Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Train Gedanken Demonstrates Einstein's Incompetence and Dishonsty.
64 views
Skip to first unread message
Henry Wilson DSc.
May 15, 2013, 1:59:54 PM5/15/13
to
Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
experiment after 108 years? I'm going to tell you why. Read carefully.
Einstein was a very devious fellow...and he knew how to arouse public interest
in his grand new money making scheme called SR...Hence his use of lightning
strikes instead of flashing lights.
What exactly is a flash of lightning and why did Einstein use it? Since it
travels from cloud to Earth over a finite time, it can hardly be described as
a suitable light source for his experiment.
To eliminate this obvious problem, we will assume that a lightning bolt only
emits light at the instant it hits the ground. ...but that introduces another
problem because it presumably hits the train as well.... and Einstein's
apparent intention was to simulate just a pair of flashing lights.
The question arises as to whether the flashes seen by the two observers were
emitted by sources at rest with the ground, at rest with the train or as Seto
believes, BOTH of these?
The point is, there is no reason to believe that the bolts of lightning were
dead vertical in the ground frame any more than they were in the train frame.
Being only very slightly diagonal in the ground frame would make them vertical
in the train frame and therefore horizontally at rest in that frame but moving
sideways in the ground frame.
In that latter case, the simulated light sources would be effectively attached
to the train ends and moving sideways wrt the ground...so the use of lightning
bolts introduced what was possibly a deliberate ambiguity, aimed at detracting
attention from the main issue, the second postulate.
Now, in 2013, we can use pulsing lasers instead of lightning bolts. We will
place two such lasers on the ground, spaced exactly the same distance apart as
the ends of the train. The ambiguity is thus removed because the light sources
are definitely at rest in the ground frame and moving in the train frame.
The experiment is now easily resolved. As before, we locate the ground
observer Og midway between the two lasers and adjust their timing so that
their pulses reach Og simultaneously. They are then in synch in the ground
frame (I say in absolute synch). The train now moves from right to left and
when its ends are adjacent to the sources, both emit pulses simultaneously.
These also reach Og simultaneously. The train observer however receives the
pulse from the front before the one from the back because of his movement (or
more precisely, because the pulses move at c+v and c-v in his frame).
Get it so far?
OK OK, I can hear you all screaming!!!!!
You are about to point out that because the train is moving, its length will
be contracted in the ground frame and so the ends wont be adjacent to the
sources at the same instant in that frame.
If that is true, then in the ground frame, the rear end of the train will be
adjacent to the LH laser slightly before the front of the train reaches the RH
one...So the RH pulse will be emitted before the LH one and the train observer
might receive them at the same instant after all.
However in the train frame, the opposite is true. The distance between lasers
is contracted such that the front of the train reaches the LH laser first,
thus INCREASING the time gap between the arrival of the pulses at the train
observer.
I think there's something funny going on here, don't you.
I expect that these revelations will finally put an end to all controversy
surrounding Einstein's incredibly devious but clumsy experiment. The train
gedanken was clearly just a gigantic publicity stunt designed to help sell a
very clever hoax to a gullible scientific establishment and public.
Henry Wilson DSc.
experiment after 108 years? I'm going to tell you why. Read carefully.
Einstein was a very devious fellow...and he knew how to arouse public interest
in his grand new money making scheme called SR...Hence his use of lightning
strikes instead of flashing lights.
What exactly is a flash of lightning and why did Einstein use it? Since it
travels from cloud to Earth over a finite time, it can hardly be described as
a suitable light source for his experiment.
To eliminate this obvious problem, we will assume that a lightning bolt only
emits light at the instant it hits the ground. ...but that introduces another
problem because it presumably hits the train as well.... and Einstein's
apparent intention was to simulate just a pair of flashing lights.
The question arises as to whether the flashes seen by the two observers were
emitted by sources at rest with the ground, at rest with the train or as Seto
believes, BOTH of these?
The point is, there is no reason to believe that the bolts of lightning were
dead vertical in the ground frame any more than they were in the train frame.
Being only very slightly diagonal in the ground frame would make them vertical
in the train frame and therefore horizontally at rest in that frame but moving
sideways in the ground frame.
In that latter case, the simulated light sources would be effectively attached
to the train ends and moving sideways wrt the ground...so the use of lightning
bolts introduced what was possibly a deliberate ambiguity, aimed at detracting
attention from the main issue, the second postulate.
Now, in 2013, we can use pulsing lasers instead of lightning bolts. We will
place two such lasers on the ground, spaced exactly the same distance apart as
the ends of the train. The ambiguity is thus removed because the light sources
are definitely at rest in the ground frame and moving in the train frame.
The experiment is now easily resolved. As before, we locate the ground
observer Og midway between the two lasers and adjust their timing so that
their pulses reach Og simultaneously. They are then in synch in the ground
frame (I say in absolute synch). The train now moves from right to left and
when its ends are adjacent to the sources, both emit pulses simultaneously.
These also reach Og simultaneously. The train observer however receives the
pulse from the front before the one from the back because of his movement (or
more precisely, because the pulses move at c+v and c-v in his frame).
Get it so far?
OK OK, I can hear you all screaming!!!!!
You are about to point out that because the train is moving, its length will
be contracted in the ground frame and so the ends wont be adjacent to the
sources at the same instant in that frame.
If that is true, then in the ground frame, the rear end of the train will be
adjacent to the LH laser slightly before the front of the train reaches the RH
one...So the RH pulse will be emitted before the LH one and the train observer
might receive them at the same instant after all.
However in the train frame, the opposite is true. The distance between lasers
is contracted such that the front of the train reaches the LH laser first,
thus INCREASING the time gap between the arrival of the pulses at the train
observer.
I think there's something funny going on here, don't you.
I expect that these revelations will finally put an end to all controversy
surrounding Einstein's incredibly devious but clumsy experiment. The train
gedanken was clearly just a gigantic publicity stunt designed to help sell a
very clever hoax to a gullible scientific establishment and public.
Henry Wilson DSc.
paparios
May 15, 2013, 2:59:37 PM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1:59:54 PM UTC-4, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
>
> experiment after 108 years? I'm going to tell you why. Read carefully.
>
>
> Henry Wilson DSc.
> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
>
> experiment after 108 years? I'm going to tell you why. Read carefully.
>
>
You should, for sure, find another hobby, instead of writing nonsense as you do in a daily basis.
The relativity of simultaneity gedanken does not depend on lightning strikes nor flashing lights, nuclear blasts or whatever source you choose to use.
The point of the gedanken is to demostrate that inertial observers (including their instruments) will disagree about the simultaneity of the signals of two events they receive.
Einstein used trains, mechanical clocks, and lightning strikes, to help normal people to understand the concept. It is obvious that he failed, by not considering the bast amount of imbeciles, like you, that independently of the quality and clarity of Einstein gedanken presentation, will not ever understand the purpose of it
Dirk Van de moortel
May 15, 2013, 4:14:58 PM5/15/13
to
Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's
> train experiment after 108 years?
Why?
> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's
> train experiment after 108 years?
It's obvious.
Because some of these people go BERSERK when asked to assume
for a minute what would happen if light speed was the same for every
observer. It's a psychological thing.
That essentially is what Einstein did in 1905. He said, well, as a
mental exercise, let's ASSUME for a minute that lightspeed is
invariant... what would that imply?
It turns out that it implies a lot of --at first sight-- strange things, all
(ALL) of which turn out to be perfectly backed by a century of clever
tests and experiments. Bummer.
For the intelligent (!) layman he wrote the 1920 book where you find
the train reasoning, which is absolutely waterproof.
