SR Makes Contradictory Claims
kenseto
1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
confirmed experimentally.
2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
simultaneously. RoS claims that M' will see the light front from the
front of the train before he sees the light front from the rear of the
train. That means that the light front from the front of the train
takes less transit time to arrive at the M' than the light front from
the rear of the train. That also means that according to RoS the speed
of light in the train is not isotropic.
It appears that SR is making contradictory claims. Since the concept
of RoS never been confirmed experimentally. That can only mean that
RoS is bogus.
What's the solution?
The answer:
1. The speed of light in the train is isotropic.
2. RoS is bogus.
3. The track observer will see the flashes to be simultaneous at time
0.5L/c according to the track clock.
4. The track observer will predict what the train observer will see
the flashes to be simultaneous as follows:
The light path length in the train=0.5L*gamma
Therefore according the track clock the transit time for both light
fronts to reach M' = 0.5L*gamma/c
The above solution is incorporated into a new theory of relativity
called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes includes SRT as
a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, inclduing gravity. A paper on IRT entitled "Improved
Relativity Theory and Dopller Theory of Gravity" is available in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
f5b20907-b429-4c59...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
> SR makes following contradictory claims:
Here we go for another round of
" - Let *me* try to educate a brick!"
" - No, let *me* - I'm sure *I* can do it!"
Dirk Vdm
Pmb
> SR makes following contradictory claims:
> 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> confirmed experimentally.
Only if they occur at "the same time" which is a relative quanity.
> 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
> and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
> M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
> simultaneously. RoS claims that M' will see the light front from the
> front of the train before he sees the light front from the rear of the
> train. That means that the light front from the front of the train
> takes less transit time to arrive at the M' than the light front from
> the rear of the train. That also means that according to RoS the speed
> of light in the train is not isotropic.
No. It means that the events "light emitted from front of train car" and
"light emitted from back of train car" are not simultaneous in the train's
frame of reference. That is what "Relativity of Simultaineity" means./
> It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
Nope. That this is explained by the kack of simultaineity and is explained
in relativity texts.
Pete
Dirk Van de moortel
IbGdnSc6964rpxrV...@comcast.com
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:f5b20907-b429-4c59...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> SR makes following contradictory claims:
>> 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
>> all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
>> distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
>> transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
>> confirmed experimentally.
>
> Only if they occur at "the same time" which is a relative quanity.
>
>> 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
>> and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
>> M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
>> simultaneously. RoS claims that M' will see the light front from the
>> front of the train before he sees the light front from the rear of the
>> train. That means that the light front from the front of the train
>> takes less transit time to arrive at the M' than the light front from
>> the rear of the train. That also means that according to RoS the speed
>> of light in the train is not isotropic.
>
> No. It means that the events "light emitted from front of train car" and
> "light emitted from back of train car" are not simultaneous in the train's
> frame of reference. That is what "Relativity of Simultaineity" means./
But this is what a brick thinks "Relativity of Simultaineity" is:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DiffSimul.html
>
>> It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
>
> Nope. That this is explained by the kack of simultaineity and is explained
> in relativity texts.
Go ahead.
Educate the brick!
Dirk Vdm
Sue...
> SR makes following contradictory claims:
> 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> confirmed experimentally.
Indeed.
<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational [inertial by equivalence] field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml
>
> 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
> and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
> M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
> simultaneously. RoS claims that M' will see the light front from the
> front of the train before he sees the light front from the rear of the
> train. That means that the light front from the front of the train
> takes less transit time to arrive at the M' than the light front from
> the rear of the train. That also means that according to RoS the speed
> of light in the train is not isotropic.
That look screwy.
"Einstein's theory of wavefronts versus
Einstein's relativity of simultaneity"
--Dr Yves Pierseaux
arxiv.org/abs/physics/0606233
Sue...
Uncle Al
>
> SR makes following contradictory claims:
> Ken Seto
http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
kenseto
> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f5b20907-b429-4c59...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > SR makes following contradictory claims:
> > 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> > all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> > distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> > transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> > confirmed experimentally.
>
> Only if they occur at "the same time" which is a relative quanity.
It appears that you didn't read what I wrote. I wrote: "That means
that light fronts generated at equal distance from the observer at
different directions will take the same transit time to arrive at the
observer". Note that the light fronts do not have to occur at "the
same time" in order for the light fronts to have the same transit time
to reach the observer.
>
> > 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
> > and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
> > M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
> > simultaneously. RoS claims that M' will see the light front from the
> > front of the train before he sees the light front from the rear of the
> > train. That means that the light front from the front of the train
> > takes less transit time to arrive at the M' than the light front from
> > the rear of the train. That also means that according to RoS the speed
> > of light in the train is not isotropic.
>
> No. It means that the events "light emitted from front of train car" and
> "light emitted from back of train car" are not simultaneous in the train's
> frame of reference. That is what "Relativity of Simultaineity" means./
Again you didn't read what I wrote. The light fronts were generated
simultaneously at equal distance from the train observer. RoS said
that light from the front of the train takes less transit time to
reach the train observer M' than light from the rear of the train.
That means that according to RoS the speed of light in the train is
anisotropic and thus violates the SR postulate.
>
> > It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
>
> Nope. That this is explained by the kack of simultaineity and is explained
> in relativity texts.
The explanation is faulty. It is based on the observed closing speeds
by the track observer. In real life closing speeds as observed by the
track observer has no effect on the simultaneity of event in the train
frame.
Ken Seto
Eric Gisse
kenseto wrote:
[snip]
You have nearly 15 years of documented stupidity. Keep up the good
work!
Pmb
>On Jul 23, 10:05 am, "Pmb" <some...@someplace.com> wrote:
>> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f5b20907-b429-4c59...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > SR makes following contradictory claims:
>> > 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
>> > all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
>> > distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
>> > transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
>> > confirmed experimentally.
>>
>> Only if they occur at "the same time" which is a relative quanity.
>It appears that you didn't read what I wrote.
On the contrary.I read it very carefully.
> I wrote: "That means
>that light fronts generated at equal distance from the observer at
>different directions will take the same transit time to arrive at the
>observer".
Yes. You did say that. But you didn't apply it correctly. If two lights
flash at two different locations in frame S which are the same distance from
an observer at rest in frame S then the observer will determine that the
events occured at the same time.
Presumably you are talking about Einstein's train gerdanken experiment. In
that experiment there are two observers, O1 and O2. O1 is at rest in the
same frame as the train station, call that frame S. O2 is at rest at the
midpoint of a train car, call his frame S'. As determined by O1 two flashes
of light occur at the same time, one at the front of the car and one at the
back of the car. Using these conditions it is easily shown that these same
two events are not simultaneous in frame S'. We know this because we know
that the observer O2 sees the light from the front of the car before he sees
the light from the back of the car. Both O1 and O2 agree on this fact.
Therefore since the speed of light is the both invariant and isotropic and
since the events occured at equal distances from O2 that the events did not
occur at the same time as measured by O2, contrary to your assertion.
For further reference, please state whether the events occur at the same
time in S or at the same time in S'. If they do not occur at the same time
as measured in S then you are not talking about Einstein's train gerdanken
experiment. IF they occur at the same time in S' then there is no reason to
assume that O2 will see one flash before the other. Indeed, if this is the
case, then he will see both flashes at the same time, contrary to your
assertion.
>Note that the light fronts do not have to occur at "the
>same time" in order for the light fronts to have the same transit time
>to reach the observer.
Of course. They can occur at different distances.
>> > 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
>> > and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
>> > M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
>> > simultaneously. RoS claims that M' will see the light front from the
>> > front of the train before he sees the light front from the rear of the
>> > train. That means that the light front from the front of the train
>> > takes less transit time to arrive at the M' than the light front from
>> > the rear of the train. That also means that according to RoS the speed
>> > of light in the train is not isotropic.
>>
>> No. It means that the events "light emitted from front of train car" and
>> "light emitted from back of train car" are not simultaneous in the
>> train's
>> frame of reference. That is what "Relativity of Simultaineity" means./
>
>
>Again you didn't read what I wrote. The light fronts were generated
>simultaneously at equal distance from the train observer.
I know what you wrote very very well. You didn't understand what I was
saying. Let me make it clearer. First off you made a grave error here. I.e.
you assumed that the two events occured simultaneously in the car frame. If
that is actually true then the observer at rest at the mid point of the car
will see the light at the same time, contrary to your assertion.
>> RoS said
>>that light from the front of the train takes less transit time to
>>reach the train observer M' than light from the rear of the train.
>>That means that according to RoS the speed of light in the train is
>>anisotropic and thus violates the SR postulate.
>
>
>As determined by an observer who is at rest at the mid point of the car
>(call this observers frame S') the observer will see >the light from the
>front before he sees the light
No. That is not what the RoS says. You have the whole train experiment wrong
and thus you are arriving at an invalid conclusion. You are in fact
violating the principle of relativity by that assumption.
Pete
PD
Here again we come to Ken's approach to learning something.
1. First pretend that you have nothing to learn at all.
2. Read something superficial, aimed at the lay public.
3. If you run into a term you're not sure you know the meaning of,
then make something up that seems to make sense.
4. When this results in an apparent conflict or contradiction,
conclude that the current scientific understanding is obviously
flawed.
5. Rather than questioning whether your understanding might be
incorrect, proceed directly to inventing a new theory. It is not
necessary for the invented theory to be any deeper than the
superficial treatment found in (2).
6. Present the package -- including mistaken meanings for terms,
apparent contradiction, and superficial replacement theory -- on the
web and dare anyone to find fault.
7. If nothing is learned as a result of this procedure, stand fast on
(6). If something is learned, no matter how small, incorporate this
and return to (1).
PD
PD
> 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> confirmed experimentally.
Error. Corrected statement replacing sentence two: "That means that
light fronts generated at equal distance from the observer at rest in
the inertial reference frame will take the same transit time to arrive
at the observer."
>
> 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
> and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
> M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
> simultaneously.
Error. Corrected statement replacing content after ellipsis: "...the
train observer M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes."
> RoS claims that M' will see the light front from the
> front of the train before he sees the light front from the rear of the
> train. That means that the light front from the front of the train
> takes less transit time to arrive at the M' than the light front from
> the rear of the train. That also means that according to RoS the speed
> of light in the train is not isotropic.
Error. Corrected statement replacing last sentence: "That also means
that according to RoS, the closing speed between the light fronts and
the observer are not isotropic in the track frame. In the both frames,
the speed of the light fronts is isotropic."
>
> It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
Error. After making the substitutions above, you'll find there is no
contradiction remaining.
> Since the concept
> of RoS never been confirmed experimentally.
Error. That statement is simply incorrect. It has been confirmed
experimentally.
> That can only mean that
> RoS is bogus.
> What's the solution?
No solution required, if the errors above are corrected, the
contradiction thereby removed, and the blatantly false statement about
experimental verification corrected.
rval...@gmail.com
kenseto ha escrito:
rval...@gmail.com
kenseto ha escrito:
> SR makes following contradictory claims:
> 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> confirmed experimentally.
>
The vacuum light speed is isotropic in all inertial frames by 1905
Einstein’s Relativity postulate and experiment. Light fronts generated
at equal distance from the observer at different directions will take
the same transit time to arrive at the observer.
> 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
> and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
> M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
> simultaneously.
False. This is your primary error. In the train frame the lighting
flashes occur at the same distance from the train observer at M’, BUT
NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY in that frame. The lighting flashes occur at the
same distance from the observer M, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY, only in the
embankment frame.
As all your wrong derivations are owed to this primary error, I skip
the rest.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Igor
Here comes another one just like the other ones. It's deja vu all
over again!
Pmb
<rval...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:48a0a544-65c2-48e9...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> kenseto ha escrito:
>> SR makes following contradictory claims:
>> 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
>> all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
>> distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
>> transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
>> confirmed experimentally.
>>
>> 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
>> and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
>> M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
>> simultaneously. RoS claims that M' will see the light front from the
>> front of the train before he sees the light front from the rear of the
>> train. That means that the light front from the front of the train
>> takes less transit time to arrive at the M' than the light front from
>> the rear of the train. That also means that according to RoS the speed
>> of light in the train is not isotropic.
>>
>> It appears that SR is making contradictory claims. Since the concept
>> of RoS never been confirmed experimentally. That can only mean that
>> RoS is bogus.
That is not quite true and quite illogical. First off experiments verify
predictions based on postulates or theorems derived from them. Verification
of the postulates by experiment does not prove that the postulates are
correct. Only that they are verified by experiment. "confirmed
experimentally" has no meaning in physics.
The predictions made my the postulates of relativity have been confirmed
many times. That means that things which are predicted to occur are just as
justified. E.g. ken's arguement is like the following: Even though Newton's
law of gravity has been verified many times in the past it has never been
verified for my red comb and therefore Newtonian gravity is not confirmed
experimentally since it refers to all possible objects and in all possible
circumstances. But one object for which it has never been confirmed
experimentally is for my red comb. Therefore Newton's law of gravity itself
is not confirmed experimentally . That's the kind of arguement used my ken
here.
The nonsimultaneity of events is a logical consequence of the postulates of
relativity, each of which have been amply confirmed. Non-confirmation
certainly can't be taken to mean that what is to be verified is bogus since
bogus means "wrong" and something is not wrong simply because it has yet to
be verified, yet!
