?
>
> Well he could have used flashing lights firmly attached to the ground.

which does not leave a mark on the train about the event. good lord you
are denser than aunt tildy's turkey stuffing.

>
>> no _wonder_ you don't believe relativity. you can't understand a word of
>> anything you've read about it.
>>
>>> Purely to attract attention...sensationalism...
>>>
>>>> you are now saying that the two observers do not observe the flashes
>>>> directly but only see light reflected from some other surface. and
>>>> moreover that the train observer only sees light reflected from the
>>>> train, and the ground observer only sees light reflected from the ground.
>>>
>>> I didn't say that at all. In previous posts I have pointed out that both
>>> observers will receive FOUR flashes, two of which are reflected.
>>>
>>>> you know what mothers tell their children about webs of lies, don't you?
>>>> it's hard work keeping a jerry-rigged fabrication of ever-increasing
>>>> complexity together without it becoming transparently idiotic. and
>>>> you're not capable of hard work.
>>>> this must have been the point where any female companion in your life
>>>> narrowed her eyes and told you outright, 'you lie to my face. goodbye.'
>>>
>>> well at least I have female companions and not little boys like you and your
>>> poofey mates do.
>>
>> oh sure you do. nymphs from wilson energy density bubbles, i'm sure.
>>
>> i'll be sure to ask your female companion on barlings about you when i
>> come for a visit later. just got back from ireland, headed to bahamas
>> soon, australia and california a little later.
>
> I would invite you to my Sydney waterfront if you didn't talk so much.
>

no need, i'm coming into sydney but i'll find you.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/15/2013 5:48 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> well at least I have female companions and not little boys like you and your
>>> >>poofey mates do.
>> >
>> >oh sure you do. nymphs from wilson energy density bubbles, i'm sure.
>> >
>> >i'll be sure to ask your female companion on barlings about you when i
>> >come for a visit later. just got back from ireland, headed to bahamas
>> >soon, australia and california a little later.
> I would invite you to my Sydney waterfront if you didn't talk so much.
>

i already have a waterfront place to stay in glebe, but thanks for the
offer.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:26:40 -0500, Absolutely Vertical

OK, I'll arrange a 'welcoming party'.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Nice...

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/16/2013 3:17 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>>> I would invite you to my Sydney waterfront if you didn't talk so much.
>>
>> no need, i'm coming into sydney but i'll find you.
>
> OK, I'll arrange a 'welcoming party'.

no need. unless you're afraid of me. or unless you're a sociopathic
recluse.

but if you like, arrange what you want. plan on feeding them while you
wait. i won't be telling you when.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:26:40 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/15/2013 5:48 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>>> that's obvious. he wanted a light source that left a lasting mark on the
>>> tracks and on the train where the event(s) happened. he explicitly talks
>>> about the scorch marks and how they're used. what's wrong with you? do
>>> you not read? can you not understand what you read?
>>
>> Well he could have used flashing lights firmly attached to the ground.
>
>which does not leave a mark on the train about the event. good lord you
>are denser than aunt tildy's turkey stuffing.

Sorry diaper, it is you who is dense. If marks are left on both the train and
the track, the ambiguity is established.

>>> no _wonder_ you don't believe relativity. you can't understand a word of
>>> anything you've read about it.

>>> i'll be sure to ask your female companion on barlings about you when i
>>> come for a visit later. just got back from ireland, headed to bahamas
>>> soon, australia and california a little later.
>>
>> I would invite you to my Sydney waterfront if you didn't talk so much.
>>
>
>no need, i'm coming into sydney but i'll find you.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/16/2013 3:25 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:26:40 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/15/2013 5:48 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>>>> that's obvious. he wanted a light source that left a lasting mark on the
>>>> tracks and on the train where the event(s) happened. he explicitly talks
>>>> about the scorch marks and how they're used. what's wrong with you? do
>>>> you not read? can you not understand what you read?
>>>
>>> Well he could have used flashing lights firmly attached to the ground.
>>
>> which does not leave a mark on the train about the event. good lord you
>> are denser than aunt tildy's turkey stuffing.
>
> Sorry diaper, it is you who is dense. If marks are left on both the train and
> the track, the ambiguity is established.

what ambiguity?
there's not a thing ambiguous about an event occurring which leaves a
lasting mark on two things where they are adjacent.

good heavens, wilson, it's obvious you've never even read the gedanken!
or that you cannot understand simple sentences aimed at laypeople.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:46:11 PM UTC+5:30, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

I ask one question: Does the point of emission move with respect to the track observer and train observer respectively or does it not?