See (http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html)
But people like you can't follow the reasoning because you go berserk
on the premise. You cannot even *assume for a minute*.
It really is a psychological barrier, nothing more, and it is the primary
reason for the existence of this entire newsgroup. For some, instead of
sci.physics.relativity
it should be called
alt.i.cannot.imagine.that.lightspeed.could.be.invariant.but.
do.not.try.to.help.me.because.i.do.not.even.want.to.imagine
(Note: for Ken seto the group should be called alt.telephone.pole)
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
May 15, 2013, 4:34:26 PM5/15/13
to
simultaneity is relative. It is not.
This reasoning does NOT prove "that simultaneity is relative".
It DOES neatly prove "that simultaneity is relative PROVIDED one
ASSUMES that lightspeed is constant for everyone in every direction".
As as soon as one manages to "assume for a minute" that lightspeed
is invariant AND accept the (very simple) consequences of that
assumption, is gets really trivially easy.
Otherwise there is no hope that one will ever understand it. This group
has been harbouring people with *that very problem* for decades now.
It's hopeless for them.
But it's excellent for us as an exercise in honing our explaining skills :-)
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
May 15, 2013, 4:38:11 PM5/15/13
to
Dirk Vdm
Absolutely Vertical
May 15, 2013, 5:09:44 PM5/15/13
to
On 5/15/2013 3:34 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> They clearly think that the purpose of the gedanken is to prove that
> simultaneity is relative. It is not.
> This reasoning does NOT prove "that simultaneity is relative". It DOES
> neatly prove "that simultaneity is relative PROVIDED one
> ASSUMES that lightspeed is constant for everyone in every direction". As
> as soon as one manages to "assume for a minute" that lightspeed
> is invariant AND accept the (very simple) consequences of that
> assumption, is gets really trivially easy. Otherwise there is no hope
> that one will ever understand it. This group
> has been harbouring people with *that very problem* for decades now.
> It's hopeless for them.
> But it's excellent for us as an exercise in honing our explaining skills
> :-)
well said.
> They clearly think that the purpose of the gedanken is to prove that
> simultaneity is relative. It is not.
> This reasoning does NOT prove "that simultaneity is relative". It DOES
> neatly prove "that simultaneity is relative PROVIDED one
> ASSUMES that lightspeed is constant for everyone in every direction". As
> as soon as one manages to "assume for a minute" that lightspeed
> is invariant AND accept the (very simple) consequences of that
> assumption, is gets really trivially easy. Otherwise there is no hope
> that one will ever understand it. This group
> has been harbouring people with *that very problem* for decades now.
> It's hopeless for them.
> But it's excellent for us as an exercise in honing our explaining skills
> :-)
people think gedankens are experiments. they are not.
people think gedankens are proofs. they are not.
they are explications of reasoning that show how you get from premise
'a' to conclusion 'f', by outlining all the logical steps from 'a' to
'b' to 'c' to 'd' to 'e' to 'f'.
in this case, one has an _presumption_ of the constancy of the speed of
light and a claim that simultaneity is relative. the natural question
would be, 'how do you get from the constancy of the speed of light to
relativity of simultaneity?'
that 'how do you get' is what a gedanken provides.
people here say all the time, 'but i don't believe in the premise 'a'.
how is the gedanken supposed to get me to believe it?'
it's not supposed to.
the truth of premise 'a' (the constancy of the speed of light) comes
from three pillars _completely separate_ from the train gedanken.
1. maxwell's electrodynamics appear to be right and the principle of
relativity appears to be right. these two together demand the constancy
of the speed of light.
2. tons of experimental data shows that the speed of light as actually
measured is constant.
3. the consequences of relativity, in _other_ measurable predictions,
match experimental results extremely well, from which we _infer_ that
the premise is right. moreover, the consequences of alternative ideas,
like quenched ballistic light, do not match experimental results well.
so the it is not the train gedanken that provides evidence of the
constancy of the speed of light. it is the three pillars just described,
and they are pretty compelling. once you are willing to accept the
premise that the speed of light is constant, _then_ the train gedanken
shows how you get relativity of simultaneity directly from that.
paparios
May 15, 2013, 5:10:27 PM5/15/13
to
Absolutely Vertical
May 15, 2013, 5:11:21 PM5/15/13
to
On 5/15/2013 12:59 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
> experiment after 108 years? I'm going to tell you why. Read carefully.
>
> Einstein was a very devious fellow...and he knew how to arouse public interest
> in his grand new money making scheme called SR...Hence his use of lightning
> strikes instead of flashing lights.
>
> What exactly is a flash of lightning and why did Einstein use it? Since it
> travels from cloud to Earth over a finite time, it can hardly be described as
> a suitable light source for his experiment.
>
> To eliminate this obvious problem, we will assume that a lightning bolt only
> emits light at the instant it hits the ground. ...but that introduces another
> problem because it presumably hits the train as well.... and Einstein's
> apparent intention was to simulate just a pair of flashing lights.
idiot, idiot, idiot. what a waste of bandwidth.
> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
> experiment after 108 years? I'm going to tell you why. Read carefully.
>
> Einstein was a very devious fellow...and he knew how to arouse public interest
> in his grand new money making scheme called SR...Hence his use of lightning
> strikes instead of flashing lights.
>
> What exactly is a flash of lightning and why did Einstein use it? Since it
> travels from cloud to Earth over a finite time, it can hardly be described as
> a suitable light source for his experiment.
>
> To eliminate this obvious problem, we will assume that a lightning bolt only
> emits light at the instant it hits the ground. ...but that introduces another
> problem because it presumably hits the train as well.... and Einstein's
> apparent intention was to simulate just a pair of flashing lights.
einstein wanted an event that would emit a very short, very localized
flash of light in all directions, and which would leave lasting evidence
of the event's location which could be later checked. a lightning bolt
that leaves a scorch mark on both the track and the train is a
sufficient approximation to that, that anyone with a lick of sense would
be able to understand the intent.
any spooling up about this otherwise does nothing but illustrate that
the o.p. has completely missed the point.
[rest ignored as a waste of time]
Absolutely Vertical
May 15, 2013, 5:11:33 PM5/15/13
to
On 5/15/2013 3:14 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> It really is a psychological barrier, nothing more, and it is the primary
> reason for the existence of this entire newsgroup. For some, instead of
> sci.physics.relativity
> it should be called
> alt.i.cannot.imagine.that.lightspeed.could.be.invariant.but.
> do.not.try.to.help.me.because.i.do.not.even.want.to.imagine
> (Note: for Ken seto the group should be called alt.telephone.pole)
well said. i've often thought that people come here confused, intending
> It really is a psychological barrier, nothing more, and it is the primary
> reason for the existence of this entire newsgroup. For some, instead of
> sci.physics.relativity
> it should be called
> alt.i.cannot.imagine.that.lightspeed.could.be.invariant.but.
> do.not.try.to.help.me.because.i.do.not.even.want.to.imagine
> (Note: for Ken seto the group should be called alt.telephone.pole)
to go to another group instead:
alt.seems.like.a.good.thing.to.argue.about
sci.my.idea.deserves.as.much.attention.as.relativity
sci.einstein.schmeinstein.the.name.makes.me.sick
sci.i.dont.get.it.so.its.wrong
sci.entists.are.pigs.and.should.all.be.fired
sci.i.dare.you.to.try.to.convince.me.but.you.will.fail
Henry Wilson DSc.
May 15, 2013, 7:15:51 PM5/15/13
to
Was it at rest in the train frame or the ground frame?
