Simultaneity of relativity

[mpc755]

The following gedanken proves Einstein's assumption that M and M' are
coincided at the time of the lightning strikes is not always correct.

Two trains get together away from all other sources of matter. The two
trains are at rest with respect to the state of the aether in which
they exist. The two trains synchronize their clocks. The two trains
back away from each other, then move toward one another, pass one
another, slow down, stop, and back up toward one another.

The motion of the trains throughout the experiment is opposite and
exactly the same.

As the two trains pass one another lightning strikes occur at A/A' and
B/B' and arrive at M simultaneously.

When the trains get back together A and A' align and B and B' align
and M is at the midpoint between A and B.

This means it is physically impossible for M' not to have seen the
lightning strikes simultaneously.

This means it is physically impossible for M and M' to be coincided at
the time of the lightning strikes.

At the time of the lightning strikes the two trains must have been
physically length contracted as follows where "|" represents the
physical midpoint between A/A' and B/B' with respect to the state of
the aether in which they exist.

-A'----------M'|------------B'-
-A-------------|M-----------B--

When the light arrives at M and M'.

--A'-----------M'------------B'
A--------------M-----------B---

[papa...@gmail.com]

This so called "gedanken" by you, only shows your total ignorance of
not only Special Relativity but also of basics physics. There is not
even a single line of your post that makes any sense, but you already
know that.

[mpc755]

[rotchm]

On Dec 17, 1:53 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The following gedanken proves Einstein's assumption that M and M' are
> coincided at the time of the lightning strikes is not always correct.

Unintelligible sentence. Try again.

> The two trains are at rest with respect to the state
> of the aether in which they exist.

The two trains are at rest with respect to each other in an i-frame.
Simpler, no?

> The two trains synchronize their clocks.

Ok. IOW they used E-synch procedure, jsut as the i-frame has been
coordinated.

> The two trains back away from each other,

They are no longer inertial? Then there is no reason to assume that
their clocks function identically nor remain in synch.

> then move toward one another,

Again, they are not inertial?

> pass one another, slow down, stop, and back up toward one another.

Again, many non-i motions. Are these motions necessary to the
gedanken?

> The motion of the trains throughout the experiment is opposite and
> exactly the same.

Now you say it. Start over and say it at the beginning. Also, their
motions are identical wrt the initial i-frame.

> As the two trains pass one another lightning strikes occur at A/A' and
> B/B' and arrive at M simultaneously.

This means that the fixed *clocks in the original* i-frame at AA' and
BB' and MM' all indicate the same value.
M and M' are not trains here but the location of these trains in the
i-frame, the "midpoint", the "x=0".

> When the trains get back together A and A' align and B and B' align
> and M is at the midpoint between A and B.

??? what does this have to do with the problem? You really have great
difficulty in presenting a problem/question clearly.


Rest of intelligible crap snipped. Try rephrasing your problem
differently and more clearly.

[mpc755]

On Dec 17, 3:56 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rest of intelligible crap snipped. Try rephrasing your problem
> differently and more clearly.

The following gedanken proves Einstein's assumption that M and M' are
coincided at the time of the lightning strikes is not always correct.

Two trains get together away from all other sources of matter. The two

trains are at rest with respect to the state of the aether in which

they exist. The two trains synchronize their clocks. The two trains
back away from each other, then move toward one another, pass one

another, slow down, stop, and back up toward one another.

The motion of the trains throughout the experiment is opposite and
exactly the same.

As the two trains pass one another lightning strikes occur at A/A' and
B/B' and arrive at M simultaneously.

When the trains get back together A and A' align and B and B' align
and M is at the midpoint between A and B.

This means it is physically impossible for M' not to have seen the
lightning strikes simultaneously.

This means it is physically impossible for M and M' to be coincided at
the time of the lightning strikes.

At the time of the lightning strikes the two trains must have been
physically length contracted as follows where "|" represents the

physical midpoint between A/A' and B/B' with respect to the state of

the aether in which they exist.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

Simulateity to the universal instant.
Super Many Time theory by Sin Itiro Tomanaga.
Time is at every point in the universe
witch clocks ticking away simultaneous and nonlocal
universal.

Mitchell Raemsch

[mpc755]

On Dec 17, 4:33 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[mpc755]

On Dec 17, 3:56 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 17, 1:53 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The following gedanken proves Einstein's assumption that M and M' are
> > coincided at the time of the lightning strikes is not always correct.
>
> Unintelligible sentence. Try again.
>

The following gedanken proves Einstein's assumption "Just when the
flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the
point M" is not always correct.