Pete
Sue...
> <rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The two postulates of Special Relativity seem to be resolved
logically and without conflict in this lecture:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Could it be because narrative scenarios which claim some conflict
assume an obsolete model of light propagation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter_theory
> Non-confirmation
> certainly can't be taken to mean that what is to be verified is bogus since
> bogus means "wrong" and something is not wrong simply because it has yet to
> be verified, yet!
Their aren't a lot of folks working to confirm, verify or disprove the
implications of Caloric or Phlogiston theory either. That could
be really fertile ground for theorists that find they simply can't get
enough unbalanced equations out of theories based on the
emission theory of light.
Sue...
Bryan Olson
> kenseto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>> SR makes following contradictory claims:
>
> Here we go for another round of
> " - Let *me* try to educate a brick!"
> " - No, let *me* - I'm sure *I* can do it!"
It's a hobby.
--
--Bryan
Pmb
"Bryan Olson" <fakea...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:3QYhk.13295$LG4....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
Not in my case. I'm just really bored. Lol!
Pete
kenseto
> kenseto ha escrito:> SR makes following contradictory claims:
> > 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> > all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> > distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> > transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> > confirmed experimentally.
>
> The vacuum light speed is isotropic in all inertial frames by 1905
> Einstein’s Relativity postulate and experiment. Light fronts generated
> at equal distance from the observer at different directions will take
> the same transit time to arrive at the observer.
So you agree with what I said....right??
> 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
> > and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
> > M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
> > simultaneously.
>
> False. This is your primary error. In the train frame the lighting
> flashes occur at the same distance from the train observer at M’, BUT
> NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY in that frame.
This is a false assertion. Are you now using false assertion as your
arguement??...where in Einstein's gedanken that says that the flashes
were not generated simultaneously for the train observer M'? If the
lightning flashes were not generated simultaneously to begin with for
the train observer then there is no need for any justification why the
train observer did not see the flashes to be simultaneous.
> The lighting flashes occur at the
> same distance from the observer M, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY, only in the
> embankment frame.
Right the gedanken specified that the track observer sees the strikes
to be simultaneous and the track observer measures that he is at equal
distance from the strikes and thus he concluded that the strikes were
generated simultaneously to begin with. Since there are only two
strikes then the track observer's conlusion also apply to the train
observer: That is the strikes were generated simultaneously to begin
with for the train frame. The reason why RoS assert that the train
observer does not see the strikes to be simultaneous because he is
moving wrt the light fronts. This RoS assertion is wrong. It violates
the isotropy of the speed of light in the train.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> On Jul 23, 8:34 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > SR makes following contradictory claims:
> > 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> > all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> > distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> > transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> > confirmed experimentally.
>
> Error. Corrected statement replacing sentence two: "That means that
> light fronts generated at equal distance from the observer at rest in
> the inertial reference frame will take the same transit time to arrive
> at the observer."
There is no error on my part. The observer is automatically considered
to be at rest wrt himself.
>
>
>
> > 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
> > and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
> > M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
> > simultaneously.
>
> Error. Corrected statement replacing content after ellipsis: "...the
> train observer M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes."
The track observer already determined that the flashes were genrated
simultaneously to begin with. You cannot change that for the train
observer. RoS says that the train observer does not see the flashes to
be simultaneous because of the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts. This assertion of RoS is bogus and it violates the isotropy of
the speed of light in the train.
>
> > RoS claims that M' will see the light front from the
> > front of the train before he sees the light front from the rear of the
> > train. That means that the light front from the front of the train
> > takes less transit time to arrive at the M' than the light front from
> > the rear of the train. That also means that according to RoS the speed
> > of light in the train is not isotropic.
>
> Error. Corrected statement replacing last sentence: "That also means
> that according to RoS, the closing speed between the light fronts and
> the observer are not isotropic in the track frame. In the both frames,
> the speed of the light fronts is isotropic."
The train observer must determine if the strikes were simultaneous for
himself. Closing speeds as observed by the track observer has no
effect on the simultaneity of events in the train frame.
>
>
>
> > It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
>
> Error. After making the substitutions above, you'll find there is no
> contradiction remaining.
Sure there is: RoS asserts that closing speeds as observed by the
track observer will affect the transit time for light fronts to arrive
at the train observer form different directions.
>
> > Since the concept
> > of RoS never been confirmed experimentally.
>
> Error. That statement is simply incorrect. It has been confirmed
> experimentally.
What experiment that confirm RoS??
Ken Seto
>
> > That can only mean that
> > RoS is bogus.
> > What's the solution?
>
> No solution required, if the errors above are corrected, the
> contradiction thereby removed, and the blatantly false statement about
> experimental verification corrected.
>
>
>
> > The answer:
> > 1. The speed of light in the train is isotropic.
> > 2. RoS is bogus.
> > 3. The track observer will see the flashes to be simultaneous at time
> > 0.5L/c according to the track clock.
> > 4. The track observer will predict what the train observer will see
> > the flashes to be simultaneous as follows:
> > The light path length in the train=0.5L*gamma
> > Therefore according the track clock the transit time for both light
> > fronts to reach M' = 0.5L*gamma/c
>
> > The above solution is incorporated into a new theory of relativity
> > called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes includes SRT as
> > a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all
> > environments, inclduing gravity. A paper on IRT entitled "Improved
> > Relativity Theory and Dopller Theory of Gravity" is available in my
> > website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
>
> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pmb
On Jul 23, 5:19 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
>> > and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
>> > M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
>> > simultaneously.
>>
>> Error. Corrected statement replacing content after ellipsis: "...the
>> train observer M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes."
>
>The track observer already determined that the flashes were genrated
>simultaneously to begin with.
So you agree that the two flashes occur sumultaneoulsy with respect to an
observer who is at rest with respect to the track, right?
>> You cannot change that for the train observer.
Can't change what? The simultaneity? The gerdanken experiment is defined by
stating that these two events are simultaneous with respect to track
observers. This in no way implies that the same two events are simultaneous
as reckoned by the train observer. That they aren't is *not* something that
is assumed. It is something that is *logically deduced*. If you believe that
the deduction is wrong then please prove it, don't merely state your opinion
as to whether it is or isn't.
>The train observer must determine if the strikes were simultaneous for
>himself.
But this is something you assumed to be the case and have not provided an
arguement that the are simultaneous.
> Closing speeds as observed by the track observer has no
>effect on the simultaneity of events in the train frame.
What does "closing speed" mean?
>> Error. After making the substitutions above, you'll find there is no
>> contradiction remaining.
>
>Sure there is: RoS asserts that closing speeds as observed by the
>track observer will affect the transit time for light fronts to arrive
>at the train observer form different directions.
That is not what RoS asserts at all. Transit times are are not affected by
the relative speed of the train and the track at all. Assuming otherwise is
assuming that the "invariance of the speed of light" postulate is invalid
which is something that can only disproved by experimentation.
> > Since the concept
> > of RoS never been confirmed experimentally.
Please state what you mean by "confirmed". Do you mean it to mean the same
thing as "proved by experiment"?
Pete
Pmb
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:dc7ccd75-8174-4dcc...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 23, 8:34 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > SR makes following contradictory claims:
> > 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> > all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> > distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> > transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> > confirmed experimentally.
etc.
Ken - You neglected to respond to my comments as to what errors you made. Is
there a reason for that or do you simply not wish to discuss it with me. If
you don't wish to discuss it with me please let me know so I can stop
responding/commenting on your posts. I don't want to waste time posting
something that is not being read/considered. Thanks.
Pete
PD
> On Jul 23, 5:19 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 23, 8:34 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > SR makes following contradictory claims:
> > > 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> > > all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> > > distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> > > transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> > > confirmed experimentally.
>
> > Error. Corrected statement replacing sentence two: "That means that
> > light fronts generated at equal distance from the observer at rest in
> > the inertial reference frame will take the same transit time to arrive
> > at the observer."
>
> There is no error on my part. The observer is automatically considered
> to be at rest wrt himself.
There are TWO observers in the track frame, Ken --- the track observer
and the train observer. Only one of them is at rest in the track
frame. This is why I made the careful distinction that you did not.
What you said is an error.
>
>
>
> > > 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
> > > and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
> > > M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
> > > simultaneously.
>
> > Error. Corrected statement replacing content after ellipsis: "...the
> > train observer M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes."
>
> The track observer already determined that the flashes were genrated
> simultaneously to begin with.
Yes, that's true for the track observer. This does not force it to be
true for the train observer.
> You cannot change that for the train
> observer.
Why, yes, yes you can. That would be the point. You are making an
erroneous assumption that once simultaneity is established for one
observer, then that is the fact for all observers. That's the error.
Ken, your profound ignorance of the body of experimental work
surrounding relativity is no one's problem but your own, and it is
YOUR responsibility to correct it. No amount of pleading, wheedling,
baiting, or railing will divert that responsibility from you to
someone else.
kenseto
> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dc7ccd75-8174-4dcc...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 23, 5:19 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
> >> > and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
> >> > M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
> >> > simultaneously.
>
> >> Error. Corrected statement replacing content after ellipsis: "...the
> >> train observer M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes."
>
> >The track observer already determined that the flashes were genrated
> >simultaneously to begin with.
>
> So you agree that the two flashes occur sumultaneoulsy with respect to an
> observer who is at rest with respect to the track, right?
Einstein stipulated that the track observer sees the two flashes to be
simultaneous. The track observer measures that the flasshes occur at
equal distance from the stirkes. Therefore the track observer
concludes that the flashes were simultaneous to begin with.
>
> >> You cannot change that for the train observer.
>
> Can't change what? The simultaneity? The gerdanken experiment is defined by
> stating that these two events are simultaneous with respect to track
> observers.
Right....
>This in no way implies that the same two events are simultaneous
> as reckoned by the train observer.
Sure the implication is that the motion of M' destroys the original
simultaneity that was deduced by the track observer.....it was deduced
bogusly that M' move at c+v toward the front light front and c-v away
from the rear light fornt and that's why RoS asserts that the train
observer conclude bogusly that the light from the front take less
transit time to reach the train observer than light from the raer.
>That they aren't is *not* something that
> is assumed. It is something that is *logically deduced*.
Your logical deduction is based on the bogus assertion that M' is
moving wrt the light fronts. In M's frame if he moves wrt the light
front he would not measure the speed of light to be isotropic.
>If you believe that
> the deduction is wrong then please prove it, don't merely state your opinion
> as to whether it is or isn't.
What I said is not my opinion. It is based on what SR and RoS said.
>
> >The train observer must determine if the strikes were simultaneous for
> >himself.
>
> But this is something you assumed to be the case and have not provided an
> arguement that the are simultaneous.
So you think that the train observer has no right to determine if the
strikes are simultaneous based on his measurements? In that case you
are basing your arguement on assertions.
>
> > Closing speeds as observed by the track observer has no
> >effect on the simultaneity of events in the train frame.
>
> What does "closing speed" mean?
You don't know what that mean??? You should ask your SR brothers. you
need to read Einstein's paper. He said that the train observer is
rushing toward the light from the front (c+v) and receding away from
the rear c-v.
>
> >> Error. After making the substitutions above, you'll find there is no
> >> contradiction remaining.
>
> >Sure there is: RoS asserts that closing speeds as observed by the
> >track observer will affect the transit time for light fronts to arrive
> >at the train observer form different directions.
>
> That is not what RoS asserts at all. Transit times are are not affected by
> the relative speed of the train and the track at all.
But that how Einstein reach the conclusion thta the train observer
sees the light from the front before the light from the rear. So I
guess you don't know what you are talking about.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> On Jul 24, 8:28 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 5:19 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 23, 8:34 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > SR makes following contradictory claims:
> > > > 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> > > > all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> > > > distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> > > > transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> > > > confirmed experimentally.
>
> > > Error. Corrected statement replacing sentence two: "That means that
> > > light fronts generated at equal distance from the observer at rest in
> > > the inertial reference frame will take the same transit time to arrive
> > > at the observer."
>
> > There is no error on my part. The observer is automatically considered
> > to be at rest wrt himself.
>
> There are TWO observers in the track frame, Ken --- the track observer
> and the train observer. Only one of them is at rest in the track
> frame. This is why I made the careful distinction that you did not.
> What you said is an error.
Sigh....you cannot use the track as reference for the direction of
motion of the train observer wrt the light fronts. What you said is an
error.
>
>
>
> > > > 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
> > > > and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
> > > > M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
> > > > simultaneously.
>
> > > Error. Corrected statement replacing content after ellipsis: "...the
> > > train observer M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes."
>
> > The track observer already determined that the flashes were genrated
> > simultaneously to begin with.
>
> Yes, that's true for the track observer. This does not force it to be
> true for the train observer.
There are only two flashes....they cannot start out simultaneously for
the track observer and then start out not simultaneous for the train
observer. RoS agrees that the flashes were simultaneous to begin with
for the train observer....however RoS also made the bogus assertion
that the train observer M'is moving wrt the light fronts that why he
does not see the flashes to be simultaneous. M' does not move wrt the
light fronts in a way that will affect the isotropy of the speed of
light in his frame.
>
> > You cannot change that for the train
> > observer.
>
> Why, yes, yes you can. That would be the point. You are making an
> erroneous assumption that once simultaneity is established for one
> observer, then that is the fact for all observers. That's the error.