I might point out that if the flash was dad straight and traveled at c/10
from a cloud 3km up, it would only have to be a few mm off vertical at the
top, in the ground frame, to be vertical in the train frame and horizontally
at rest in the train frame.
>
>[rest ignored as a waste of time]
Henry Wilson DSc.
May 15, 2013, 7:18:16 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:14:58 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote:
>Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's
>> train experiment after 108 years?
>
>Why?
>It's obvious.
>Because some of these people go BERSERK when asked to assume
>for a minute what would happen if light speed was the same for every
>observer. It's a psychological thing.
>
>That essentially is what Einstein did in 1905. He said, well, as a
>mental exercise, let's ASSUME for a minute that lightspeed is
>invariant... what would that imply?
>It turns out that it implies a lot of --at first sight-- strange things, all
>(ALL) of which turn out to be perfectly backed by a century of clever
>tests and experiments.
Name one.
<dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote:
>Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's
>> train experiment after 108 years?
>
>Why?
>It's obvious.
>Because some of these people go BERSERK when asked to assume
>for a minute what would happen if light speed was the same for every
>observer. It's a psychological thing.
>
>That essentially is what Einstein did in 1905. He said, well, as a
>mental exercise, let's ASSUME for a minute that lightspeed is
>invariant... what would that imply?
>It turns out that it implies a lot of --at first sight-- strange things, all
>(ALL) of which turn out to be perfectly backed by a century of clever
>tests and experiments.
Dirk Van de moortel
May 16, 2013, 3:27:15 AM5/16/13
to
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
May 16, 2013, 5:02:07 AM5/16/13
to
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in
message
news:kn21oh$at3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I pick MMX. Awfuck, it works without
Einstein.
What else do you have, shithead?
--
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.
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.
Dirk Van de moortel
May 16, 2013, 5:33:46 AM5/16/13
to
"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@May2013.edu> schreef in bericht news:zh1lt.86038$1g2....@fx08.fr7...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message news:kn21oh$at3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>Henry Wilson DSc. <..@..> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:14:58 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>>Henry Wilson DSc. <..@..> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:14:58 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>>>> It turns out that it implies a lot of --at first sight-- strange
>>>> things, all (ALL) of which turn out to be perfectly backed by a
>>>> century of clever tests and experiments.
>>> Name one.
>> Pick one
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>> Bummer.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
> I pick MMX. Awfuck, it works without Einstein.
> What else do you have, shithead?
Bravo.
>>>> things, all (ALL) of which turn out to be perfectly backed by a
>>>> century of clever tests and experiments.
>>> Name one.
>> Pick one
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>> Bummer.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
> I pick MMX. Awfuck, it works without Einstein.
> What else do you have, shithead?
Now pick another.
Logic never was your strongest point, was it.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORpersistence.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORforever.html
Bummer.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
May 16, 2013, 6:29:02 AM5/16/13
to
But that trivial piece of logic gets blurred by a stamp
feeting BUT-IT-CANNOT-BE-CONSTANT-frenzy.
They all hurt themselves over it, and the more they do so,
the less they feel it, but the more the self-inflicted harm
accumulates. A viciously vicious circle.
Dirk Vdm
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
May 16, 2013, 7:48:39 AM5/16/13
to
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in
message
news:kn295n$3ke$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@May2013.edu> schreef in bericht news:zh1lt.86038$1g2....@fx08.fr7...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message news:kn21oh$at3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>Henry Wilson DSc. <..@..> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:14:58 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>>>> It turns out that it implies a lot of --at first sight-- strange
>>>> things, all (ALL) of which turn out to be perfectly backed by a
>>>> century of clever tests and experiments.
>>> Name one.
>> Pick one
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>> Bummer.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
> I pick MMX. Awfuck, it works without Einstein.
> What else do you have, shithead?
Bravo.
Now pick another.
==============================
Your turn, arsehole. Name an experiment that
can’t
be explained
with Newtonian Mechanics. Logic isn’t
something
you’ve heard of.
Absolutely Vertical
May 16, 2013, 9:30:34 AM5/16/13
to
On 5/15/2013 6:15 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:> On Wed, 15 May 2013
events do not move. they are localized in space and in time. read again:
very short, very localized flash of light. are you an idiot? why yes,
you are. proving it with every subsequent reply.
>
> I might point out that if the flash was dad straight and traveled at c/10
> from a cloud 3km up, it would only have to be a few mm off vertical
at the
> top, in the ground frame, to be vertical in the train frame and
horizontally
> at rest in the train frame.
>
>
>>
>> [rest ignored as a waste of time]
>
> You mean it was far too hard and you couldn't understand it.
no, i meant what i said.
very short, very localized flash of light. are you an idiot? why yes,
you are. proving it with every subsequent reply.
>
> I might point out that if the flash was dad straight and traveled at c/10
> from a cloud 3km up, it would only have to be a few mm off vertical
at the
> top, in the ground frame, to be vertical in the train frame and
horizontally
> at rest in the train frame.
>
>
>>
>> [rest ignored as a waste of time]
>
> You mean it was far too hard and you couldn't understand it.
kenseto
May 16, 2013, 10:37:01 AM5/16/13
to
delta form of the LT to transform his observations to the train
observer and concludes that the train observer will see the flashes to
be simultaneous at a different track clock time....
kenseto
May 16, 2013, 11:02:16 AM5/16/13
to
On May 15, 4:34 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
velocity will affect the isotropy of the speed of light in the train.
It does not.
> As as soon as one manages to "assume for a minute" that lightspeed
> is invariant AND accept the (very simple) consequences of that
> assumption, is gets really trivially easy.
But it is not so easy.....the idea that the train observer have
different closing speed wrt the light fronts from the ends of the
train violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. The LT
rejects this different closing velocities between the trin observer
and the light fronts from the ends of the train.
> Otherwise there is no hope that one will ever understand it. This group
> has been harbouring people with *that very problem* for decades now.
> It's hopeless for them.
> But it's excellent for us as an exercise in honing our explaining skills :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> They clearly think that the purpose of the gedanken is to prove that
> simultaneity is relative. It is not.
> This reasoning does NOT prove "that simultaneity is relative".
> It DOES neatly prove "that simultaneity is relative PROVIDED one
> ASSUMES that lightspeed is constant for everyone in every direction".
No...your so call proof is based on the bogus assumption that relative
> They clearly think that the purpose of the gedanken is to prove that
> simultaneity is relative. It is not.
> This reasoning does NOT prove "that simultaneity is relative".
> It DOES neatly prove "that simultaneity is relative PROVIDED one
> ASSUMES that lightspeed is constant for everyone in every direction".
velocity will affect the isotropy of the speed of light in the train.
It does not.
> As as soon as one manages to "assume for a minute" that lightspeed
> is invariant AND accept the (very simple) consequences of that
> assumption, is gets really trivially easy.
different closing speed wrt the light fronts from the ends of the
train violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. The LT
rejects this different closing velocities between the trin observer
and the light fronts from the ends of the train.
> Otherwise there is no hope that one will ever understand it. This group
> has been harbouring people with *that very problem* for decades now.
> It's hopeless for them.
> But it's excellent for us as an exercise in honing our explaining skills :-)
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dirk Van de moortel
May 16, 2013, 11:06:55 AM5/16/13
to
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> On May 15, 4:34 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
>
>> They clearly think that the purpose of the gedanken is to prove that
>> simultaneity is relative. It is not.
>> This reasoning does NOT prove "that simultaneity is relative".
>> It DOES neatly prove "that simultaneity is relative PROVIDED one
>> ASSUMES that lightspeed is constant for everyone in every direction".
>
> No...your so call proof is based on the bogus assumption that relative
> velocity will affect the isotropy of the speed of light in the train.