To clarify, you are using Galilean relativity : the track is the stationary and absolute frame of reference, and then assuming the speed of light c relative to both observers, and then drawing a contradiction?

Suppose the lightning struck both the train and the tracks at the same time. Then would you say the point of emission (secondary source of emission, though I am in favour of using LEDs instead). is at the end of the train - eg the scorch marks, and can we think of the scorch marks as the point of emission?

[Dirk Van de moortel]

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:46:11 PM UTC+5:30, Dirk Van de moortel
> wrote:

I have answered that before, and will answer it again below.

> To clarify, you are using Galilean relativity : the track is the
> stationary and absolute frame of reference,

No, the track is the frame in which the track observer makes
observations. There is nothing absolute absolute about, nobody
knows how that track is moving with respect to the entire
Universe. Think about that. It is just a track with some
looking at things in his neighborhood. One of the essential
observations is that some train observer must be FIRST be
blinded by some "blue front flash", and THEN, later, by some
"red back flash". That is something that the train observer also
experiences.

> and then assuming the
> speed of light c relative to both observers, and then drawing a
> contradiction?

I don't see any contradiction. I just see a conclusion.

>
> Suppose the lightning struck both the train and the tracks at the
> same time.

IF you suppose the lightning struck both the train and the tracks
at the same time, AND you suppose that light speed is invariant,
THEN it follows that the lightning CANNOT have struck both
the train and the tracks at the same time. Waterproof.
That is the WHOLE POINT of the exercise.
I get the impression that you don't see the point because perhaps
you don't manage to assume that light speed is invariant?

> Then would you say the point of emission (secondary source
> of emission, though I am in favour of using LEDs instead). is at the
> end of the train - eg the scorch marks, and can we think of the
> scorch marks as the point of emission?

For the train observer, the points of emission are the front and
the back of the train. She can go and measure the distances to
these points at any time, and will find that she is in the middle.
For the track observer, the points of emission are two locations
on the track. He can go and measure the distance to these points
at any time, and will find that she is in the middle.

Dirk Vdm

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote:

[snip]

> No, the track is the frame in which the track observer makes
> observations. There is nothing absolute absolute about, nobody

Should be:
There is nothing absolute about it, ...

> knows how that track is moving with respect to the entire
> Universe. Think about that. It is just a track with some

Should be:
... just a track with someone

> looking at things in his neighborhood. One of the essential
> observations is that some train observer must be FIRST be

Should be:
must FIRST be

[snip]

> For the train observer, the points of emission are the front and
> the back of the train. She can go and measure the distances to
> these points at any time, and will find that she is in the middle.
> For the track observer, the points of emission are two locations
> on the track. He can go and measure the distance to these points
> at any time, and will find that she is in the middle.

Should be:
... that he is in the middle.

Sorry for the typos. Should have verified before sending.

Dirk Vdm

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 15:27:48 -0500, Absolutely Vertical

<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/16/2013 3:25 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:26:40 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
>> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/15/2013 5:48 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>>>>> that's obvious. he wanted a light source that left a lasting mark on the
>>>>> tracks and on the train where the event(s) happened. he explicitly talks
>>>>> about the scorch marks and how they're used. what's wrong with you? do
>>>>> you not read? can you not understand what you read?
>>>>
>>>> Well he could have used flashing lights firmly attached to the ground.
>>>
>>> which does not leave a mark on the train about the event. good lord you
>>> are denser than aunt tildy's turkey stuffing.
>>
>> Sorry diaper, it is you who is dense. If marks are left on both the train and
>> the track, the ambiguity is established.
>
>what ambiguity?
>there's not a thing ambiguous about an event occurring which leaves a
>lasting mark on two things where they are adjacent.
>
>good heavens, wilson, it's obvious you've never even read the gedanken!
>or that you cannot understand simple sentences aimed at laypeople.