No you can't...there are only two strikes they can occur as follows:
1. They were simultanous to begin with.
2. They were not simultaneous to begin with.
You cannot claim both.
Just as I thought....there is no experimental support for RoS.:-)
Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > > That can only mean that
> > > > RoS is bogus.
> > > > What's the solution?
>
> > > No solution required, if the errors above are corrected, the
> > > contradiction thereby removed, and the blatantly false statement about
> > > experimental verification corrected.
>
> > > > The answer:
> > > > 1. The speed of light in the train is isotropic.
> > > > 2. RoS is bogus.
> > > > 3. The track observer will see the flashes to be simultaneous at time
> > > > 0.5L/c according to the track clock.
> > > > 4. The track observer will predict what the train observer will see
> > > > the flashes to be simultaneous as follows:
> > > > The light path length in the train=0.5L*gamma
> > > > Therefore according the track clock the transit time for both light
> > > > fronts to reach M' = 0.5L*gamma/c
>
> > > > The above solution is incorporated into a new theory of relativity
> > > > called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes includes SRT as
> > > > a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all
> > > > environments, inclduing gravity. A paper on IRT entitled "Improved
> > > > Relativity Theory and Dopller Theory of Gravity" is available in my
> > > > website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
>
> > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Eric Gisse
[snip]
You've been doing this since 1994. What do you hope to learn that you
haven't learned in the past 14 years?
PD
> On Jul 24, 12:44 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 8:28 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 23, 5:19 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 23, 8:34 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > SR makes following contradictory claims:
> > > > > 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> > > > > all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> > > > > distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> > > > > transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> > > > > confirmed experimentally.
>
> > > > Error. Corrected statement replacing sentence two: "That means that
> > > > light fronts generated at equal distance from the observer at rest in
> > > > the inertial reference frame will take the same transit time to arrive
> > > > at the observer."
>
> > > There is no error on my part. The observer is automatically considered
> > > to be at rest wrt himself.
>
> > There are TWO observers in the track frame, Ken --- the track observer
> > and the train observer. Only one of them is at rest in the track
> > frame. This is why I made the careful distinction that you did not.
> > What you said is an error.
>
> Sigh....you cannot use the track as reference for the direction of
> motion of the train observer wrt the light fronts. What you said is an
> error.
>
I realize, Ken, that you don't know what "reference frame" means. You
do this a lot. You don't know what "reference frame" means, you don't
know what "vector component" means, and yet you use those words
freely.
>
> > > > > 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
> > > > > and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
> > > > > M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
> > > > > simultaneously.
>
> > > > Error. Corrected statement replacing content after ellipsis: "...the
> > > > train observer M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes."
>
> > > The track observer already determined that the flashes were genrated
> > > simultaneously to begin with.
>
> > Yes, that's true for the track observer. This does not force it to be
> > true for the train observer.
>
> There are only two flashes....they cannot start out simultaneously for
> the track observer and then start out not simultaneous for the train
> observer.
Absolutely they can. That's precisely what the RoS *says*. That is the
*point*. The fact that you cannot comprehend how this makes any sense
is completely irrelevant.
> RoS agrees that the flashes were simultaneous to begin with
> for the train observer....however RoS also made the bogus assertion
> that the train observer M'is moving wrt the light fronts that why he
> does not see the flashes to be simultaneous. M' does not move wrt the
> light fronts in a way that will affect the isotropy of the speed of
> light in his frame.
>
>
>
> > > You cannot change that for the train
> > > observer.
>
> > Why, yes, yes you can. That would be the point. You are making an
> > erroneous assumption that once simultaneity is established for one
> > observer, then that is the fact for all observers. That's the error.
>
> No you can't...there are only two strikes they can occur as follows:
> 1. They were simultanous to begin with.
> 2. They were not simultaneous to begin with.
> You cannot claim both.
Yes, you can. That is precisely the point.
It is a frame-dependent truth.
I'll give you another example.
There is only ONE train that is being looked at in two reference
frames. In one frame, the train is stationary, and in another frame
and at the same time, the train is moving. Now maybe you would say
that with only ONE train, it can occur as follows:
1. The train is stationary.
2. The train is not stationary.
And say that you cannot claim both.
But you CAN, because whether the SAME train is moving or stationary
depends the reference frame.
As I just told you, Ken, no amount of pleading, wheedling, BAITING, or
railing will divert that responsibility from you to someone else. It's
there, but it's YOUR job to look it up. Fortunately this is not hard,
if you're not chicken and you're not witless. :>)
Pmb
>Einstein stipulated that the track observer sees the two flashes to be
>simultaneous. The track observer measures that the flasshes occur at
>equal distance from the stirkes. Therefore the track observer
>concludes that the flashes were simultaneous to begin with.
That is not what the track observer concludes. What justification do you
give to arrive at this assumption? Your conclusion violates the invariance
of the speed of light. Since the flashes occur at equal distances from the
train observer and the observer sees the flash from the front of the train
car before the flash from the rear of the train car and the speed of light
is postulated to be the same for light waves traveling in both directions it
imedialtely follows that the events are not simultaneous in the train frame.
That is a direct application of the postulates of relativity.
>> >> You cannot change that for the train observer.
>>
>> Can't change what? The simultaneity? The gerdanken experiment is defined
>> by
>> stating that these two events are simultaneous with respect to track
>> observers.
>
>Right....
If that is what you believe then please prove it.
>>This in no way implies that the same two events are simultaneous
>> as reckoned by the train observer.
>
>Sure the implication is that the motion of M' ....
What is M'??
>destroys the original simultaneity that was deduced by the track
>observer.....it was deduced
> bogusly that M' move at c+v toward the front light front and c-v away
>from the rear light fornt and that's why RoS asserts that the train
>observer conclude bogusly that the light from the front take less
>transit time to reach the train observer than light from the raer.
>
>>That they aren't is *not* something that
>> is assumed. It is something that is *logically deduced*.
>
>Your logical deduction is based on the bogus assertion that M' is
>moving wrt the light fronts. In M's frame if he moves wrt the light
>front he would not measure the speed of light to be isotropic.
I cannot respond to this until you define what M' is.
>>If you believe that
>> the deduction is wrong then please prove it, don't merely state your
>> opinion
>> as to whether it is or isn't.
>
>What I said is not my opinion. It is based on what SR and RoS said.
I disagree. You are making assumption here which are inconsistent with the
postulates of relativity.
>> >The train observer must determine if the strikes were simultaneous for
>> >himself.
>>
>> But this is something you assumed to be the case and have not provided an
>> arguement that the are simultaneous.
>
>So you think that the train observer has no right to determine if the
>strikes are simultaneous based on his measurements?
What do you mean "the right to determine"?
I think that the train observer only has th
>> In that case you
>>are basing your arguement on assertions.
>>
>> > Closing speeds as observed by the track observer has no
>> >effect on the simultaneity of events in the train frame.
>>
>> What does "closing speed" mean?
>
>You don't know what that mean???
>You should ask your SR brothers. you
>need to read Einstein's paper. He said that the train observer is
>rushing toward the light from the front (c+v) and receding away from
>the rear c-v.
I have never seen that term used of if I did then I forgot. The term is not
often used in relativity, i.e. it is not a standard term. If you say that
Einstien used the term then please state where in he used it, i.e. what
paper and where in the paper.
Einstein never said that light moves at c+v or c-v in a particular frame of
reference. According to the second postulate of special relativity in any
concievable globally inertial frame of reference the speed of light always
has the samve value c ~ 3x10^8 m/s
>> That is not what RoS asserts at all. Transit times are are not affected
>> by
>> the relative speed of the train and the track at all.
>
>But that how Einstein reach the conclusion thta the train observer
>sees the light from the front before the light from the rear.
You are wrong. Einstein never said that transit times are affected by the
speed of the relative speed of the train and the track. In fact that is
clearly opposed to the second postulate of relativity
> So I guess you don't know what you are talking about.
That's a pretty rude response. Is this how you respond to people whom you
disagree with. If so let me know because I have no desire to discuss physics
with people who say things like this. I have rephrained from doing this
because I think it is very rude and I'd never say it to someone unless they
started flaming me or were being rude. If you start being rude then I'll
speak my mind.
>> Please state what you mean by "confirmed". Do you mean it to mean the
>> same
>> thing as "proved by experiment"?
By the way, you didn't answer this question. Why is that?
Pete
Pmb
>But that how Einstein reach the conclusion thta the train observer
>sees the light from the front before the light from the rear. So I
>guess you don't know what you are talking about.
>
>Ken Seto
Let me make something clear Ken. I have no reason to believe that I could
change your mind on this or anything else. I'm very familiar with your
postings on the internet for the last 10 years or so. I'm responding because
I 'm bored since there's not much of interest on the newsgroup to discuss
lately. I figured I'd give this a whirl and see if you could have a
discussion without you insulting me when you disagreed with me. If this
becomes apparanent then I'll simply block you and never respond again. I'm
sure you could care less. But the earlier you let me know that this is how
you intend on behaving then the earlier I'll know to block you and the less
work I'll end up doing in responding in the mean time.
So what will it be Ken? Do you plan on continuing on posting such claims as
"So I guess you don't know what you are talking about."? I truely believe
that it is you have are clueless about special relativity and I have every
reason never to bother with you. But I only correspond only with people who
choose not to flame or insult. So please let me know if you plan on
continuing to do this so I can block you and thus save me some work. Thank
you.
Pete
"
kenseto
So are you saying that experiments confirm that the speed of light is
isotropic does not mean that the speed of light is isotropic????
>
> The predictions made my the postulates of relativity have been confirmed
> many times. That means that things which are predicted to occur are just as
> justified. E.g. ken's arguement is like the following: Even though Newton's
> law of gravity has been verified many times in the past it has never been
> verified for my red comb and therefore Newtonian gravity is not confirmed
> experimentally since it refers to all possible objects and in all possible
> circumstances. But one object for which it has never been confirmed
> experimentally is for my red comb. Therefore Newton's law of gravity itself
> is not confirmed experimentally . That's the kind of arguement used my ken
> here.
That's not my arguement at all. It is your arguement.
>
> The nonsimultaneity of events is a logical consequence of the postulates of
> relativity,
This shows me that you don't understand SR. In SR and RoS the
nonsimultaneity of events is due to the observer is moving wrt the
light fronts. This assertion will destroy the measure isotropy of the
speed of light in the train.
Ken Seto
>each of which have been amply confirmed. Non-confirmation
> certainly can't be taken to mean that what is to be verified is bogus since
> bogus means "wrong" and something is not wrong simply because it has yet to
> be verified, yet!
>
> Pete- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dc7ccd75-8174-4dcc...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 23, 5:19 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 23, 8:34 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > SR makes following contradictory claims:
> > > 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> > > all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> > > distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> > > transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> > > confirmed experimentally.
>
> etc.
>
> Ken - You neglected to respond to my comments as to what errors you made.
> You keep on saying that I made error but I didn't.
>Is
> there a reason for that or do you simply not wish to discuss it with me.
> I thought I answered all your posts. I don't know which post you are talking about.
Ken Seto
>If
kenseto
> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:60d4f17d-ec44-4629...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Jul 23, 10:05 am, "Pmb" <some...@someplace.com> wrote:
> >> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:f5b20907-b429-4c59...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > SR makes following contradictory claims:
> >> > 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> >> > all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> >> > distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> >> > transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> >> > confirmed experimentally.
>
> >> Only if they occur at "the same time" which is a relative quanity.
> >It appears that you didn't read what I wrote.
>
> On the contrary.I read it very carefully.
>
> > I wrote: "That means
> >that light fronts generated at equal distance from the observer at
> >different directions will take the same transit time to arrive at the
> >observer".
>
> Yes. You did say that. But you didn't apply it correctly. If two lights
> flash at two different locations in frame S which are the same distance from
> an observer at rest in frame S then the observer will determine that the
> events occured at the same time.
In the train gedanken the lightning strikes made mark on the ends of
the train and the track.
>
> Presumably you are talking about Einstein's train gerdanken experiment. In
> that experiment there are two observers, O1 and O2. O1 is at rest in the
> same frame as the train station, call that frame S. O2 is at rest at the
> midpoint of a train car, call his frame S'. As determined by O1 two flashes
> of light occur at the same time,
Yes this is stipulated by Einstein.
> one at the front of the car and one at the
> back of the car. Using these conditions it is easily shown that these same
> two events are not simultaneous in frame S'.
This is wrong for the following reasons:
1. The train observer are at equal distance from the strikes.
2. The speed of light in the train is isotropic.
3. It was determined by the track observer that the strikes were
simultaneous to begin with.
4. The closing speed as observed by the track observer has no effect
on the simultaneity of events in the train.
5. Therefore the train observer must also see the strikes to be
simultaneous.
>We know this because we know
> that the observer O2 sees the light from the front of the car before he sees
> the light from the back of the car.
This is a bogus assertion. We don't know nothing of the sort. Besides
such assertion violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the
train.
> Both O1 and O2 agree on this fact.
No they don't agree on this assertion at all. Both 01 and 02 agree
that the flashes were simultaneous..
> Therefore since the speed of light is the both invariant and isotropic and
> since the events occured at equal distances from O2 that the events did not
> occur at the same time as measured by O2, contrary to your assertion.
Here you are using bogus assertions as your arguement.
>
> For further reference, please state whether the events occur at the same
> time in S or at the same time in S'.