> It does not.
Go have a dog piss against your leg or something,
> On May 15, 4:34 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
>
>> They clearly think that the purpose of the gedanken is to prove that
>> simultaneity is relative. It is not.
>> This reasoning does NOT prove "that simultaneity is relative".
>> It DOES neatly prove "that simultaneity is relative PROVIDED one
>> ASSUMES that lightspeed is constant for everyone in every direction".
>
> No...your so call proof is based on the bogus assumption that relative
> velocity will affect the isotropy of the speed of light in the train.
> It does not.
whatever that makes a telephone pole happy.
Dirk Vdm
Absolutely Vertical
May 16, 2013, 12:06:00 PM5/16/13
to
Tom Roberts
May 16, 2013, 1:27:20 PM5/16/13
to
On 5/15/13 5/15/13 - 12:59 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> [...]
No, it merely displays Henry Wilson's incompetence and dishonesty.
But he's too ignorant, stupid, and arrogant to recognize
his own limitations. So there's no point in continuing.
Tom Roberts
> [...]
No, it merely displays Henry Wilson's incompetence and dishonesty.
But he's too ignorant, stupid, and arrogant to recognize
his own limitations. So there's no point in continuing.
Tom Roberts
shuba
May 16, 2013, 1:34:40 PM5/16/13
to
Dirk Vdm wrote:
> For the intelligent (!) layman he wrote the 1920 book where you
> find the train reasoning, which is absolutely waterproof.
> See (http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html)
If it is so waterproof, why isn't a ship used instead of a train?
> For the intelligent (!) layman he wrote the 1920 book where you
> find the train reasoning, which is absolutely waterproof.
> See (http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html)
A new theory of relativity called IRT uses the above absolutely
waterproof concept of ships. IRT math includes SRT math as a
subset. However, unlike SR math the IRT math are valid in all
environments, including bathtubs, rivers, lakes, and the open sea.
---Tim Shuba---
Dirk Van de moortel
May 16, 2013, 2:09:51 PM5/16/13
to
shuba <t...@sh.uba> wrote:
> Dirk Vdm wrote:
>
>> For the intelligent (!) layman he wrote the 1920 book where you
>> find the train reasoning, which is absolutely waterproof.
>> See (http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html)
>
> If it is so waterproof, why isn't a ship used instead of a train?
:-))
> Dirk Vdm wrote:
>
>> For the intelligent (!) layman he wrote the 1920 book where you
>> find the train reasoning, which is absolutely waterproof.
>> See (http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html)
>
> If it is so waterproof, why isn't a ship used instead of a train?
>
> A new theory of relativity called IRT uses the above absolutely
> waterproof concept of ships. IRT math includes SRT math as a
> subset. However, unlike SR math the IRT math are valid in all
> environments, including bathtubs, rivers, lakes, and the open sea.
Dirk Vdm
Absolutely Vertical
May 16, 2013, 2:16:58 PM5/16/13
to
kenseto is so stupid, it takes him three hours to watch 60 minutes.
kenseto has patented a new kind of parachute that opens on impact.
when kenseto passed third grade, he got so excited he cut himself shaving.
Henry Wilson DSc.
May 16, 2013, 4:32:57 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:30:34 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
Henry Wilson DSc.
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/15/2013 6:15 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:> On Wed, 15 May 2013
>16:11:21 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
>On 5/15/2013 6:15 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:> On Wed, 15 May 2013
>16:11:21 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
> > The light wasn't emitted by the scorch mark. It was emitted by the flash.
> > Was it at rest in the train frame or the ground frame?
>
>events do not move. they are localized in space and in time.
....only if you assume absolute space and absolute time.
> > Was it at rest in the train frame or the ground frame?
>
>events do not move. they are localized in space and in time.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Henry Wilson DSc.
May 16, 2013, 4:35:46 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 12:27:20 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
.....It looks like Tom is beaten again...
>Tom Roberts
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>Tom Roberts
Henry Wilson DSc.
kenseto
May 16, 2013, 4:42:17 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 12:06 pm, Absolutely Vertical
> ken is so stupid he cooks with old spice.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not as stupid as you.
> - Show quoted text -
Henry Wilson DSc.
May 16, 2013, 4:42:56 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 07:37:01 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>On May 15, 1:59�pm, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>>
>> The experiment is now easily resolved. As before, we locate the ground
>> observer Og midway between the two lasers and adjust their timing so that
>> their pulses reach Og simultaneously. They are then in synch in the ground
>> frame (I say in absolute synch). The train now moves from right to left and
>> when its ends are adjacent to the sources, both emit pulses simultaneously.
>> These also reach Og simultaneously. The train observer however receives the
>> pulse from the front before the one from the back because of his movement (or
>> more precisely, because the pulses move at c+v and c-v in his frame).
>
>No there is no c+v and c-v in the train. The ground observer uses the
>On May 15, 1:59�pm, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>>
>> The experiment is now easily resolved. As before, we locate the ground
>> observer Og midway between the two lasers and adjust their timing so that
>> their pulses reach Og simultaneously. They are then in synch in the ground
>> frame (I say in absolute synch). The train now moves from right to left and
>> when its ends are adjacent to the sources, both emit pulses simultaneously.
>> These also reach Og simultaneously. The train observer however receives the
>> pulse from the front before the one from the back because of his movement (or
>> more precisely, because the pulses move at c+v and c-v in his frame).
>
>delta form of the LT to transform his observations to the train
>observer and concludes that the train observer will see the flashes to
>be simultaneous at a different track clock time....
Ken, you and I will never agree because you are an aetherist and I am a true
>observer and concludes that the train observer will see the flashes to
>be simultaneous at a different track clock time....
relativist..
However I have already conceded that aether theories would at least be
credible is an aether existed. Einstein's 'personal aether' version simply
does not work. For one thing, it cannot explain how light speed from
differently moving sources becomes magically unified.
Henry Wilson DSc.
kenseto
May 16, 2013, 4:44:28 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 2:09 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
Correct it is experimentally confirmed.
kenseto
May 16, 2013, 4:48:51 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 2:16 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:
ROTFLOL....pot kettle black.
wrote:
Absolutely Vertical
May 16, 2013, 5:12:54 PM5/16/13
to
hell, you're as bad as seto. you don't even know what the words mean.
Dirk Van de moortel
May 16, 2013, 5:27:29 PM5/16/13
to
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IsotropicInAllDirections.html
Dirk Vdm
Absolutely Vertical
May 16, 2013, 5:32:51 PM5/16/13
to
On 5/16/2013 3:42 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On May 16, 12:06 pm, Absolutely Vertical
>>
> On May 16, 12:06 pm, Absolutely Vertical
>>
>> ken is so stupid he cooks with old spice.
> Not as stupid as you.
oh, ouch, ouch, ouch. boy that hurt.
kenseto is so stupid, he sold his car for gas money.
kenseto is so stupid, he returned candy to the grocery store,
complaining that he wanted m&m's and only got w&w's.
kenseto is so stupid, he complained to his landlord that there wasn't a
peephole in his screen door.
kenseto is so stupid, he almost died when he couldn't remember the
number for 911.
Absolutely Vertical
May 16, 2013, 5:34:26 PM5/16/13
to
kenseto is so stupid, he called youtube up and invited them to come tape
his birthday party.
Elmer Wright
May 16, 2013, 5:46:27 PM5/16/13
to
Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>> Correct it is experimentally confirmed.
>>
>>
> i think i'm just going to bask in kenseto's response for a bit.
>
> kenseto is so stupid, he called youtube up and invited them to come tape
> his birthday party.