If there are marks are on the train ends, a pair of flashes would have been
emitted by those marks, moving at c wrt the train.

>
>>
>>>>> no _wonder_ you don't believe relativity. you can't understand a word of
>>>>> anything you've read about it.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/16/2013 7:44 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> I ask one question: Does the point of emission move with respect to the track
> observer and train observer respectively or does it not?

the emission is a _momentary_ flash. it is an _event_. events do not
move. they are there and gone, with no persistence. only something that
has persistence can move.

[Absolutely Vertical]

oh, good lord, you persistent moron. the light is emitted by the
_single_ lightning bolt, the same lightning bolt that left _two_ marks,
one mark on the train and one mark on the track, because the _single_
lightning bolt struck at the place where the train and the track meet.
the _two_ marks are not the sources of the light.

now, if you need it any simpler than that, i suppose we could start with
'one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish'.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

"For the train observer, the points of emission are the front and
the back of the train"

This is just my point. If the point of emission is the front and the back of the train, and the point of emission is at a fixed distance from the train observer, then what conclusion can we draw?

An observer is equidistant from two points of emission. The speed of the emitted light is c from each point of emission to the observer.

Equal distances, equal speeds, equal times?

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Yes.
And since the signals do not reach her at the same time (first
she sees the front signal and then the back signal), the signals
were not sent at the same time. You're almost there.

Dirk Vdm

[Absolutely Vertical]

yes, but the train observer makes this startling observation: the
flashes do not arrive at the train observer at the same time. they just
don't! (and the track observer _agrees_ that they don't arrive at the
train observer at the same time!)

so what should the train observer conclude from: different arrival
times, equal distances, equal speeds, equal propagation times? it's
simple: he concludes the signals did not get generated at the same time.

what you are doing is insisting in your head that they _did_ get
generated at the same time, and therefore they _must_ arrive at the
train observer at the same time.

but they don't. and both observers agree that they don't arrive at train
observer at the same time. so something must be wrong in what you are
insisting in your head. and what is wrong is that they got generated at
the same time.

[Elmer Wright]

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Should be:
> ... that he is in the middle.
>
> Sorry for the typos. Should have verified before sending.

No it is okay, nobody read that anyway, lol

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:03:48 -0500, Absolutely Vertical

<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/17/2013 5:25 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 15:27:48 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
>> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> what ambiguity?
>>> there's not a thing ambiguous about an event occurring which leaves a
>>> lasting mark on two things where they are adjacent.
>>>
>>> good heavens, wilson, it's obvious you've never even read the gedanken!
>>> or that you cannot understand simple sentences aimed at laypeople.
>>
>> If there are marks are on the train ends, a pair of flashes would have been
>> emitted by those marks, moving at c wrt the train.
>
>oh, good lord, you persistent moron. the light is emitted by the
>_single_ lightning bolt, the same lightning bolt that left _two_ marks,
>one mark on the train and one mark on the track, because the _single_
>lightning bolt struck at the place where the train and the track meet.
>the _two_ marks are not the sources of the light.

oh. christ all-fucking mighty, was the same lightning bolt vertical in the
ground frame or the train frame?
IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE, YOU KNOW.

>now, if you need it any simpler than that, i suppose we could start with
>'one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish'.

I see it will have to be MUCH simpler if you are to understand it...

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

That is far too hard for them to understand....

Anyway, I cleared that matter up in my other thread.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 9:28:38 PM UTC+5:30, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

Do you realize that what you are describing is the scenario where there is an ether in the frame of the track?

If you replace the system with two gongs and non moving air in the track frame. The person on the track hears the sound at the same time, the person in the open carriage train, open to air, that is, hears the gongs one before the other since he travels closer to the point of origin of sound.

The train person will measure sound at s+v but this does not change the result.

So in terms of sound alone, in the auditory world, the person on the train concludes that one sound occurs before the other?