The following possibilities exist for the strikes:
1. The strikes were simultaneous to begin with.
2. The strikes were not simultaneous to begin with.
3. It was determined by the track observer that the strikes were
simultaneous to begin with. Therefore they were also simultaneous for
the train observer to begin with.
If they do not occur at the same time
> as measured in S then you are not talking about Einstein's train gerdanken
> experiment. IF they occur at the same time in S' then there is no reason to
> assume that O2 will see one flash before the other.
Exactly such assumption is wrong.
>Indeed, if this is the
> case, then he will see both flashes at the same time, contrary to your
> assertion.
What I said agree with the isotropy of the speed of light in the
train.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
ROTFLOL...So it is OK for you to call me clueless and made gray errors
and it is not OK for me to tell you that you don't understand SR? I
only flame people who flamed me first. If you want a reasonable
discussion you need to understand what I said about SR. You keep on
saying that the train observer sees the front flash before the rear
flash. This is a bogus assertion based on the bogus concept that
relative velocity and direction of relative velocity will effect thew
isotropy of the speed of light in the train.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
Pmb
On Jul 23, 9:56 pm, "Pmb" <some...@someplace.com> wrote:
>> That is not quite true and quite illogical. First off experiments verify
>> predictions based on postulates or theorems derived from them.
>> Verification
>> of the postulates by experiment does not prove that the postulates are
>> correct. Only that they are verified by experiment. "confirmed
>> experimentally" has no meaning in physics.
>
>So are you saying that experiments confirm that the speed of light is
>isotropic does not mean that the speed of light is isotropic????
When you answer my question, i.e. "Please state what you mean by
"confirmed". Do you mean it to mean the same thing as "proved by
experiment"?" then I'll be able to answer yours.
>> The predictions made my the postulates of relativity have been confirmed
>> many times.
Sorry. I didn't mean to say "confirmed" I meant to say "verified" i.e. is
consistent with.
>> That means that things which are predicted to occur are just as
>> justified. E.g. ken's arguement is like the following: Even though
>> Newton's
>> law of gravity has been verified many times in the past it has never been
>> verified for my red comb and therefore Newtonian gravity is not confirmed
>> experimentally since it refers to all possible objects and in all
>> possible
>> circumstances. But one object for which it has never been confirmed
>> experimentally is for my red comb. Therefore Newton's law of gravity
>> itself
>> is not confirmed experimentally . That's the kind of arguement used my
>> ken
>> here.
>
>That's not my arguement at all. It is your arguement.
Who in the world said that it was your arguement? I said it was *like* your
arguement. There is a difference.
>> The nonsimultaneity of events is a logical consequence of the postulates
>> of
>> relativity,
>This shows me that you don't understand SR.
And here we have you doing this yet once more which tells me that it will
continue forever. I specifically told you that if you kept on doing this
then that is the end of all conversations. I guess you must want me to
killfile you so that I don't keep pointing out the flaws in your arguements
huh? So be it. Plonk!
G. L. Bradford
"kenseto" wrote:
(never mind)
===================
Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, by Albert Einstein, chapter
nine, The Relativity of Simultaneity, third paragraph:
"When we say that the lightning strokes [A] and [B] are simultaneous with
respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places
[A] and [B], where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point
[M] of the length [A --> B] of the embankment. But the events [A] and [B]
also correspond to positions [A] and [B] on the train. Let [M'] be the
mid-point of the distance [A --> B] on the traveling train. Just when the
flashes* (*as judged from the embankment) of lightning occur, this point
[M'] naturally coincides with the point [M], but it moves towards the right
in the diagram with the velocity [v] of the train. If an observer sitting in
the position [M'] in the train did not possess this velocity, then he would
remain permanently at [M], and the light rays emitted by the flashes of
lightning [A] and [B] would reach him simultaneously, [i.e.] they would meet
just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference to the
railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from
[B], whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from [A].
Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from [B] earlier than
he will see that emitted from [A]. Observers who take the railway train as
their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the
lightning flash [B] took place earlier than the lightning flash [A]......."
GLB
===================
harry
> SR makes following contradictory claims:
> 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> confirmed experimentally.
Wrong. Instead, light is merely *defined* to be (or better, to *look*)
isotropic when the clock synchronization procedure is applied which thus
"makes" it isotropic, at least on paper and *only for the observers who use
that calibration*. For all other observers, as Einstein put it (I copy-paste
from his paper): "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v".
Of course, we've been here before (and before and before!). Any chance of
you ever understanding this simple fact?
> 2. According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
> and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS
[snip]
First deal with the error in point 1, likely that solves it!
Harald
kenseto
wrote:
> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f5b20907-b429-4c59...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > SR makes following contradictory claims:
> > 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> > all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> > distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> > transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> > confirmed experimentally.
>
> Wrong. Instead, light is merely *defined* to be (or better, to *look*)
> isotropic when the clock synchronization procedure is applied which thus
> "makes" it isotropic, at least on paper and *only for the observers who use
> that calibration*. For all other observers, as Einstein put it (I copy-paste
> from his paper): "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
> when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v".
>
> Of course, we've been here before (and before and before!). Any chance of
> you ever understanding this simple fact?
Hey idiot....the speed of light in the train is measured to be
isotropic. RoS asserts that the train observer sees the front flash
before the rear flash. This assertion destroys the isotropy of the
speed of light in the train. Therefore RoS is bogus. In real life the
train observer must not move in such a way wrt the light front that
will destroy the isotropy in the train.
Ken Seto
>
kenseto
Hey idiot....your use of the track as reference for motion how the
train observer moved wrt the light fronts leads to the bogus assertion
that the train observer sees the front flash before the rear flash.
This in turn leads to the bogus concept of RoS and RoS destroys the
measured isotropy of the speed of light in the train. In real life the
train observer does not move wrt the light fronts in such a way that
will destroy the measure isotropy. That's why all observers measure
the speed of light to be isotropic. I am tired of teaching a brainless
monkey like you.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
ROTFLOL....the flaw is your failure to understand that the RoS
assertion that the train observer sees the front flash before the rear
flash is bogus. It will destroy the measured isotropy of the speed of
light in the train. I am glad you are plonking me. It save me time in
a futile effort to teach an indoctrinated runt like you.
Ken Seto
harry
On Jul 25, 5:22 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f5b20907-b429-4c59...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > SR makes following contradictory claims:
> > 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> > all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> > distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> > transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> > confirmed experimentally.
>
> Wrong. Instead, light is merely *defined* to be (or better, to *look*)
> isotropic when the clock synchronization procedure is applied which thus
> "makes" it isotropic, at least on paper and *only for the observers who
> use
> that calibration*. For all other observers, as Einstein put it (I
> copy-paste
> from his paper): "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
> when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v".
>
> Of course, we've been here before (and before and before!). Any chance of
> you ever understanding this simple fact?
: Hey idiot....the speed of light in the train is measured to be isotropic.
Hmm... obviously you STILL don't get it (of course, this was to be
expected)!
LAST try: We calibrate the clocks in such a way, that the speed of light
appears to be isotropic in our coordinate system. Next you can of course
verify that calibration by more experiments - with such experiments you
basically verify if some technician did a good job and if the clocks stay in
tune. Can you figure out the consequences for the one-way speed of light
relative to moving objects, as "measured" in our system? If you are smart,
you will find the same as Einstein did, as cited here above.
Harald
PD
So, let's capture this, shall we? The definition of "reference frame",
which you do not understand, leads to assertions you don't believe,
and so you choose to make up a different definition of "reference
frame", and you use the word freely as though that is what *I* mean by
the same term.
> That's why all observers measure
> the speed of light to be isotropic. I am tired of teaching a brainless
> monkey like you.
Ken, you haven't managed to "teach" a soul here. Not one. Not
amateurs, not physicists. You might ask yourself why that is.
>
> Ken Seto
>
Androcles
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1216988...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
-- cretin Jimmy Black fml...@organization.edu.
According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
|
kenseto
Sigh the point is: The train observer cannot move wrt the light fronts
in such a way that will destroy the isotropy of the speed of light in
the train. RoS made such an assertion and thus RoS is wrong.
Ken Seto
harry
Sigh too! If you had understood the above, you would not write such a thing
as "destroy the isotropy of the speed of light in the train" - there isn't
anything to be destroyed at all but just a calibration difference. As
explained to exhaustion.
Good luck!
Harald
harry
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:uCjik.5116$Eo3....@newsfe14.ams2...
Indeed, I considered mentioning that Androcles also doesn't get it. And he
never will.
Harald
Pmb
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:f5b20907-b429-4c59...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> SR makes following contradictory claims:
>> 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
>> all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
>> distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
>> transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
>> confirmed experimentally.
>
> Wrong. Instead, light is merely *defined* to be (or better, to *look*)
> isotropic when the clock synchronization procedure is applied which thus
> "makes" it isotropic, at least on paper and *only for the observers who
> use that calibration*. For all other observers, as Einstein put it (I
> copy-paste from his paper): "But the ray moves relatively to the initial
> point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity
> c-v".
I disagree. That the speed of light is isotropic is a postulate which
(presumably) has been verified experimentally. Why do you think that this
concerns a definition rather than a postulate?
Pete
kenseto
Sigh three....RO said that the train observer sees the flash from the
front before the flash from the rear. That's destroying the isotropy
of the speed of light in the train.
Ken Seto
Pmb
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:6c9d8df3-4129-4330...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 25, 5:22 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
> wrote:
>> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f5b20907-b429-4c59...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > SR makes following contradictory claims:
>> > 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
>> > all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
>> > distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
>> > transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
>> > confirmed experimentally.
>>
>> Wrong. Instead, light is merely *defined* to be (or better, to *look*)
>> isotropic when the clock synchronization procedure is applied which thus
>> "makes" it isotropic, at least on paper and *only for the observers who
>> use
>> that calibration*. For all other observers, as Einstein put it (I
>> copy-paste
>> from his paper): "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
>> when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v".
>>
>> Of course, we've been here before (and before and before!). Any chance of
>> you ever understanding this simple fact?
>
>
> : Hey idiot....the speed of light in the train is measured to be
> isotropic.
This is an odd statement from Ken since he denies it in practice.
> Hmm... obviously you STILL don't get it (of course, this was to be
> expected)!
> LAST try: We calibrate the clocks in such a way, that the speed of light
> appears to be isotropic in our coordinate system.
We don't calibrate clocks so that light is isotropic. We create clocks (and
in a sense 'define time') so that motion looks simple. We then synchronize
clocks in such a way that "at the same time" (i.e. synchronicity) is
meaningful.
The isotropy of light (aka the "one-way speed of light") is something that
can only be confirmed by experimentation.
Pete
Pmb
Where and in what contest did Einstein say this?
Pete
papa...@hotmail.com
I will put here the complete mathematical derivation of the relativity
of simultaneity, following the same notation as Einstein in
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
v= 0.6c = 180000 km/sec is the speed of the moving frame. Notice that,
according to SRT, you can’t differentiate on who is doing the move. So
we have to consider two cases: a) the track observer M is considered
at rest and the train observer M’ is moving at v, along the +x axis,
or b) the train observer M’ is considered at rest and the track
observer M is moving at v, along the -x axis.
c= 300000 km/sec
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 0.8
Einstein proves that both observers disagree about the simultaneity of
the strikes.
1) Check for isotropy
Let K be the frame of the track observer M. Also let K’ be the frame
of the train observer M’. The Lorentz transformation equations between
these two frames are:
x = (x’+ vt’) / (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)) ; t = (t’+ vx’/c^2) / (sqrt(1- v^2/
c^2))
x' = (x - vt) / (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)) ; t’ = (t - vx/c^2) / (sqrt(1- v^2/
c^2))
When, on frame K, (x,t) = (0,0) it follows that, on frame K’, (x’,t’)
= (0,0) , meaning observers M and M’ coincide. At that instant of time
(t = t' =0), there are two lightning strikes at locations A, at x_A =
x’_A = -100000km, and at location B, at x_B = x’_B = +100000km
The strike light signal from A moves along the track frame K following
equation x = ct. Substituting this x in Lorentz equations, we obtain:
x' = (c-v)t / (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) ; t' = ((c-v)/c)t / (sqrt(1-v^2/
c^2)) , hence x'/t'=c. So in frame K’ the speed of the light signal is
again equal to c.
The strike light signal from B moves on the track frame K following
equation x = -ct. Substituting x in Lorentz equations, we obtain:
x' = - (c+v)t / (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) ; t' = ((c + v)/c)t / (sqrt(1-v^2/
c^2)) , hence x'/t' = - c. So both light signals, going in opposite
directions, move at c. Then it follows light speed is isotropic in the
train frame K’ and has the same value c as on the track frame K.
2) Point of view from the track observer M
Equation, on frame K, for the back strike light from A is x_A(t) = ct
– 100000
Equation, on frame K, for the front strike light from B is x_B(t) =
100000 – ct
So at the track observer M location we have x = x_A(t) = x_B(t) = 0 ,
which implies t = 100000/c = 1/3 sec. So this is the time when the
track observer sees both strike light signals from A and B as being
simultaneous.