Well, google comes uninvited, lol
>> Correct it is experimentally confirmed.
>>
>>
> i think i'm just going to bask in kenseto's response for a bit.
>
> kenseto is so stupid, he called youtube up and invited them to come tape
> his birthday party.
Absolutely Vertical
May 16, 2013, 6:20:45 PM5/16/13
to
On 5/16/2013 4:27 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>> A new theory of relativity called IRT uses the above absolutely
>>>> waterproof concept of ships. IRT math includes SRT math as a
>>>> subset. However, unlike SR math the IRT math are valid in all
>>>> environments, including bathtubs, rivers, lakes, and the open sea.
>>>
>>> ... and most importantly, isotropic in all directions.
>>>
>>
>> Correct it is experimentally confirmed.
>
> <COFFEE SPILLING GUFFAW!>
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IsotropicInAllDirections.html
>
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/35v7di/
>>>> A new theory of relativity called IRT uses the above absolutely
>>>> waterproof concept of ships. IRT math includes SRT math as a
>>>> subset. However, unlike SR math the IRT math are valid in all
>>>> environments, including bathtubs, rivers, lakes, and the open sea.
>>>
>>> ... and most importantly, isotropic in all directions.
>>>
>>
>> Correct it is experimentally confirmed.
>
> <COFFEE SPILLING GUFFAW!>
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IsotropicInAllDirections.html
>
Henry Wilson DSc.
May 16, 2013, 6:35:49 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:12:54 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
Nothing can be 'localized' in space or time unless a reference is provided.
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/16/2013 3:32 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:30:34 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
>> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/15/2013 6:15 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:> On Wed, 15 May 2013
>>> 16:11:21 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
>>
>>>> The light wasn't emitted by the scorch mark. It was emitted by the flash.
>>>> Was it at rest in the train frame or the ground frame?
>>>
>>> events do not move. they are localized in space and in time.
>>
>> ....only if you assume absolute space and absolute time.
>
>no. events do not move by definition of 'event'.
>hell, you're as bad as seto. you don't even know what the words mean.
Nothing MOVES in space/time.
>On 5/16/2013 3:32 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:30:34 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
>> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/15/2013 6:15 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:> On Wed, 15 May 2013
>>> 16:11:21 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
>>
>>>> The light wasn't emitted by the scorch mark. It was emitted by the flash.
>>>> Was it at rest in the train frame or the ground frame?
>>>
>>> events do not move. they are localized in space and in time.
>>
>> ....only if you assume absolute space and absolute time.
>
>no. events do not move by definition of 'event'.
>hell, you're as bad as seto. you don't even know what the words mean.
Nothing can be 'localized' in space or time unless a reference is provided.
Absolutely Vertical
May 16, 2013, 6:37:58 PM5/16/13
to
well, you've done enough wasting of _my_ time today. you have far more
of it to waste.
kenseto
May 16, 2013, 10:05:54 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 5:32 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:
See what I mean? not as stupid as you.
wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel
May 17, 2013, 4:19:36 AM5/17/13
to
IIRC a while ago someone said: "Half the American population
has below average IQ. We should do something about that."
Dan Quayle?
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
May 17, 2013, 9:16:52 AM5/17/13
to
On May 16, 11:06 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
So your arguement is for you to have a dog piss aganst your leg? You
are a Pathetic moron.
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
are a Pathetic moron.
Paul Cardinale
May 17, 2013, 3:22:20 PM5/17/13
to
On May 15, 10:59 am, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
> experiment after 108 years?
No. The noise is caused by people who are stupid and arrogant; like
> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
> experiment after 108 years?
you.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
May 17, 2013, 4:32:42 PM5/17/13
to
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:277b88ef-e918-4f90...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
--
==============================================
Commiserations, Crapinale! You have managed to produce a one-line insult, your only capability.
The miserable putrid scum Paul Cardinale can only resort to lies when confronted with
his own rank stupidity.
The world will be a better place, the average happiness and the average IQ of the
human race will rise markedly on the day the Porkie Crapinale dies.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Commiserations, Crapinale! You have managed to produce a one-line insult, your only capability.
The miserable putrid scum Paul Cardinale can only resort to lies when confronted with
his own rank stupidity.
The world will be a better place, the average happiness and the average IQ of the
human race will rise markedly on the day the Porkie Crapinale dies.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Elmer Wright
May 17, 2013, 4:54:38 PM5/17/13
to
Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> What exactly is a flash of lightning and why did Einstein use it? Since
> it travels from cloud to Earth over a finite time, it can hardly be
> described as a suitable light source for his experiment.
I guess he might got inspired from a patent application he rejected.
Letter on, as it happens, he probably understood the idea, sad he couldn't
retract back that rejection, letting the applicant to complain first,
which likely never happened. Just a thought.
> What exactly is a flash of lightning and why did Einstein use it? Since
> it travels from cloud to Earth over a finite time, it can hardly be
> described as a suitable light source for his experiment.
I guess he might got inspired from a patent application he rejected.
Letter on, as it happens, he probably understood the idea, sad he couldn't
retract back that rejection, letting the applicant to complain first,
which likely never happened. Just a thought.
Truth
May 17, 2013, 7:11:35 PM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 21:32:42 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
and decent people, he somehow missed Cardinale's parents.
<LordAn...@May2013.edu> wrote:
>"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
>news:277b88ef-e918-4f90...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>On May 15, 10:59 am, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
>> experiment after 108 years?
>
>No. The noise is caused by people who are stupid and arrogant; like
>you.
>
>
>-- ==============================================
>Commiserations, Crapinale! You have managed to produce a one-line insult,
>your only capability.
>The miserable putrid scum Paul Cardinale can only resort to lies when
>confronted with
>his own rank stupidity.
>The world will be a better place, the average happiness and the average IQ
>of the
>human race will rise markedly on the day the Porkie Crapinale dies.
The tragedy is, while Hitler was murdering all those millions of innocent
>"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
>news:277b88ef-e918-4f90...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>On May 15, 10:59 am, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
>> experiment after 108 years?
>
>No. The noise is caused by people who are stupid and arrogant; like
>you.
>
>
>-- ==============================================
>Commiserations, Crapinale! You have managed to produce a one-line insult,
>your only capability.
>The miserable putrid scum Paul Cardinale can only resort to lies when
>confronted with
>his own rank stupidity.
>The world will be a better place, the average happiness and the average IQ
>of the
>human race will rise markedly on the day the Porkie Crapinale dies.
and decent people, he somehow missed Cardinale's parents.
Dirk Van de moortel
May 18, 2013, 5:48:08 AM5/18/13
to
Henry Wilson DSc.
May 18, 2013, 6:57:42 AM5/18/13
to
in handing some back to him. Any decent person would be ashamed to have him on
their side.
I am forced to use aioe because my server has closed its news server.
>Dirk Vdm
Henry Wilson DSc.
Alen
May 19, 2013, 11:23:13 AM5/19/13
to
On May 16, 6:34 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> paparios <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> carefully.
>
> >> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
> > You should, for sure, find another hobby, instead of writing nonsense
> > as you do in a daily basis.
>
> > The relativity of simultaneity gedanken does not depend on lightning
> > strikes nor flashing lights, nuclear blasts or whatever source you
> > choose to use.
>
> > The point of the gedanken is to demostrate that inertial observers
> > (including their instruments) will disagree about the simultaneity of
> > the signals of two events they receive.
>
> > Einstein used trains, mechanical clocks, and lightning strikes, to
> > help normal people to understand the concept. It is obvious that he
> > failed, by not considering the bast amount of imbeciles, like you,
> > that independently of the quality and clarity of Einstein gedanken
> > presentation, will not ever understand the purpose of it
> is invariant AND accept the (very simple) consequences of that
> assumption, is gets really trivially easy.