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/17/2013 5:47 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:03:48 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/2013 5:25 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 15:27:48 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
>>> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> what ambiguity?
>>>> there's not a thing ambiguous about an event occurring which leaves a
>>>> lasting mark on two things where they are adjacent.
>>>>
>>>> good heavens, wilson, it's obvious you've never even read the gedanken!
>>>> or that you cannot understand simple sentences aimed at laypeople.
>>>
>>> If there are marks are on the train ends, a pair of flashes would have been
>>> emitted by those marks, moving at c wrt the train.
>>
>> oh, good lord, you persistent moron. the light is emitted by the
>> _single_ lightning bolt, the same lightning bolt that left _two_ marks,
>> one mark on the train and one mark on the track, because the _single_
>> lightning bolt struck at the place where the train and the track meet.
>> the _two_ marks are not the sources of the light.
>
> oh. christ all-fucking mighty, was the same lightning bolt vertical in the
> ground frame or the train frame?
> IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE, YOU KNOW.

no it doesn't. read what i wrote. einstein was looking for a _localized_
light source, one that was also very brief in duration. so he used a
lightning bolt. i've already said this at least three times to you, so i
can only assume you are drinking or brain-damaged.

the vertical extent of the lightning flash is _ignored_ in the gedanken
and so its vertical alignment is also irrelevant.

which would be obvious if you took the trouble to _read_ it. if you have
read it, then it proves you cannot read at the high school level.
ignorant boob.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/17/2013 8:37 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 17, 2013 9:28:38 PM UTC+5:30, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

>>
>>
>> yes, but the train observer makes this startling observation: the
>> flashes do not arrive at the train observer at the same time. they just
>> don't! (and the track observer _agrees_ that they don't arrive at the
>> train observer at the same time!)
>>
>> so what should the train observer conclude from: different arrival
>> times, equal distances, equal speeds, equal propagation times? it's
>> simple: he concludes the signals did not get generated at the same time.
>>
>> what you are doing is insisting in your head that they _did_ get
>> generated at the same time, and therefore they _must_ arrive at the
>> train observer at the same time.
>>
>> but they don't. and both observers agree that they don't arrive at train
>> observer at the same time. so something must be wrong in what you are
>> insisting in your head. and what is wrong is that they got generated at
>> the same time.
>
>
> Do you realize that what you are describing is the scenario where there is an ether in the
> frame of the track?

not at all! why do you think an ether is called for by this at all?

> If you replace the system with two gongs and non moving air in the track frame. The
> person on the track hears the sound at the same time, the person in the open carriage train,
> open to air, that is, hears the gongs one before the other since he travels closer to the
> point of origin of sound.

so you have two and only two possibilities in your head. one is that
light is like bullets from a gun, the other is that light is like sound
in a medium. the problem is that there is a third possibility, and this
is the one you can't seem to lay your fingers on....

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:50:57 -0500, Absolutely Vertical

Diaper, if you had read and understood what was written in my other thread on
this subject, you would have seen that I fully explained both why Einstein
used lightning bolts and why he should not have used lightning bolts.

Einstein had no idea of practical physics but he would have made an excellent
used car (or horse) salesman. The use of lightning might have impresseed a lot
of gullible Scifi addicts at the time but it was not suitable as a light
source in his experiment. As I pointed out, if the bolts were about 3mm off
vertical in the ground frame, they would have been at rest in the TRAIN frame.

His real aim was to locate two lights on the track, equidistant from the
ground observer and separated by the length of the train. The two lights were
to emit pulses simultaneaously in the track frame, indicated by the fact that
the track observer received them simultaneously.

Naturally the train observer would not receive them simultaneously. SO FUCKING
WHAT?

Henry Wilson DSc.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

>
> His real aim was to locate two lights on the track, equidistant from the
>
> ground observer and separated by the length of the train. The two lights were
>
> to emit pulses simultaneaously in the track frame, indicated by the fact that
>
> the track observer received them simultaneously.
>
>
>

> Naturally the train observer would not receive them simultaneously. SO Fxxxx
>
> WHAT?
>
>
>
> Henry Wilson DSc.