Now, according to the track observer M calculations (see figure below
showing space time relations), the front strike light signal will
reach the train observer location (which on the train frame K’ is
x’=0) at point C, while the back strike light signal will reach the
train observer location at point D (both as measured on frame K),
which are given by the following relations:
< >
< * >
>< o
> / <
A>____________M’/_____________<B
M C D ---> x
Point C: train observer M’ speed relation on frame K: x_M’ = vt =
180000t ; strike light signal from B equation x_B(t) = 100000 - ct.
They intersect at t_C = 100000 / (c + v) = 0.208 sec, at location x_C
= vt_C = 37500 km. Now, on frame K’ of the train observer M’, point C
space-time coordinates are given by the Lorentz equations, resulting
in:
x’_C = (x_C-vt) / (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)) = (37500 – 180000 * 0.208)/0.8 =
0 (as it should be), and t’_C = (t_C-vx_C/c^2) / (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)) =
(0.208 – (180000*37500)/300000^2)/0.8 = 0.167 sec. This is the time,
on frame K' when the front strike light signal reaches the train
observer M'. Notice how M calculates a slower (longer) time for point
C.
Point D: train observer M’ speed relation on frame K: x_M’ = vt =
180000t ; back strike light signal equation x_B(t) = ct - 100000. They
intersect at t_D = 100000 / (c - v) = 0.833 sec, at location x_D =
vt_D = 150000 km. On frame K’, point D coordinates are given by
Lorentz equations, resulting in:
x’_D = (x_D-vt) / (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)) = (150000 – 180000 * 0.803)/0.8 =
0 (as it should be), and t’_D = (t_D-vx_D/c^2) / (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)) =
(0.803 – (180000*150000)/300000^2)/0.8 = 0.667 sec. This is the time,
on frame K' when the back strike light signal reaches the train
observer M'.
Conclusions from the track observer M point of view:
a) Track observer on frame K sees two simultaneous strikes at t = 1/3
sec, x = 0.
b) Train observer on frame K’ sees two non-simultaneous strikes, the
first at t’ = 0.167 sec, x’ = 0 and the second at t’ = 0.667 sec at x’
= 0.
3) Now we consider the point of view of the train observer M’
M’ in his own frame K’, considers the track observer, in frame K, is
moving towards the –x’ direction at a speed v = 0.6c
The strike light signal from A moves along the train frame K’ as x’ =
ct’. Substituting x’ in Lorentz equations, we obtain:
x = (c + v)t’ / (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)) ; t = ((c + v)/c)t’ / (sqrt(1- v^2/
c^2)), hence x/t = c.
The strike light signal from B moves on the train frame K’ as x’ = -
ct’. Substituting x’ in Lorentz equations, we obtain:
x = - (c+v)t’ / (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) ; t = ((c + v)/c)t’ / (sqrt(1-v^2/
c^2)) , hence x/t = - c.
Then it follows light speed is isotropic in the track frame K and has
the same value c as on the train frame K.
< >
< * >
o ><
> \ <
A>____________\M_____________<B
D’C’ M’ ---> x'
Equation on train frame K’ for the back strike light signal is
x’_A(t’) = ct’ – 100000
Equation on train frame K’ for the front strike light signal is
x’_B(t’) = 100000 – ct’
So at the train location M’ we have x’_A(t’) = x’_B(t’) = 0 , which
implies t’ = 100000/c = 1/3 sec. So this is the time when the train
observer M’ sees both strike light signals as simultaneous.
Now, according to the train observer M’ calculations, the front strike
light signal will reach the track observer M location (which on the
track frame K is x=0) at point C’, while the back strike light signal
will reach the train observer location M at point D’ (both as measured
on train frame K’), which are given by the following relations:
Point C’: track observer M speed relation on frame K’: x’_M = -vt’ =
-180000t’ ; front strike light signal equation x’_B(t’) = 100000 –
ct’. They intersect at t’_C’ = 100000 / (c + v) = 0.208 sec, at
location x’_C’ = vt’_C’ = - 37500 km.
On frame K of the track observer, point C’ space-time coordinates are
given by the Lorentz equations, resulting in:
x_C’ = (x’_C’ + vt’) / (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)) = (-37500 + 180000 * 0.208)/
0.8 = 0 (as it should be)
t_C’ = (t’_C’-vx’_C’/c^2) / (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)) = (0.208 –
(180000*37500)/300000^2)/0.8 = 0.167 sec. This is the time, on frame K
when the front strike light signal reaches the track observer M.
Point D’: track observer M speed relation on frame K’: x’_M = -vt’ =
-180000t’ ; back strike light signal equation x’_B(t’) = ct’ - 100000.
They intersect at t’_D’ = 100000 / (c - v) = 0.833 sec, at location
x’_D’ = vt’_D = -150000 km.
On frame K, point D’ coordinates are given by Lorentz equations,
resulting in:
x_D’ = (x’_D’-vt’) / (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)) = (-150000 + 180000 * 0.803)/
0.8 = 0 (as it should)
t_D’ = (t’_D’-vx’_D’/c^2) / (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)) = (0.803 –
(180000*150000)/300000^2)/0.8 = 0.667 sec. This is the time, on frame
K when the back strike light signal reaches the track observer M.
Conclusions:
a) Train observer M’ on frame K’ sees two simultaneous strikes at t’ =
1/3 sec, x’ = 0.
b) Track observer M on frame K sees two non-simultaneous strikes, the
first at t = 0.167 sec, x = 0 and the second at t = 0.667 sec at x =
0.
We notice that both observer disagree about the strikes being or not
simultaneous and both are right in their observations (neither K nor
K’ frames are preferred frames).
This proves the relativity of simultaneity.
Miguel Rios
Sue...
[...]
>
> We notice that both observer disagree about the strikes being or not
> simultaneous and both are right in their observations (neither K nor
> K’ frames are preferred frames).
>
> This proves the relativity of simultaneity.
What is the observers telephone number ? :-)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0606233
Sue...
>
> Miguel Rios
harry
1. The train observer calibrates the clocks in such a way that light speed
relative to the train appears to be isotropic.
2. According to that calibration, first a flash came from the front and next
another flash came from the rear.
No problemo!
Harald
jem
Any explanation that uses more than one sentence is guaranteed to pass
right over Seto's head. Of course, chances are that a one-sentence
explanation will pass over his head too, but it'll take less time to type.
harry
"Pmb" <som...@someplace.com> wrote in message
news:GICdnR_6p_T7TBTV...@comcast.com...
I would say: such that it is the *simplest*. Other meaningful
synchronization conventions are known as well.
> The isotropy of light (aka the "one-way speed of light") is something that
> can only be confirmed by experimentation.
Sorry but no, that's erroneous as I already explained here above: light
speed is made to appear isotropic by convention and this necessarily only
appears to be so in the chosen frame. The speed of light relative to the
chosen inertial frame appears to be c-v as measured with other coordinate
systems, exactly as Einstein explained here above and as put into practice
with zillions of GPS receivers. As Ken Seto correctly noticed (although with
miscomprehension), there is a direct connection between simultaneity and
light isotropy (they are both "relative", depending on the used coordinate
system).
Harald
harry
See my other posting: it directly depends on the (coordinate dependent)
definition of simultaneity, and thus it can only be "measured" in a circular
way, just as I explained here above. Worse, the miscomprehension that
physical one-way light speed can be experimentally verified leads to the
very contradiction as illustrated by Ken Seto in this thread. Instead, the
FAQ states correctly (I think those are the words of Tom Roberts):
" Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and
find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of
theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. "
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests
Another way that this is often explained, is that any one-way experiment is
in fact a two-way experiment in disguise whereby the clocks are synchronized
in such a way that lightspeed appears to be isotropic.
Cheers,
Harald
Daryl McCullough
>"Pmb" <som...@someplace.com> wrote
>> I disagree. That the speed of light is isotropic is a postulate which
>> (presumably) has been verified experimentally. Why do you think that this
>> concerns a definition rather than a postulate?
>
>See my other posting: it directly depends on the (coordinate dependent)
>definition of simultaneity, and thus it can only be "measured" in a circular
>way, just as I explained here above. Worse, the miscomprehension that
>physical one-way light speed can be experimentally verified leads to the
>very contradiction as illustrated by Ken Seto in this thread. Instead, the
>FAQ states correctly (I think those are the words of Tom Roberts):
>
>" Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and
>find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of
>theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. "
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests
>
>Another way that this is often explained, is that any one-way experiment is
>in fact a two-way experiment in disguise whereby the clocks are synchronized
>in such a way that lightspeed appears to be isotropic.
That's exactly right. It can be difficult to sort out what aspects of a
scientific theory are actual physical predictions and what aspects are
conventions (true by definition, essentially). In another thread,
"Can time dilation be computed with just the Lorentz Transformations..."
I try to sort out what are the actual assumptions and claims of
Special Relativity from what's true by definition. The claim that
"Light travels at speed c" mixes up a physical fact about light with
a particular convention about how we set up coordinate systems. What
we can say without confusion is that there *exists* a set of
coordinate systems (what I called the standard inertial coordinate
systems) such that in those coordinate systems, light travels at speed
c in every direction, regardless of the motion of the source.
You can make the claim about lightspeed less dependent on coordinate
system choices by describing explicitly how you intend to measure
the speed of light. For example:
Take two standard clocks at rest in an inertial frame. Bring them
together and synchronize them. Then slowly (as measured in the frame)
separate them to a distance L (where L is measured using standard
metersticks that are at rest in that frame). After separating them,
they again are at rest in the inertial frame.
Now, at time t0, according to one clock, you send a light signal
from that clock to the other. The light signal arrives at time t1,
according to the other clock. The prediction of Special Relativity
is that (t1 - t0) = L/c. This prediction is not at all circular
or true by definition.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
harry
Einstein didn't say that, as several people incl. myself have pointed out to
him.
And now he also misquotes me as well - at least that is consistent! :-)
Harald
kenseto
No the train observer measures the two-way speed of light using his
clocks to be isotropic c. There is no calibration needed.
> 2. According to that calibration, first a flash came from the front and next
> another flash came from the rear.
No....according to Einstein the train observer rush toward the light
from the front and reced away the light from the rear and that's why
he sees the front flash before the rear flash. This bogus assertion
makes it impossible for the train observer to measure the speed of
light to be isotropic c. End of story.
>
> No problemo!
BIG problemo.
Ken Seto
Pmb
I believe your explanation is wrong of course. Note that in special
relativity what I have explained is not in dispute by the relativity
community.
> light speed is made to appear isotropic by convention and this necessarily
> only appears to be so in the chosen frame.
I disagree of course. Consered the systems of clocks which are synchronized.
IF one were to rotate the system then the isotropy of space implies that
clocks are still synchronized. If the one-way speed of light were not the
same for all directions then the speed of light would not be isotropic.
Please prove your assertion that the speed of light being isotropic is not a
postulate but a convention.
> The speed of light relative to the chosen inertial frame appears to be c-v
> as measured with other coordinate systems, ...
That contradicts the second postulate of special relativity (invariance of
the speed of light).
> exactly as Einstein explained ..
Einstein never said that the speed of light was c - v in other coordinate
systems. He stated the opposite in fact, i.e. he said that the speed of
light is c in all inertial frames.
Pete
Pmb
>
> "Pmb" <som...@someplace.com> wrote in message
> news:8eOdnRx_nIVOUhTV...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>> news:1216977...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>>>
>>> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:f5b20907-b429-4c59...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> SR makes following contradictory claims:
>>>> 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
>>>> all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
>>>> distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
>>>> transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
>>>> confirmed experimentally.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Instead, light is merely *defined* to be (or better, to *look*)
>>> isotropic when the clock synchronization procedure is applied which thus
>>> "makes" it isotropic, at least on paper and *only for the observers who
>>> use that calibration*. For all other observers, as Einstein put it (I
>>> copy-paste from his paper): "But the ray moves relatively to the
>>> initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the
>>> velocity c-v".
>>
>> I disagree. That the speed of light is isotropic is a postulate which
>> (presumably) has been verified experimentally. Why do you think that this
>> concerns a definition rather than a postulate?
>
> See my other posting: it directly depends on the (coordinate dependent)
The definition of simultaneity is not coordinate dependant. Only the
observed relation between events in a chosen inertial frame are dependant on
that frame.
> and thus it can only be "measured" in a circular way, just as I explained
> here above. Worse, the miscomprehension that physical one-way light speed
> can be experimentally verified leads to the very contradiction as
> illustrated by Ken Seto in this thread. Instead, the FAQ states correctly
> (I think those are the words of Tom Roberts):
>
> " Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and
> find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of
> theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. "
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests
>
> Another way that this is often explained, is that any one-way experiment
> is in fact a two-way experiment in disguise whereby the clocks are
> synchronized in such a way that lightspeed appears to be isotropic.
You don't seem to have taken into account the isotropy of space which is a
postulate which can be used to show that when a system of clocks is rotated
that the clocks are still synchronized. This implies that your assumption on
the idea of the isotropy being a result of definition rather than by
experiment is incorrect.
Pete
harry
"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g6cqd...@drn.newsguy.com...
Another way to look at it, is that "lightspeed" in the physical theory
stands for the return speed - as defined by Einstein in his paragraph 1
(regretfully he wasn't consistent in that):
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity 2AB/(t'A - tA)
= c to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space."
Of course, the main experiment was the MMX which tested just this two-way
light speed. And although for this universal constant the mesurement
procedure is simpler (only one reference clock and one ruler are required),
even this speed only has operational meaning: it is a quotient that is equal
to c according to experience, without making any metaphysical claims.