> Otherwise there is no hope that one will ever understand it. This group
> has been harbouring people with *that very problem* for decades now.
> It's hopeless for them.
> But it's excellent for us as an exercise in honing our explaining skills :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
What you don't seem to appreciate, Dirk, is
that Henry will not assume, like you, that lightspeed
is constant. He doesn't accept it. He sees it as
nonsense. After all, HOW could such a phenomenon
actually work? SR theory makes it work by inventing
an extremely weird spacetime, which Henry does
not accept as credible, and regards as merely
a nefarious invention of Einstein which no
rational person would allow himself to be fooled
by! Am I right, Henry, ? :)
Alen
> paparios <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1:59:54 PM UTC-4, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> >> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's
> >> train
>
> >> experiment after 108 years? I'm going to tell you why. Read
> >> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's
> >> train
>
> >> carefully.
>
> >> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
> > You should, for sure, find another hobby, instead of writing nonsense
> > as you do in a daily basis.
>
> > The relativity of simultaneity gedanken does not depend on lightning
> > strikes nor flashing lights, nuclear blasts or whatever source you
> > choose to use.
>
> > The point of the gedanken is to demostrate that inertial observers
> > (including their instruments) will disagree about the simultaneity of
> > the signals of two events they receive.
>
> > Einstein used trains, mechanical clocks, and lightning strikes, to
> > help normal people to understand the concept. It is obvious that he
> > failed, by not considering the bast amount of imbeciles, like you,
> > that independently of the quality and clarity of Einstein gedanken
> > presentation, will not ever understand the purpose of it
>
> They clearly think that the purpose of the gedanken is to prove that
> simultaneity is relative. It is not.
> This reasoning does NOT prove "that simultaneity is relative".
> It DOES neatly prove "that simultaneity is relative PROVIDED one
> ASSUMES that lightspeed is constant for everyone in every direction".
> As as soon as one manages to "assume for a minute" that lightspeed
> They clearly think that the purpose of the gedanken is to prove that
> simultaneity is relative. It is not.
> This reasoning does NOT prove "that simultaneity is relative".
> It DOES neatly prove "that simultaneity is relative PROVIDED one
> ASSUMES that lightspeed is constant for everyone in every direction".
> is invariant AND accept the (very simple) consequences of that
> assumption, is gets really trivially easy.
> Otherwise there is no hope that one will ever understand it. This group
> has been harbouring people with *that very problem* for decades now.
> It's hopeless for them.
> But it's excellent for us as an exercise in honing our explaining skills :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
What you don't seem to appreciate, Dirk, is
that Henry will not assume, like you, that lightspeed
is constant. He doesn't accept it. He sees it as
nonsense. After all, HOW could such a phenomenon
actually work? SR theory makes it work by inventing
an extremely weird spacetime, which Henry does
not accept as credible, and regards as merely
a nefarious invention of Einstein which no
rational person would allow himself to be fooled
by! Am I right, Henry, ? :)
Alen
shuba
May 19, 2013, 12:09:07 PM5/19/13
to
Brother Alen wrote:
> an extremely weird spacetime
Cast out the demons!
> a nefarious invention
Preach it, oh Brother! The wicked and sinful shall perish!
> no rational person would allow himself to be fooled
Slow day at the End Times?
---Tim Shuba---
> an extremely weird spacetime
Cast out the demons!
> a nefarious invention
Preach it, oh Brother! The wicked and sinful shall perish!
> no rational person would allow himself to be fooled
---Tim Shuba---
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
May 19, 2013, 1:35:29 PM5/19/13
to
"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:d1a7a50e-7e95-448f...@googlegroups.com...
======================================
Dork isn’t rational, that’s why he’ll accept
nonsense.
Absolutely Vertical
May 19, 2013, 6:15:43 PM5/19/13
to
prove that lightspeed is constant. that comes from _other_ information
than the gedanken.
> He sees it as
> nonsense. After all, HOW could such a phenomenon
> actually work? SR theory makes it work by inventing
> an extremely weird spacetime, which Henry does
> not accept as credible, and regards as merely
> a nefarious invention of Einstein which no
> rational person would allow himself to be fooled
> by! Am I right, Henry, ? :)
constancy of the speed of light unless someone can provide an ordinary,
simple, easy-to-understand reason why this should be so. otherwise,
despite any evidence, you feel it must be an illusion, deception,
mistake. if someone tells you this result comes directly from maxwell's
equation and the principle of relativity, your response is to say then
that maxwell's equations must be wrong, or the principle of relativity
must be wrong.
Henry Wilson DSc.
May 19, 2013, 7:28:37 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:23:13 -0700 (PDT), Alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
wrote:
You are dead right Alen.
Einstein's 'spacetime' applies to an imaginary 4D universe based on the
second postulate. It requires that all physical quantities be redefined in
order to make it consistent.
Unfortunately it still does not work because a mere postulate does not and
cannot constitute a PHYSICAL mechanism that will unify the speeds of photons
emitted by differently moving sources.
That requires an absolute spatial reference frame...an aether...
Einstein effectively replaced the classical aether concept with a postulate
and his infamous 'spacetime'. Not surprisingly, his theory is identical to
LET.
...and of course, there is no such absolute reference frame.
Einstein and followers contributed nothing but confusion to science by
leading it up the wrong creek.
>Alen
wrote:
Einstein's 'spacetime' applies to an imaginary 4D universe based on the
second postulate. It requires that all physical quantities be redefined in
order to make it consistent.
Unfortunately it still does not work because a mere postulate does not and
cannot constitute a PHYSICAL mechanism that will unify the speeds of photons
emitted by differently moving sources.
That requires an absolute spatial reference frame...an aether...
Einstein effectively replaced the classical aether concept with a postulate
and his infamous 'spacetime'. Not surprisingly, his theory is identical to
LET.
...and of course, there is no such absolute reference frame.
Einstein and followers contributed nothing but confusion to science by
leading it up the wrong creek.
>Alen
Absolutely Vertical
May 20, 2013, 12:07:25 AM5/20/13
to
On 5/19/2013 6:28 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> Einstein's 'spacetime' applies to an imaginary 4D universe based on the
> second postulate. It requires that all physical quantities be redefined in
> order to make it consistent.
i'd be curious for you to provide a list of all the changes in the
> Einstein's 'spacetime' applies to an imaginary 4D universe based on the
> second postulate. It requires that all physical quantities be redefined in
> order to make it consistent.
definitions of physical quantities. it's your statement. back it up.
Henry Wilson DSc.
May 20, 2013, 3:08:55 PM5/20/13
to
synchronization, all SR's physical quantities end up with an infinite number
of frame dependent values.
That is not surprising. His initial error in logic had a mushrooming effect.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Absolutely Vertical
May 20, 2013, 4:18:11 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/2013 2:08 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:07:25 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/19/2013 6:28 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> Einstein's 'spacetime' applies to an imaginary 4D universe based on the
>>> second postulate. It requires that all physical quantities be redefined in
>>> order to make it consistent.
>>
>> i'd be curious for you to provide a list of all the changes in the
>> definitions of physical quantities. it's your statement. back it up.
>
> Because of Einstein's ridiculous 'frame dependent' definition of clock
> synchronization, all SR's physical quantities end up with an infinite number
> of frame dependent values.
no, not all of them. invariant mass does not. interval does not.