Henry asks a good question, quite apart from the expletive, which seems to be common to some.

If the train observer does not see them at the same time, he can assume two things:

One is ( based on all the underlying and unstated... under -LYING - , that's so funny, as I said based on the unstated assumptions) that the two strikes hapenned at different times.

We have to be very careful here: the observer on the train sees two strikes at the different times, one after the other, and makes the assumption that, the ligh emanated from the track at a point that is rapidly approaching him, and he also assumes the speed of light to be c, and he projects the path of the light back in equal distances from him to imagined source points, equidistant from him. Then he says, if the light emanated from points equidistant to myself, at any point in my history, then they hapenned at different times.

There are a lot of assumptions here, but see if you agree with this, and I can elaborate on my idea.

Actually the observer on the train just sees two bright flashes of light, one after the other, and he does not know the distance to each of the flashes, nor if he is travelling toward one of the flashes, only that the speed of light is constant wrt him. If a lack of c+v is the only criteria for determining if one is moving or not, then one can be fooled, basically if you are using the c+v speed of light to build a speedometer then you will fail

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 04:32:47 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>>
>> His real aim was to locate two lights on the track, equidistant from the
>> ground observer and separated by the length of the train. The two lights were
>> to emit pulses simultaneaously in the track frame, indicated by the fact that
>> the track observer received them simultaneously.

>> Naturally the train observer would not receive them simultaneously. SO Fxxxx
>> WHAT?

>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>Henry asks a good question, quite apart from the expletive, which seems to be common to
some. If the train observer does not see them at the same time, he can assume
two things:
>One is ( based on all the underlying and unstated... under -LYING - , that's so funny, as I
said based on the unstated assumptions) that the two strikes hapenned at
>different times.
>
>We have to be very careful here: the observer on the train sees two strikes at the different
times, one after the other, and makes the assumption that, the ligh emanated
from the track at a point that is rapidly approaching him, and he also assumes
the speed of light to be c, and he projects the path of the light back in
equal distances from him to imagined source points, equidistant from him. Then
>he says, if the light emanated from points equidistant to myself, at any

>point in my history, then they happened at different times.
================
Forget the lightning strikes. They are an unnecesssary complication.
Use two flash lights that are equidistant from the track observer and which
emit a repetitive stream of flashes towards each other. They are at rest with
that observer and since he receives their signals simultaneously, they must
have been emitted simultaneously in his frame.

The train observer is aware of two flashing light sources, one approaching,
one receding. He does not receive their flashes simultaneously. In fact he
sees them arriving at different frequencies. Now the problem is for that
observer to calculate what each source is REALLY doing.

Sa--vt--Sr->_____(c+v)t-vt______________O

Consider a light source S, moving at a true speed of v in observer O's frame.
S emits light at c+v towards O.
Let a flash F1, be emitted at time t0 from point Sa. By the time F1 reaches O,
the source will have moved to point Sr...but O sees it at point Sa.

The problem for O is to calculate the REAL speed, Vr, from its APPARENT speed,
Va.
Assume time is universal and the flash takes time t to move from Sa to O at
speed c+v.
In that time, the source will move a distance vt from Sa to Sr.

We have:
APPARENT distance, Da = OSa = (c+v)t.
REAL distance, Dr = OSr = (c+v)t - vt = ct
Dr = c/(c+v).Da

In other words, if the source's APPARENT distance at any time is X, its REAL
distance is Xc/(c+v)
Since c and v are constant, d(Dr)/dt = c/(c+v). d(Da)/dt

Or Vr = Va.c/(c+v)
....which is just the Doppler equation.

Thus, an approaching object will appear to be further away and moving faster
than it really is.

Getting back to the train experiment, it can be shown that the train observer
can use logic similar to the above to calculate that pairs of flashes emitted
simultaneously in the ground frame did just that even though he received them
at different instants.

(I wont show how here.)