> What
> we can say without confusion is that there *exists* a set of
> coordinate systems (what I called the standard inertial coordinate
> systems) such that in those coordinate systems, light travels at speed
> c in every direction, regardless of the motion of the source.
>
> You can make the claim about lightspeed less dependent on coordinate
> system choices by describing explicitly how you intend to measure
> the speed of light. For example:
>
> Take two standard clocks at rest in an inertial frame. Bring them
> together and synchronize them. Then slowly (as measured in the frame)
> separate them to a distance L (where L is measured using standard
> metersticks that are at rest in that frame). After separating them,
> they again are at rest in the inertial frame.
>
> Now, at time t0, according to one clock, you send a light signal
> from that clock to the other. The light signal arrives at time t1,
> according to the other clock. The prediction of Special Relativity
> is that (t1 - t0) = L/c. This prediction is not at all circular
> or true by definition.
Indeed, the PoR requires that both methods yield the same result - SRT
stands or falls by it. Note that such should not give the illusion that then
the synchronization is somehow "absolute" (the error is in thinking that
slow clock transport relative to a frame cannot produce significant time
dilation differences in another frame).
Regards,
Harald
harry
That's simple: in other frames the speed of light relative to your frame
"is" c-v, as a result of their clock synchronization. If they choose to
adopt your clock synchronization instead, then they find that the speed of
light relative to your frame "is" c - just as Einstein explained.
>> The speed of light relative to the chosen inertial frame appears to be
>> c-v as measured with other coordinate systems, ...
>
> That contradicts the second postulate of special relativity (invariance of
> the speed of light).
No, this is simply what in modern jargon is called "closing speed".
>> exactly as Einstein explained ..
>
> Einstein never said that the speed of light was c - v in other coordinate
> systems. He stated the opposite in fact, i.e. he said that the speed of
> light is c in all inertial frames.
Sure. Consequently, and as I quoted (even copy-pasted from Einstein's
paper):
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v".
Ken Seto and Androcles are unable to understand that, and as a result they
mess up in a terrible way. I'm surprised that this is news to you.
Regards,
Harald
Daryl McCullough
>"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> You can make the claim about lightspeed less dependent on coordinate
>> system choices by describing explicitly how you intend to measure
>> the speed of light. For example:
>>
>> Take two standard clocks at rest in an inertial frame. Bring them
>> together and synchronize them. Then slowly (as measured in the frame)
>> separate them to a distance L (where L is measured using standard
>> metersticks that are at rest in that frame). After separating them,
>> they again are at rest in the inertial frame.
>>
>> Now, at time t0, according to one clock, you send a light signal
>> from that clock to the other. The light signal arrives at time t1,
>> according to the other clock. The prediction of Special Relativity
>> is that (t1 - t0) = L/c. This prediction is not at all circular
>> or true by definition.
>
>Indeed, the PoR requires that both methods yield the same result - SRT
>stands or falls by it. Note that such should not give the illusion that then
>the synchronization is somehow "absolute" (the error is in thinking that
>slow clock transport relative to a frame cannot produce significant time
>dilation differences in another frame).
Right. In the experiment that I described, I am not claiming
that the separated clocks are still synchronized. (The
word "synchronized" has no meaning outside of a coordinate
system, or outside of a particular synchronization procedure.)
My point is that saying that the one-way speed of light is c
is *not* circular or tautological if speed is measured the way
I described.
harry
Sorry for the glitch! Indeed, I meant coordinate system dependent.
>> and thus it can only be "measured" in a circular way, just as I explained
>> here above. Worse, the miscomprehension that physical one-way light speed
>> can be experimentally verified leads to the very contradiction as
>> illustrated by Ken Seto in this thread. Instead, the FAQ states correctly
>> (I think those are the words of Tom Roberts):
>>
>> " Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and
>> find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of
>> theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. "
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests
>>
>> Another way that this is often explained, is that any one-way experiment
>> is in fact a two-way experiment in disguise whereby the clocks are
>> synchronized in such a way that lightspeed appears to be isotropic.
>
> You don't seem to have taken into account the isotropy of space which is a
> postulate which can be used to show that when a system of clocks is
> rotated that the clocks are still synchronized.
Such clocks only remain synchronized as defined in that frame, and not in
frames that are moving relative to that frame. I think that you read too
much in "isotropy of space". Note that this relates to an issue that you
have with rotaing disks, and which I address in sci.physics.foundations.
> This implies that your assumption on the idea of the isotropy being a
> result of definition rather than by experiment is incorrect.
Instead, special relativity demands that what appears to be isotropic as
determined from S, appears to be anisotropic as determined from S'. One of
the oldest examples is the MMX (anisotropic length contraction, loss of
simultaneity, different time of flights).
Enjoy your weekend!
Harald
Pmb
Sorry Harald but any proof which assumes that the postulates of special
relativity are wrong is not a proof at all. It is merely a statement in the
belief that the one or more of the postulates of SR are wong. And that can
only be determined by experiment.
>
>>> The speed of light relative to the chosen inertial frame appears to be
>>> c-v as measured with other coordinate systems, ...
>>
>> That contradicts the second postulate of special relativity (invariance
>> of the speed of light).
>
> No, this is simply what in modern jargon is called "closing speed".
Then the notion of "closing speed" contradicts the second postulate of
special relativity.
>
>>> exactly as Einstein explained ..
>>
>> Einstein never said that the speed of light was c - v in other coordinate
>> systems. He stated the opposite in fact, i.e. he said that the speed of
>> light is c in all inertial frames.
>
> Sure. Consequently, and as I quoted (even copy-pasted from Einstein's
> paper):
> "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
> the stationary system, with the velocity c-v".
I will not consider a quote from Einstein unless you state what the source
is so that I can read it myself so I can determine in what context it is in.
> Ken Seto and Androcles are unable to understand that, and as a result they
> mess up in a terrible way. I'm surprised that this is news to you.
You're assuming that what you believe is something widely believe by
relativists. It is not. In fact the idea I explained to you above regarding
rotating the system of clocks (which you failed to comment on for some
reason) has already been discussed in the physics literature. Namely
"On the physical reality of the isotropic speed of light," Robert W. Brehme,
Am. J. Phys. 56(9), September 1988
The abstract reads
------------------------------------------------
It was suggested by Einstein and later greatly elaborated on by others that
the methods used to synchronize distant clocks are a matter of convention.
The standard method, in which it is assumed that the speed of light is
isotropic, obviously yields an isotropic light speed when such clocks are
involved in determining the speed of light. Another method, in which clocks
travel symmetrically but otherwise arbitrarily in opposite directions, may
also be used to synchronize distant clocks. This method establishes whether
or not the clocks are synchronized in a physically significant way in the
sense that it allows a distinction to be made between a contrived
anisotropic light speed and an anisotropic speed that is physically
significant or real. Specifically, a contrived anisotropic light speed
results in laws of physics that are not symmetric, whereas a true
anisotropic light speed does not affect the symmetry of physical laws.
Furthermore, when invariance in the speed of light is imposed, the invariant
interval may be identified with the lapse of proper time in the case in
which anisotropy is contrived. But, in the case of true anisotropy, this
identification is not possible. Experiment reveals that, on the basis of
symmetry in physical law, any anisotropy in the speed of light is contrived
and not physically significant.
------------------------------------------------
Pete
Pmb
Not at all. You have only considered one specific example of synchronizing
clocks, i.e. using light signals. There is at least one other than I know of
and that is by comparing clocks which are transported in a symmetric
fashion. The two methods need not yield the same results when clocks are
locally compared. Only observation can tell if they do in fact yield the
same result.
>> This implies that your assumption on the idea of the isotropy being a
>> result of definition rather than by experiment is incorrect.
>
> Instead, special relativity demands that what appears to be isotropic as
> determined from S, appears to be anisotropic as determined from S'. One of
> the oldest examples is the MMX (anisotropic length contraction, loss of
> simultaneity, different time of flights).
Why are you only considering one particular way in which clocks are
synchronized? I referred you to the article
"On the physical reality of the isotropic speed of light," by Robert W.
Brehme,Am. J. Phys. 56, 811 (1988)
which explains what I've been saying above. I have this article in PDF
format. Would you like me to E-mail it to you?
Pete
Daryl McCullough
"Pmb" (Peter Brown) wrote:
>>>> I disagree. That the speed of light is isotropic is a postulate which
>>>> (presumably) has been verified experimentally. Why do you think that
>>>> this concerns a definition rather than a postulate?
Peter has put me into his killfile, so I can't directly
respond to him, but I just want to point out a small
misunderstanding as to the relationship between the
postulates of a theory and experiment.
The postulates of a theory (such as: space is isotropic,
light has speed c in every inertial reference frame, etc.)
may not be directly testable by experiment. Instead, the
postulates can be used to derive predictions that *can*
be tested by experiment. The fact that a postulate produces
a prediction that is experimentally verified does *not*
count as a verification of those postulates (unless there
is somehow an argument that those are the *only* postulates
that make those predictions).
Partly, this is due to the fact that theories tend to
be falsifiable, rather than verifiable. No single
experiment can prove a theory true. But also, there
can be alternative postulates that lead exactly the
*same* physical theory. Special Relativity is typically
formulated in terms of a special set of coordinate systems,
what I called the standard inertial coordinate systems.
That's not necessary. It can instead be formulated as
a special case of General Relativity, where you can
use whatever coordinate system you like. But in
arbitrary coordinates, the speed of light will *not*
be a constant. So the postulate the the speed of light
is constant is not (purely) a physical postulate, but
also has an element of convention (it specifies what
sorts of coordinate systems are to be used).
Androcles
You seem to have snipped something, fuckhead.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
-- cretin Jimmy Black fml...@organization.edu.
According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
"I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to
claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel
times in the frame in which the clocks at A and B are
moving)." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif
"Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind
"I'm not a troll" Poe.
Ref: news:1189468758....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
Ref: news:1188363019....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
(How many Polacks does it take to change a light bulb?)
"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.
The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.
Androcles
and he didn't derive the cuckoo malformations from it, right, fuckhead?
Pmb
> Peter has put me into his killfile, so I can't directly
> respond to him, but I just want to point out a small
> misunderstanding as to the relationship between the
> postulates of a theory and experiment.
Actually I have chosen to unblock you for the moment. Juan quoted you in a
recent post you made which made it visible to me. I have been reviewing the
content of your past posts regarding me. It appears that I may have blocked
you for reasons which are inconsistent with the guidelines I have chosen to
adhere to for blocking people. Those guidelines are as follows (I refer to
them below collectively as "bad behavior")
(1) Posting insults
(2) Swearing
(3) Posting condescending comments
(4) Being rude
(5) Putting words into my mouth and ignoring why I actually did/said
something
I might have mistaken your criticism for bad behaviour and respoinded by
blocking you. If this is indeed the case then I want to appologize for that.
For the meantime I've unblock you and reload all newsgroup messages back to
late May. I don't want people in my killfile for merely criticizing me. That
would just be bad sportsmanship. :)
I have been searching your posts to see if I can figure out what prompted me
to block you in the first place so that I don't make the same mistake in the
future (that is if I actually did make a mistake). I seems that there isn't
a very strong reason for me to have blocked you in the first place.
The problem is that I failed to determine intent rather than what is merely
posted. This is in part due to your lack of responding to direct questions.
I can tell what you post but I can't tell the reason why you posted it and
if you didn't tell me why then I assumed the worst. This may or may not be
the best course of action, especially since people often refuse to state
their true reasons for doing something. The status quo is to either ignore
the request for clarification or to flame in response. You seem to be they
type who ingores the questions. If so then I can't see why I'd want to
discuss physics with you. I don't exactly recall what prompted me to block
you in the first place but the following probably contributed to it. You
made the following comment
> I certainly don't see the Einstein quote to be an
> unambiguous rejection of the claim that General Relativity
> describes gravity as a manifestation of spacetime geometry.
> That's why I am irritated by Peter's name-dropping to support
> his point of view.
I block people for posting things like this its because I have zero
tolerance for people who put words into my mouth or make claims as to why I
said something, especially when they choose never to even ask me why I said
it. You also misused the term "name-dropping." The definition of
"name-dropping" is as follows. From
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/name-dropping%20
name-dropping - the studied but seemingly casual mention of prominent
persons as associates done to impress others.
I have *never* quoted a source to impress anyone. I have never understood
the needs of some people to impress others. Since people rarely, if ever,
clarify the reasons why they make comments like this I'll give you the
benifit of the doubt and simply assume that you misunderstood my intention.
The reason I have quoted people in the past was to demonstrate that what I
was talking about is not something I myself came up with. E.g. I recall
someone once saying that advanced relativity texts (or journal articles)
never use the concept of relativistic mass. In that case I quoted MTW,
Rindler and Schutz as a counter examples. Each of those texts are advanced
in that they are not meant to be introductory texts. They all used tensor
analysis and are not for people who have a hard time with tensors and
4-vectors etc.
Also, people will often make the claim that "Nobody who knows relativity
believes that/holds that opinion." or something like that. Showing where
Einstein said such clearly demonstrates that the assumption is wrong. I.e. I
only post quotes to demonstrate the *opinions* of other physicists, not to
use it as some sort of 'proof'. That would be a silly thing to do since
nothing can be proven by quoting someone's opinion. I may have blocked you
for making accusations like the above. Recall how you finished that
statement
> The mere claim that Einstein (or Weinberg)
> believed X is not an argument in favor of X by itself. You
> need to know the context and the reasons the famous person said
> whatever he said.