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:07:25 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/19/2013 6:28 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> Einstein's 'spacetime' applies to an imaginary 4D universe based on the
>>> second postulate. It requires that all physical quantities be redefined in
>>> order to make it consistent.
>>
>> i'd be curious for you to provide a list of all the changes in the
>> definitions of physical quantities. it's your statement. back it up.
>
> Because of Einstein's ridiculous 'frame dependent' definition of clock
> synchronization, all SR's physical quantities end up with an infinite number
> of frame dependent values.
moreover, a lot of physical quantities like kinetic energy already had
an infinite number of frame dependent values before einstein came along.
are you going to say that velocity and magnetic field strength and
kinetic energy are not physical quantities at all?
finally, is it your contention that if a physical quantity has an
infinite number of frame-dependent values, this is a _redefinition_ of
the quantity? what do you think the definition was before this? give two
examples where you thing single-valuedness and frame-independence was
part of the definition of the physical quantity.
Henry Wilson DSc.
May 20, 2013, 6:32:44 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:18:11 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Because of Einstein's ridiculous 'frame dependent' definition of clock
>> synchronization, all SR's physical quantities end up with an infinite number
>> of frame dependent values.
>
>no, not all of them. invariant mass does not. interval does not.
>
>moreover, a lot of physical quantities like kinetic energy already had
>an infinite number of frame dependent values before einstein came along.
>are you going to say that velocity and magnetic field strength and
>kinetic energy are not physical quantities at all?
>
>finally, is it your contention that if a physical quantity has an
>infinite number of frame-dependent values, this is a _redefinition_ of
>the quantity? what do you think the definition was before this? give two
>examples where you thing single-valuedness and frame-independence was
>part of the definition of the physical quantity.
The speed of light is an obvious one.
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Because of Einstein's ridiculous 'frame dependent' definition of clock
>> synchronization, all SR's physical quantities end up with an infinite number
>> of frame dependent values.
>
>no, not all of them. invariant mass does not. interval does not.
>
>moreover, a lot of physical quantities like kinetic energy already had
>an infinite number of frame dependent values before einstein came along.
>are you going to say that velocity and magnetic field strength and
>kinetic energy are not physical quantities at all?
>
>finally, is it your contention that if a physical quantity has an
>infinite number of frame-dependent values, this is a _redefinition_ of
>the quantity? what do you think the definition was before this? give two
>examples where you thing single-valuedness and frame-independence was
>part of the definition of the physical quantity.
Absolutely Vertical
May 21, 2013, 5:22:19 AM5/21/13
to
On 5/20/2013 5:32 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:18:11 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Because of Einstein's ridiculous 'frame dependent' definition of clock
>>> synchronization, all SR's physical quantities end up with an infinite number
>>> of frame dependent values.
>>
>> no, not all of them. invariant mass does not. interval does not.
>>
>> moreover, a lot of physical quantities like kinetic energy already had
>> an infinite number of frame dependent values before einstein came along.
>> are you going to say that velocity and magnetic field strength and
>> kinetic energy are not physical quantities at all?
>>
>> finally, is it your contention that if a physical quantity has an
>> infinite number of frame-dependent values, this is a _redefinition_ of
>> the quantity? what do you think the definition was before this? give two
>> examples where you thing single-valuedness and frame-independence was
>> part of the definition of the physical quantity.
>
> The speed of light is an obvious one.
this you think is an example of a physical quantity being redefined to
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:18:11 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Because of Einstein's ridiculous 'frame dependent' definition of clock
>>> synchronization, all SR's physical quantities end up with an infinite number
>>> of frame dependent values.
>>
>> no, not all of them. invariant mass does not. interval does not.
>>
>> moreover, a lot of physical quantities like kinetic energy already had
>> an infinite number of frame dependent values before einstein came along.
>> are you going to say that velocity and magnetic field strength and
>> kinetic energy are not physical quantities at all?
>>
>> finally, is it your contention that if a physical quantity has an
>> infinite number of frame-dependent values, this is a _redefinition_ of
>> the quantity? what do you think the definition was before this? give two
>> examples where you thing single-valuedness and frame-independence was
>> part of the definition of the physical quantity.
>
> The speed of light is an obvious one.
now have an infinite number of frame-dependent values?
:) wilson, you have gotten to the point where you don't even bother
reading before opening your yap, just because you like to hear yourself
talk.
Henry Wilson DSc.
May 21, 2013, 4:13:58 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:22:19 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
These were you words....."give two examples where you thing single-valuedness
and frame-independence was part of the definition....."
I gave you one.
>:) wilson, you have gotten to the point where you don't even bother
>reading before opening your yap, just because you like to hear yourself
>talk.
If you are not a heavy drinker, how could you make such terrible
mistakes?...and then have the audacity to accuse me of being at fault?
Diaper, have you suddenly woken up to now obvious fact that Einstein's whole
theory is a load of crap?
>>>> That is not surprising. His initial error in logic had a mushrooming effect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>>>
>>
Henry Wilson DSc.
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/20/2013 5:32 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:18:11 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
>> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Because of Einstein's ridiculous 'frame dependent' definition of clock
>>>> synchronization, all SR's physical quantities end up with an infinite number
>>>> of frame dependent values.
>>>
>>> no, not all of them. invariant mass does not. interval does not.
>>>
>>> moreover, a lot of physical quantities like kinetic energy already had
>>> an infinite number of frame dependent values before einstein came along.
>>> are you going to say that velocity and magnetic field strength and
>>> kinetic energy are not physical quantities at all?
>>>
>>> finally, is it your contention that if a physical quantity has an
>>> infinite number of frame-dependent values, this is a _redefinition_ of
>>> the quantity? what do you think the definition was before this? give two
>>> examples where you thing single-valuedness and frame-independence was
>>> part of the definition of the physical quantity.
>>
>> The speed of light is an obvious one.
>
>this you think is an example of a physical quantity being redefined to
>now have an infinite number of frame-dependent values?
Diaper, are you a heavy drinker?
>On 5/20/2013 5:32 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:18:11 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
>> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Because of Einstein's ridiculous 'frame dependent' definition of clock
>>>> synchronization, all SR's physical quantities end up with an infinite number
>>>> of frame dependent values.
>>>
>>> no, not all of them. invariant mass does not. interval does not.
>>>
>>> moreover, a lot of physical quantities like kinetic energy already had
>>> an infinite number of frame dependent values before einstein came along.
>>> are you going to say that velocity and magnetic field strength and
>>> kinetic energy are not physical quantities at all?
>>>
>>> finally, is it your contention that if a physical quantity has an
>>> infinite number of frame-dependent values, this is a _redefinition_ of
>>> the quantity? what do you think the definition was before this? give two
>>> examples where you thing single-valuedness and frame-independence was
>>> part of the definition of the physical quantity.
>>
>> The speed of light is an obvious one.
>
>this you think is an example of a physical quantity being redefined to
>now have an infinite number of frame-dependent values?
These were you words....."give two examples where you thing single-valuedness
and frame-independence was part of the definition....."
I gave you one.
>:) wilson, you have gotten to the point where you don't even bother
>reading before opening your yap, just because you like to hear yourself
>talk.
mistakes?...and then have the audacity to accuse me of being at fault?
Diaper, have you suddenly woken up to now obvious fact that Einstein's whole
theory is a load of crap?
>>>> That is not surprising. His initial error in logic had a mushrooming effect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>>>
>>
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 2, 2013, 3:15:02 PM6/2/13
to
On 15.05.2013 19:59, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
> experiment after 108 years?
No.
> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
> experiment after 108 years?
The reason is obvious: there are a lot of idiots
who don't know what a thought experiment is.