>There are a lot of assumptions here, but see if you agree with this, and I can
> elaborate on my idea.
>
>Actually the observer on the train just sees two bright flashes of light, one after
the other, and
he does not know the distance to each of the flashes, nor if he is travelling
>toward one of the flashes, only that the speed of light is constant wrt him.

He does not know that, at all !!!!!!!
He sees the source moving towards him and knows that its light is moving at
c+v towards him....but he must correct APPARENT speed into REAL speed to
assess simultaneity.

Complicated stuff, eh?

> If a lack of c+v is the only criteria for determining if one is moving or not, then
> one can be fooled, basically if you are using the c+v speed of light to build a
> speedometer then you will fail

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Absolutely Vertical]

you 'explained' something you know nothing about, as you've illustrated.
now you feel free to make up more bullshit about stuff that is factually
evident. must be fun, living in a world of your own making, all inside
your head.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/19/2013 6:32 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> Actually the observer on the train just sees two bright flashes of light, one after
> the other, and he does not know the distance to each of the flashes, nor if he is
> travelling toward one of the flashes, only that the speed of light is constant wrt
> him. If a lack of c+v is the only criteria for determining if one is moving or not,
> then one can be fooled, basically if you are using the c+v speed of light to build
> a speedometer then you will fail

the flashes left marks on the train, which he can go measure the
distance to at any time. (look at the written explanation of it, there
it is.) so he does know the distances to the source of the flashes --
they are equidistant from where he was standing. and he knows the speed
of light is the same. so because the distances are equal and the speeds
are equal, then he knows the propagation delays of the light are equal.
then because he saw the flashes arrive at him at different times, and
the propagation delays are the same, then he knows they originated at
different times. it's inescapable.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Make up your mind Diaper (if you have one)
Did the flashes come from the marks on the ground, train or both?

Geez you're stupid...

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:49:03 -0500, Absolutely Vertical

<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/18/2013 2:44 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:50:57 -0500, Absolutely Vertical

>>> which would be obvious if you took the trouble to _read_ it. if you have
>>> read it, then it proves you cannot read at the high school level.
>>> ignorant boob.
>>
>> Diaper, if you had read and understood what was written in my other thread on
>> this subject, you would have seen that I fully explained both why Einstein
>> used lightning bolts and why he should not have used lightning bolts.
>
>you 'explained' something you know nothing about, as you've illustrated.
>now you feel free to make up more bullshit about stuff that is factually
>evident. must be fun, living in a world of your own making, all inside
>your head.

If the lightning bolts were at rest in the train frame and the track
observer received the flashes simultaneously, as stated, then according to
your argument, both observers woud receive them simutaneously....and Seto
would be right.

[Absolutely Vertical]

i've already answered this question, which was a stupid question the
first time you asked it. since you did not absorb the answer to your
stupid question and chose to ask it again, it is natural to conclude
that you are not only stupid, but terminally stupid. so at this point
your options are:
- to ask the question a third time, to hammer in how terminally stupid
you are, or
- look up the answer already provided and squeeze your temples really,
really hard to try to absorb it this time.

>
> Geez you're stupid...
>

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/19/2013 6:11 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:49:03 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2013 2:44 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:50:57 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
>
>>>> which would be obvious if you took the trouble to _read_ it. if you have
>>>> read it, then it proves you cannot read at the high school level.
>>>> ignorant boob.
>>>
>>> Diaper, if you had read and understood what was written in my other thread on
>>> this subject, you would have seen that I fully explained both why Einstein
>>> used lightning bolts and why he should not have used lightning bolts.
>>
>> you 'explained' something you know nothing about, as you've illustrated.
>> now you feel free to make up more bullshit about stuff that is factually
>> evident. must be fun, living in a world of your own making, all inside
>> your head.
>
> If the lightning bolts were at rest in the train frame

lightning flashes are events. events do not move are they stationary.
since this is the third time this has been told to you, i have to
conclude that you cannot read english sentences and are terminally stupid.

> and the track
> observer received the flashes simultaneously, as stated, then according to
> your argument, both observers woud receive them simutaneously....and Seto
> would be right.

and you would be flat wrong in that conclusion. not surprising for
someone who cannot read. just like seto.

>