This is a misleading comment. While it is true that stating someone's
opinion cannot be taken to be a proof of anything, regardless of who what
person is, it is not pertinant since I never said that reference to a quote
could be taken to be proof of something. In fact nothing I've *ever* posted
anywhere on the interent could be interpreted to mean that. Also, why would
you try to state someone's intent when you never took the time to ask the
person who made the statement what they meant?
By the way, I'm glad to see that you read Rindler's article on that
capacitor thing. There is another article you might like to read, i.e.
"The inertia of stress," Rodrigo Medina, Am. J. Phys. 74(11), November 2006.
The abstract reads
---------------------------------------
Abstract - We present a simple example in which the importance of the
inertial effects is evident. The system is an insulating solid narrow disk
whose faces are uniformly charged with equal charges of equal magnitude and
opposite signs. The motion of the system in two different directions is
considered. It is shown how the contribution of energy and momentum of the
stress that develops inside the solid to balance the electromagnetic forces
have to be added to the electromagnetic contributions to obtain the results
predicted by the relativistic equivalence of mass and energy.
---------------------------------------
I can upload it onto my website so that you can read it if you'd like to. If
so then let me know.
The following may have contributed to me blocking you
> Peter, on the other hand, sometimes makes a good point.
See? You can be reasonable at times. This comment is one of the reasons I'm
reevaluating your past comments, i.e. so see if I made a bad judgement
regarding whether to block you or not. A comment like this would be
impossible for people like Eric, Tom Roberts and Dono to make. I too have
seen your posts on physics and you do seem to have a good understanding in
many areas. But you are not perfect. But then neither am I. Nobody is
perfect. although many people would like us to believe otherwise.
> Unlike Koobee and Juan and Sue, he's not a crackpot, there are just
> some (unfortunately, permanent) gaps in his understanding of
> physics.
I now see that this was probably a criticism rather than "bad behavior."
However I didn't block you for making this comment. If it did contribute to
my blocking you it was because you failed to respond when I asked you for
proof/clarification. I.e. what are these "gaps" you believe are in my
understanding? Since we both believe the other has a gap in our
understanding there is no use in making such claims. I can make the same
accusations against you. However I'd only do so by giving a solid example
and not be vague as you have herer. I am one of the people on this newsgroup
who can admit when they are wrong. I have demonstated this time and time
again, even when it elicits insults from people like Bruce Pew (who uses it
forever after to insult me). I don't care if people use these admission of
my mistakes to insult me. People who do that I block since that is extremely
rude behaviour in my opinion.
Question - Why did you refuse to respond when I asked you to provide a proof
of your assertion?
Then there are other comments like
> I think that Pete hasn't grasped the complexity of human relationships.
Someone sent this to me in E-mail. I never would have heard it otherwise.
Clearly a wrong assertion. I know the complexity of human relationships
quite well in fact.
> He is over-generalizing from the case of Androcles, who is both a nasty
> person and a crackpot.
I never over-generalize, never! In this case I have said in the pat that
Androcles *behaves* like a nasty person online. Whether he is a truly nasty
person in real life is anyone's guess. E.g. I have a friend who is a nice
person in real life. That's why I consider him a friend. He has always
seemed a bit judgemental but it never showed up in the way he talks directly
to people. Then one day I saw him posting online. He was acting like a total
prick to someone. So you really can't tell how a person behaves offline by
only considering what he posts online.
> (1) The fact that Juan is nice to Pete doesn't mean that Juan is a nice
> person. It doesn't mean that Juan is not a crackpot.
Since when did I say otherwise? I'll talk to people who are nice. I meet
many people online who are crackpots but I only block them when they exibit
bad behaviour (defined above). I didn't know whether Juan was a crackpot or
not when I started taling to him. I don't care whether he is a crackpot or
not. What I do care about is if he doe snot exhibit bad behaviour. From my
experience to date I have not seen him exhibit bad behaviour to people who
have not done so to him first. As far as his knowledge goes, I don;'t know
him well enough to have made that determinatioin yet. And I refuse to make
that determination by considering comments from people like Eric or Dono.
Actually its Dono whom I have very little respect for since he intentionally
altered a previous message in which he made a mistake and then he lied about
it. He changed it so that he wouldn't have to admit his mistake. That's
pretty pathetic.
> (2) The fact that Tom Roberts (or whoever) hurts Pete's feelings
> does not mean that Tom Roberts is a crackpot.
Here is a clearcut case assuming something to be true when actually it is
quite false. There was only once instance of where, at best, someone "hurt
my feelings." That was Mike Varney when he used the fact that I had Leukemia
to try to insult me off the internet. He made that comment early in my
recovery, i.e. before I passed the "cured" milestone. and I was still
worried about dying (since there was a high probability of it).
Tell me Daryl. When someone insults you does it always result in your
feeling being hurt? If not then why in the world would you assume that
someone who flamed me (someone I have little respect for) would result in my
feelings being hurt?
> I don't think that Pete is himself a crackpot, but he is more likely
> to hang out with a crackpot who is nice to him than a noncrackpot who
> is mean to him.
That's silly. There is no relationship between me conversing with someone
and whether or not they are a crackpot. Why would I care if someone was a
cracpot? All it means is that I'd ignore their bogus assertions. When a
person is a crackpot it doesn't mean that they are an asshole too. I don't
let the fact that people are crackposts determine whether I enjoy talking to
someone.
As far as the present case I don't see why my name came up. I have
consistently, for the last 10 years that I've been posting on the internet
cautioned people to be aware of the fact that experimental verification of a
predictions of a theory cannot be taken as confirmation of the theory. No
decent scientist would make such a claim. And there is nothing in any post
I've ever made which would indicate that I believed otherwise. In fact there
are many posts in which I point out the opposite.
So let me ask you a direct question - Have you ever, or will you ever
**intentionally** insult me, swear at me, post condescending remarks or be
rude to me? I'm not referring to posts made in frustration/anger because
those are merely reflections of frustration and not necessarily a refection
of how a person truly feels. We all have our bad days. :)
Pete
ps - If I seemed rude in this message I want to appologize. I had to write
this several times to (1) keep it as shor as I could and still convey what I
wanted to and (2) take out anything that could be interpreted as "bad
bahavioir"
Dirk Van de moortel
> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:g6d21...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>> Peter has put me into his killfile, so I can't directly
>> respond to him, but I just want to point out a small
>> misunderstanding as to the relationship between the
>> postulates of a theory and experiment.
>
> Actually I have chosen to unblock you for the moment.
You are much to curious.
You never block, Pete.
You say *plonk* for the show.
We all know that since a very long time.
This lying of yours about blocking is really pathetic.
Dirk Vdm
xxein
wrote:
> harry says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Pmb" <some...@someplace.com> wrote
> >> I disagree. That the speed of light is isotropic is a postulate which
> >> (presumably) has been verified experimentally. Why do you think that this
> >> concerns a definition rather than a postulate?
>
> >See my other posting: it directly depends on the (coordinate dependent)
> >definition of simultaneity, and thus it can only be "measured" in a circular
> >way, just as I explained here above. Worse, the miscomprehension that
> >physical one-way light speed can be experimentally verified leads to the
> >very contradiction as illustrated by Ken Seto in this thread. Instead, the
> >FAQ states correctly (I think those are the words of Tom Roberts):
>
> >" Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and
> >find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of
> >theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. "
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: Good one. But where do we leave a gravity out (let alone
expansion on its domain)?
pmb
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> You are much to curious.
What does "to curious" mean?
> You never block,Pete.
Tell me something Dirk. Why do you think that anything you say is of
any interest to me? Its not as if you've ever been an interesting
person to discuss anything with in this or any other newsgroup. To me
all you are is a flamer. Nothing more.
> You say *plonk* for the show.
Oh for cripes sake! What possible reason could anybody have for doing
such a thing? You can believe what you want to of course. In the end
if makes absolutely no difference what you believe.
I will say one thing though. I've stated this several times in the
past and some people need to have things repeated.
I will, at times, use Google's groups in order to follow how a
conversation is proceeding. Google groups has a visual interface that
shows how discussions are threaded. Ity makes it easy to see who
responded to what post. In the present case I wanted to determine
whether I am missing any of Daryl's messages since I unblocked him. I
can now see that I'm not missing anything and that I don't have to
worry about it. This has the unfortunate effect of your nonsense being
visible to me. I made the mistake of reading the latest of yor silly
paranoid thoughts. This particular post was so pathetic that I juust
couldn't let it go without poinging out your mistakes.
> We all know that since a very long time.
Oh really? Is that so? If you actually paid attention to what's being
posted in these thread's then you'd have read the following post by
Daryl
----------------------------------
Peter has put me into his killfile, so I can't directly respond to
him,...
----------------------------------
This makes it quite obvious that you don't have a clue as to what
others (i.e. the "we" you claim to be speaking for above) believe. So
it seems obvious that you are unware of what other people "know"! For
now on please speak only for yourself since you have just proven to us
that you don't know what others realy think.
> This lying of yours about blocking is really pathetic.
Please feel free to believe whatever you wish. It makes absolutely no
differnce to me. Where did you ever get the idea that people actually
care what you think Dirk? All you are is a flamer here. Nothing more
and nothing less. I certainly can't have even an iota of respect for
someone like you for these reasons.
Pete
Dirk Van de moortel
0947d35c-af9a-4714...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
> On Jul 25, 5:44 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You are much to curious.
>
> What does "to curious" mean?
>
>> You never block,Pete.
>
> Tell me something Dirk.
I''l tell you this:
- You "killfiled" me on 23 june:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b17044da26f3fb94
| "Since you are flaming again - plonk!"
- You "forgot about it" and replied to me on 26 june:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/77bc545ba2b276e9
| "I had to reset my system which deleted my killfile.
| I have to start a new one.
| Thank you for reminding me that you were in it."
- You "forgot about it" and replied to me today.
You are a documented liar, Pete :-)
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
wrote:
> "Pmb" <some...@someplace.com> wrote in message
>
> news:vqednUyPYf9pbhTV...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> >news:1216996...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>
> >> "Pmb" <some...@someplace.com> wrote in message
> >>news:GICdnR_6p_T7TBTV...@comcast.com...
>
> >>> "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> >>>news:1216988...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>
Hey idiot we are talking about what the Train observer (M') sees. RoS
asserts that he sees the front flash before the rear flash. This
assertion makes it impossible for the train observer to measure the
speed of light to be isotropic and thus the contradiction.
Ken Seto
rval...@gmail.com
kenseto ha escrito:
> On Jul 23, 8:39�pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
> > kenseto ha escrito:> SR makes following contradictory claims:
> > > 1. According to the SR postulates the speed of light is isotropic in
> > > all inertial frames. That means that light fronts generated at equal
> > > distance from the observer at different directions will take the same
> > > transit time to arrive at the observer. This assertion has been
> > > confirmed experimentally.
> >
> > The vacuum light speed is isotropic in all inertial frames by 1905
> > Einstein�s Relativity postulate and experiment. Light fronts generated
> > at equal distance from the observer at different directions will take
> > the same transit time to arrive at the observer.
>
> So you agree with what I said....right??
>
Yes. I only change SR by 1905 Einstein’s Relativity (taking for
granted that for you they are one and the same theory).
>
> > 2. �According to the SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)
> > > and Einstein's train gedanken to illustrate RoS....the train observer
> > > M' is at equal distance from the lightning flashes when they occur
> > > simultaneously.
> >
> > False. This is your primary error. In the train frame the lighting
> > flashes occur at the same distance from the train observer at M�, BUT
> > NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY in that frame.
>
> This is a false assertion. Are you now using false assertion as your
> arguement??...where in Einstein's gedanken that says that the flashes
> were not generated simultaneously for the train observer M'?
Einstein’s words between { }.
{Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B which are
simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also
simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the
answer must be in the negative.}
Relativity, The Special and the General Theories, 1916, Part I: The
Special Theory of Relativity, Incise 9: The Relativity of
Simultaneity. (Almost at the beginning).
As you see, Einstein showed directly in his writing that the strokes
of lighting A and B which are simultaneous with reference to the
railway embankment are NOT generated simultaneously for the train
observer M’. YOU are the unique one making here contradictory claims.
End of history.
(Skipping the rest)
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
harry
You forgot that clocks need to be calibrated for the ONE-way speed that you
discuss here, and that calibration procedures depend on our theory of what
matters and what doesn't matter. To be more specific: if the clocks WERE
calibrated before the train started its voyage, and the clocks are quite
perfect atomic clocks, then IF the train observer does NOT synchronize them
for the inertial coordinate system in which the train is in rest, then he
will measure that ONE-way light speeds are ANisotropic relative to the
train.
> 2. According to that calibration, first a flash came from the front and
> next
> another flash came from the rear.
: No....according to Einstein the train observer rush toward the light
: from the front and reced away the light from the rear and that's why
: he sees the front flash before the rear flash.
That is so according to measurements by the observer on the TRAIN PLATFORM.
The starting point was to make clear to the unaware reader that different
calibrations lead to different opinions about simultaneity (which is and was
rather well known).
: This bogus assertion
: makes it impossible for the train observer to measure the speed of
: light to be isotropic c. End of story.