They don't understand that Einstein's train _thought experiment_
demonstrates that relativity of simultaneity is an inevitable
logical consequence of the postulates of SR.
There are even morons out there who believe that his thought
experiment is supposed to prove that SR is in accordance with
reality.
http://tinyurl.com/mwj59lk
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Jun 2, 2013, 3:22:57 PM6/2/13
to
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message news:kog5jn$ohl$1...@news.albasani.net...
On 15.05.2013 19:59, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
> experiment after 108 years?
No.
The reason is obvious: there are a lot of idiots
who don't know what a thought experiment is.
They don't understand that Einstein's train _thought experiment_
demonstrates that relativity of simultaneity is an inevitable
logical consequence of the postulates of SR.
===============================================
Yep. Chocolate eggs demonstrate that Easter Bunnies are an
inevitable logical consequence of the postulates of Easter recycling.
There are even morons out there who believe that his thought
experiment is supposed to prove that SR is in accordance with
reality.
============================================
Porky Andersen being one of them.
-- 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.
On 15.05.2013 19:59, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
> experiment after 108 years?
No.
The reason is obvious: there are a lot of idiots
who don't know what a thought experiment is.
They don't understand that Einstein's train _thought experiment_
demonstrates that relativity of simultaneity is an inevitable
logical consequence of the postulates of SR.
Yep. Chocolate eggs demonstrate that Easter Bunnies are an
inevitable logical consequence of the postulates of Easter recycling.
There are even morons out there who believe that his thought
experiment is supposed to prove that SR is in accordance with
reality.
Porky Andersen being one of them.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 2, 2013, 6:25:34 PM6/2/13
to
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:15:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 15.05.2013 19:59, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
>> experiment after 108 years?
>
>No.
>The reason is obvious: there are a lot of idiots
>who don't know what a thought experiment is.
>
>They don't understand that Einstein's train _thought experiment_
>demonstrates that relativity of simultaneity is an inevitable
>logical consequence of the postulates of SR.
Everything about SR is a consequence of its postulates.
<som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 15.05.2013 19:59, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
>> experiment after 108 years?
>
>No.
>The reason is obvious: there are a lot of idiots
>who don't know what a thought experiment is.
>
>They don't understand that Einstein's train _thought experiment_
>demonstrates that relativity of simultaneity is an inevitable
>logical consequence of the postulates of SR.
Everything about SR is consistent with its postulates.
....and its second postulate is wrong.
>There are even morons out there who believe that his thought
>experiment is supposed to prove that SR is in accordance with
>reality.
>http://tinyurl.com/mwj59lk
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 4, 2013, 3:31:13 AM6/4/13
to
On 03.06.2013 00:25, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:15:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>> On 15.05.2013 19:59, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
>>> experiment after 108 years?
>>
>> No.
>> The reason is obvious: there are a lot of idiots
>> who don't know what a thought experiment is.
>>
>> They don't understand that Einstein's train _thought experiment_
>> demonstrates that relativity of simultaneity is an inevitable
>> logical consequence of the postulates of SR.
>
> Everything about SR is a consequence of its postulates.
> Everything about SR is consistent with its postulates.
Exactly.
> On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:15:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>> On 15.05.2013 19:59, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> Have you ever wondered why people are still arguing about Einstein's train
>>> experiment after 108 years?
>>
>> No.
>> The reason is obvious: there are a lot of idiots
>> who don't know what a thought experiment is.
>>
>> They don't understand that Einstein's train _thought experiment_
>> demonstrates that relativity of simultaneity is an inevitable
>> logical consequence of the postulates of SR.
>
> Everything about SR is a consequence of its postulates.
> Everything about SR is consistent with its postulates.
So you know that SR is a consistent theory.
And since all tested predictions of SR have been correct
and no prediction has been wrong, SR is never falsified.
So the following conclusion must be a product of a very
confused mind:
> ....and its second postulate is wrong.
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 4, 2013, 6:16:40 AM6/4/13
to
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 09:31:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
prediction of SR has been proved right. Until recently, it has been impossible
to do either in a convincing manner.
HAS ANYONE ACTUALLY MANAGED TO FIT A 50 METRE LONG POLE INSIDE A 30 METRE BARN
AND SHUT THE DOORS?
I don't think so.
The only way you will ever justify Einstein's silly theory will be to show
that OWLS is not source dependent in empty space. You will not be able to do
that because it is quite obvious to those of us who are not completely
indoctrinated that most apparent star brightness variability is a consequence
of the fact that light moves at distinctly different speeds on its way to
little planet Earth. How could it not?
>> ....and its second postulate is wrong.
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>On 03.06.2013 00:25, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:15:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>> They don't understand that Einstein's train _thought experiment_
>>> demonstrates that relativity of simultaneity is an inevitable
>>> logical consequence of the postulates of SR.
>>
>> Everything about SR is a consequence of its postulates.
>> Everything about SR is consistent with its postulates.
>
>Exactly.
>So you know that SR is a consistent theory.
>
>And since all tested predictions of SR have been correct
>and no prediction has been wrong, SR is never falsified.
>So the following conclusion must be a product of a very
>confused mind:
Paul, no prediction of SR has been proved wrong for the same reason that no
>On 03.06.2013 00:25, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:15:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>> They don't understand that Einstein's train _thought experiment_
>>> demonstrates that relativity of simultaneity is an inevitable
>>> logical consequence of the postulates of SR.
>>
>> Everything about SR is a consequence of its postulates.
>> Everything about SR is consistent with its postulates.
>
>Exactly.
>So you know that SR is a consistent theory.
>
>And since all tested predictions of SR have been correct
>and no prediction has been wrong, SR is never falsified.
>So the following conclusion must be a product of a very
>confused mind:
prediction of SR has been proved right. Until recently, it has been impossible
to do either in a convincing manner.
HAS ANYONE ACTUALLY MANAGED TO FIT A 50 METRE LONG POLE INSIDE A 30 METRE BARN
AND SHUT THE DOORS?
I don't think so.
The only way you will ever justify Einstein's silly theory will be to show
that OWLS is not source dependent in empty space. You will not be able to do
that because it is quite obvious to those of us who are not completely
indoctrinated that most apparent star brightness variability is a consequence
of the fact that light moves at distinctly different speeds on its way to
little planet Earth. How could it not?
>> ....and its second postulate is wrong.
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 4, 2013, 4:56:48 PM6/4/13
to
On 04.06.2013 12:16, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> Paul, no prediction of SR has been proved wrong for the same reason that no
> prediction of SR has been proved right.
How is the weather in Wonderland?
>
> Paul, no prediction of SR has been proved wrong for the same reason that no
> prediction of SR has been proved right.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 4, 2013, 6:30:13 PM6/4/13
to
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:56:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
wrote:
>On 04.06.2013 12:16, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>> Paul, no prediction of SR has been proved wrong for the same reason that no
>> prediction of SR has been proved right.
>
>How is the weather in Wonderland?
Not so good....winter time now...only reached 21C yesterday....
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>On 04.06.2013 12:16, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>> Paul, no prediction of SR has been proved wrong for the same reason that no
>> prediction of SR has been proved right.
>
>How is the weather in Wonderland?
Henry Wilson DSc.
gehan.am...@gmail.com
Jun 18, 2013, 10:34:17 AM6/18/13
to
"Finally, any phenomenon involving individual photons, such as the photoelectric effect, Planck's law, the Duane–Hunt law, single-photon light detectors, etc., would be difficult or impossible to explain if Maxwell's equations were exactly true, as Maxwell's equations do not involve photons. For the most accurate predictions in all situations, Maxwell's equations have been superseded by quantum electrodynamics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
0 new messages