>
> No problemo!
: BIG problemo.
VERY big problemo for you. Probably you'll never get it. Now I don't believe
anymore that you WANT to understand it.
Good luck,
Harald
harry
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1217001...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
Note: of course the (operational) TWO-way light speed is isotropic according
to observation: this was shown with MMX.
As I cited in parallel, Einstein it just like that in his first paragraph:
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A - tA) = c
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space."
And next, *based* on the synchronization convention, also one-way light
speed is (necessarily) c.
Pmb
Ken is not the type of person who can admit his mistakes Harald. From herein
you can plan on him merely repeating himself and ignoring what you say. He
is notorious for doing that. He provides a diversion everyonce in a while
but he usually starts flaming at one point or another
Pete
>
>
kenseto
You are wrong...There are numerous experiments to show one-way
isotropy.
>To be more specific: if the clocks WERE
> calibrated before the train started its voyage, and the clocks are quite
> perfect atomic clocks, then IF the train observer does NOT synchronize them
> for the inertial coordinate system in which the train is in rest, then he
> will measure that ONE-way light speeds are ANisotropic relative to the
> train.
Sigh...it is not neccessary that the train observer synchronizes his
clocks with the track clocks to determine the isotropy of the one-way
speed of light in the train. Again I suggest that you read some of the
one-way isotropy experiments available in the web.
Your conclusion that the train observer will measure the one-way
isotropy to be anisotropic is wrong.
>
> > 2. According to that calibration, first a flash came from the front and
> > next
> > another flash came from the rear.
>
> : No....according to Einstein the train observer rush toward the light
> : from the front and reced away the light from the rear and that's why
> : he sees the front flash before the rear flash.
>
> That is so according to measurements by the observer on the TRAIN PLATFORM.
Yes but the track observer's measurement of relative velocities and
direction of relative velocities should have no effect on the isotropy
of the one-way speed of light in the train as measured by the train
observer.
> The starting point was to make clear to the unaware reader that different
> calibrations lead to different opinions about simultaneity (which is and was
> rather well known).
Sigh....each observer use his own clocks and the same calibration
procedure. There is no difference in the observed simultaneity if the
lightning strikes were simultaneous to begin with.
>
> : This bogus assertion
> : makes it impossible for the train observer to measure the speed of
> : light to be isotropic c. End of story.
>
>
>
> > No problemo!
>
> : BIG problemo.
>
> VERY big problemo for you. Probably you'll never get it. Now I don't believe
> anymore that you WANT to understand it.
ROTFLOL....it is you who will never get it.
Ken Seto
Dr. Henri Wilson
<harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>One additional clarification:
>
>"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>>> Please prove your assertion that the speed of light being isotropic is
>>> not a postulate but a convention.
>>
>> That's simple: in other frames the speed of light relative to your frame
>> "is" c-v, as a result of their clock synchronization. If they choose to
>> adopt your clock synchronization instead, then they find that the speed of
>> light relative to your frame "is" c - just as Einstein explained.
>
>Note: of course the (operational) TWO-way light speed is isotropic according
>to observation: this was shown with MMX.
>As I cited in parallel, Einstein it just like that in his first paragraph:
>
>"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
>2AB/(t'A - tA) = c
>to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space."
>
>And next, *based* on the synchronization convention, also one-way light
>speed is (necessarily) c.
That was purely a little trick to make his 2nd postulate appear correct. It has
no connection with reality.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
rval...@gmail.com
kenseto ha escrito:
The speed of light is isotropic in all frames, by postulate and
experience. Yes, the train observer M’ sees the front flash before the
rear flash. Why do you say that [this assertion makes it impossible
for the train observer to measure the speed of light to be isotropic]?
If M’ sees the rear flash with some delay “d” respect the front flash,
this only means that the rear flash at A occurs with the same delay
“d” respect the front flash at B, precisely because M’ is at equal
distance from A and B and the speed of light is also isotropic in the
train. The contradiction only arises owed to your primary error, your
erroneous deduction deriving simultaneity in the train because it
exists in the embankment, supposing true what Einstein showed false
with all rigour.
> Ken Seto
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
rval...@gmail.com
Dr. Henri Wilson ha escrito:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:03:06 +0200, "harry"
> <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>
> >One additional clarification:
> >
> >"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>
> >>> Please prove your assertion that the speed of light being isotropic is
> >>> not a postulate but a convention.
> >>
> >> That's simple: in other frames the speed of light relative to your frame
> >> "is" c-v, as a result of their clock synchronization. If they choose to
> >> adopt your clock synchronization instead, then they find that the speed of
> >> light relative to your frame "is" c - just as Einstein explained.
> >
> >Note: of course the (operational) TWO-way light speed is isotropic according
> >to observation: this was shown with MMX.
> >As I cited in parallel, Einstein it just like that in his first paragraph:
> >
> >"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
> >2AB/(t'A - tA) = c
> >to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space."
> >
> >And next, *based* on the synchronization convention, also one-way light
> >speed is (necessarily) c.
>
> That was purely a little trick to make his 2nd postulate appear correct. It has
> no connection with reality.
>
Have you any doubt about vacuum light speed measured the same c in all
parts of our Universe? In particular, have you any objection to the
measuring methods of Romer and Bradley?
>
>
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
harry
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:0tis84dk56dgjgn5a...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:03:06 +0200, "harry"
> <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>
>>One additional clarification:
>>
>>"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>
>>>> Please prove your assertion that the speed of light being isotropic is
>>>> not a postulate but a convention.
>>>
>>> That's simple: in other frames the speed of light relative to your frame
>>> "is" c-v, as a result of their clock synchronization. If they choose to
>>> adopt your clock synchronization instead, then they find that the speed
>>> of
>>> light relative to your frame "is" c - just as Einstein explained.
>>
>>Note: of course the (operational) TWO-way light speed is isotropic
>>according
>>to observation: this was shown with MMX.
>>As I cited in parallel, Einstein it just like that in his first paragraph:
>>
>>"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
>>2AB/(t'A - tA) = c
>>to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space."
>>
>>And next, *based* on the synchronization convention, also one-way light
>>speed is (necessarily) c.
>
> That was purely a little trick to make his 2nd postulate appear correct.
> It has
> no connection with reality.
His second postulate basically admits to the main wave characteristic of
light: its propagation speed is constant, independent from the motion of the
emitter. At first sight that seemed incompatible with the PoR.
Harald
Dr. Henri Wilson
It doesn't happen.
Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt the observer.
>At first sight that seemed incompatible with the PoR.
It certainly isn't compatible with reality.
>Harald
harry
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:79ecece9-ef77-4367...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 4:02 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5b0bee88-1f55-4cc0...@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 25, 10:16 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
> wrote:
[...]
>To be more specific: if the clocks WERE
> calibrated before the train started its voyage, and the clocks are quite
> perfect atomic clocks, then IF the train observer does NOT synchronize
> them
> for the inertial coordinate system in which the train is in rest, then he
> will measure that ONE-way light speeds are ANisotropic relative to the
> train.
: Sigh...it is not neccessary that the train observer synchronizes his
: clocks with the track clocks to determine the isotropy of the one-way
: speed of light in the train.
Worse: without synchronization you don't have a t2 and thus there is nothing
to be determnined.
: Again I suggest that you read some of the
: one-way isotropy experiments available in the web.
I know all about them...
: Your conclusion that the train observer will measure the one-way
: isotropy to be anisotropic is wrong.
That the observer measures according to his calibration is what Einstein
took as basis. If you don't use his theory but mix his theory with yours,
you are bound to get "contradiction". And if you were right, GPS receivers
would give you the wrong coordinates. GPS receivers do just what I sketched
here above: they are calibrated to the ECI frame so that they take into
account that the speed of radio waves is c-v relative to the receiver (v=
speed of the receiver relative to ECI frame).
> > 2. According to that calibration, first a flash came from the front and
> > next
> > another flash came from the rear.
>
> : No....according to Einstein the train observer rush toward the light
> : from the front and reced away the light from the rear and that's why
> : he sees the front flash before the rear flash.
>
> That is so according to measurements by the observer on the TRAIN
> PLATFORM.
: Yes but the track observer's measurement of relative velocities and
: direction of relative velocities should have no effect on the isotropy
: of the one-way speed of light in the train as measured by the train
: observer.
IF the train observer uses the calibration of the platform observer, he/she
will fully agree with the platform observer. It would be magic if that
wasn't the case!
> The starting point was to make clear to the unaware reader that different
> calibrations lead to different opinions about simultaneity (which is and
> was
> rather well known).
: Sigh....each observer use his own clocks and the same calibration
: procedure. There is no difference in the observed simultaneity if the
: lightning strikes were simultaneous to begin with.
That's where you went wrong (or started wrong): they were NOT simultaneous
to begin with. Instead, only in one coordinate system they appear to have
been simultaneous.
Talk to you again next year! :-)
Harald
Androcles
| Just for the record, since I won't further waste my time:
Good, now fuck off.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
-- cretin Jimmy Black fml...@organization.edu.
According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.
According to Dork Bruere
"I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."
rval...@gmail.com
> "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>
> news:1217344...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
> | Just for the record, since I won't further waste my time:
>
> Good, now fuck off.
>
> Why did Einstein say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same?
>
> According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
>
> " In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
> is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
> According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
> he wrote.
>
> According to Dork Bruere
> "I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."
Why you refuse to understand that the relative velocity between two
moving entities in some frame is something totally different from the
velocity of a single entity in that frame?
Vacuum light speed is always the vector C in all frames (by Einstein's
postulate AND experience). Relative velocity between any light ray
with vector velocity C and any other moving entity with vector
velocity V (that can be another light ray if you want) is equal to the
vector substraction C-V, no matter what frame are you using to refer
the velocities.
The (c-v) and (c+v) speeds that you refer are relative speeds of light
with the moving origin of system k with speed v, all measurements done
in the stationary system K. The speed of light from A to B is equal to
the speed of light from B to A (by postulate AND experience), and
always equal to c. The points A and B correspond to an Euclidean space
with Cartesian space co-ordinates. Why you continue repeating that
Einstein said that (c-v) and (c+v) are "the speed of light" in some
frame? YOU are the unique one saying that. And the elemental
contradiction that arises is only YOUR one.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Dr. Henri Wilson
Why do you people still believe these fairytales?
Nobody has ever measured the OWLS from a relatively moving source.
No experiment has directly supported Einstein's 2nd postulate. It is merely an
idea he stole from old aether theories. ...and we now know there is no single
absolute aether.
>The points A and B correspond to an Euclidean space
>with Cartesian space co-ordinates. Why you continue repeating that
>Einstein said that (c-v) and (c+v) are "the speed of light" in some
>frame? YOU are the unique one saying that. And the elemental
>contradiction that arises is only YOUR one.
>
>RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
--- -. dotat
>
>
>Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
>All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools.
>Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
Your page is a collection of nonsense, except for the very last line:
> You might need this library file to run these programs.
>Unzip it into your c:\windows\system folder. file://msvbrm50.zip
The only truth you discovered in your whole life.
w.
Dr. Henri Wilson
.......Gawd! Another deluded fool who cannot bear to hear the truth.....
--- -. dotat
What truth, Henri?
w.
rval...@gmail.com
believe that stars are “fixed”?
> No experiment has directly supported Einstein's 2nd postulate.
> It is merely an
> idea he stole from old aether theories. ...and we now know there is no single
> absolute aether.
>
them. I suspect that the unique inertial frames that can be used to
model part of the real world are the ones associated to some centre of
mass. The ECI used in GPS is a very good example.
> >The points A and B correspond to an Euclidean space
> >with Cartesian space co-ordinates. Why you continue repeating that
> >Einstein said that (c-v) and (c+v) are "the speed of light" in some
> >frame? YOU are the unique one saying that. And the elemental
> >contradiction that arises is only YOUR one.
>
> >RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
PD
You repeat this lie frequently. It must be due to advanced senility
that you forget every time this is corrected for you, and then a few
days later repeat it again. Would you like a small note you can fold
up and put in your pocket?
Spaceman
That is not a lie,
You are the lying sack of shit PD.
OWLS has never been measured from a moving source.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
PD
wrote:
Filipas and Fox. You may want to look it up.
Oh, I forgot. You have no interest in looking it up.
I love it when someone who has NO idea what they're talking about
heckles from the peanut gallery. That's so adorable -- in a pathetic
moron way.
PD
Spaceman
That is an experiment name that has ZERO references
to be found how the actual experiment was conducted.
You have just sited a blue fairy experiment.
Would you care to show a link to an actual
description of the experiment?
Or are you just going to use a known blue fairy for
proof?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
LOL
PD
Oh, come on. You can't do a search for how many times Filipas and Fox
have been cited on this newsgroup?
Here, let me put it on a rubber-coated spoon and drop it into your
mouth. Airplane coming into the hangar! Brrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Spaceman
You must be on drugs.
I have seen way too many uses, with not one single
actual link to the experiments setup design.
You are citing blue fairy experiments.
PD
You must be crazy. Here is the link to the full article, complete with
experimental design, setup, data, and analysis.
http://prola.library.cornell.edu/thumbnail/PR/v135/i4B/pB1071_1?start=0
Click on the PDF link just above the abstract.
> You are citing blue fairy experiments.
You apparently couldn't look up an article if your coon-dog's life
depended on it.