Two trains get together away from all other sources of matter. The two

trains are at rest with respect to the state of the aether in which

they exist. The two trains synchronize their clocks. The two trains
back away from each other, then move toward one another, pass one

another, slow down, stop, and back up toward one another.

The motion of the trains throughout the experiment is opposite and
exactly the same.

As the two trains pass one another lightning strikes occur at A/A' and
B/B' and arrive at M simultaneously.

When the trains get back together A and A' align and B and B' align
and M is at the midpoint between A and B.

This means it is physically impossible for M' not to have seen the
lightning strikes simultaneously.

This means it is physically impossible for M and M' to be coincided at
the time of the lightning strikes.

At the time of the lightning strikes the two trains must have been
physically length contracted as follows where "|" represents the

physical midpoint between A/A' and B/B' with respect to the state of

the aether in which they exist.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

When the train moves while lightening strikes
how then do you determine simultaneity?
The universal instant would be true for it also.
Though it is nonlocal small.

Mitch Raemsch; the prize

[PD]

On 12/17/2011 1:08 PM, papa...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 17 dic, 15:53, mpc755<mpc...@gmail.com> wrote
>

> This so called "gedanken" by you, only shows your total ignorance of
> not only Special Relativity but also of basics physics. There is not
> even a single line of your post that makes any sense, but you already
> know that.

Notice how quickly the conversation between Mike Cavedon and Ken Seto
died out.

They both suffer the same problem that they don't know the meaning of
the terms used in physics, don't have the foggiest idea what
mathematical expressions mean or even what the variables stand for. They
both respond to this by insisting that reality is described by terms
that they hold private meanings for, even though the terms are spelled
just like words that physicists use with completely different meanings.

When you tell one that he doesn't know the meaning of the words he's
using, he will call you a "fucking idiot" or something like that.

When you tell the other the same, he will simply repeat the same short
litany using the same words with private meaning.

They both have abdicated communication, because they do not want to be
put in the position to have to learn the meaning of the words they're using.

[mpc755]

On Dec 17, 9:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

The following gedanken proves Einstein's assumption "Just when the
flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the
point M" is not always correct.

The motion of the trains throughout the experiment is opposite and
exactly the same.

Two trains get together away from all other sources of matter. The two
trains are at rest with respect to the state of the aether in which

they exist.The two trains back away from each other, then move toward

one another, pass one another, slow down, stop, and back up toward one
another.

[mpc755]

On Dec 17, 9:07 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> When the train moves while lightening strikes
> how then do you determine simultaneity?
> The universal instant would be true for it also.
> Though it is nonlocal small.
>
> Mitch Raemsch; the prize

The following gedanken proves Einstein's assumption "Just when the
flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the
point M" is not always correct.

The motion of the trains throughout the experiment is opposite and
exactly the same.

Two trains get together away from all other sources of matter. The

trains are at rest with respect to the state of the aether in which

they exist. The two trains back away from each other, then move toward

one another, pass one another, slow down, stop, and back up toward one
another.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

I have a thought experiment!
Why don't you repeat everything the same over and over!
Hoping for a different outcome?

Mitch Raemsch; the prize

[mpc755]

On Dec 17, 11:28 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> I have a thought experiment!
> Why don't you repeat everything the same over and over!
> Hoping for a different outcome?
>
> Mitch Raemsch; the prize

The following gedanken proves Einstein's assumption "Just when the
flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the
point M" is not always correct.

The motion of the trains throughout the experiment is opposite and
exactly the same.

Two trains get together away from all other sources of matter. The
trains are at rest with respect to the state of the aether in which
they exist. The two trains back away from each other, then move toward
one another, pass one another, slow down, stop, and back up toward one
another.

As the two trains pass one another lightning strikes occur at A/A' and
B/B' and arrive at M simultaneously.

When the trains get back together A and A' align and B and B' align
and M is at the midpoint between A and B.

This means it is physically impossible for M' not to have seen the
lightning strikes simultaneously.

This means it is physically impossible for M and M' to coincide at

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Dec 17, 10:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The following gedanken proves Einstein's assumption that M and M' are
> coincided at the time of the lightning strikes is not always correct.
>
> Two trains get together away from all other sources of matter.

I can imagine two self-powered monorail trains running on opposite
flanges of a great big I-beam, way out in the deep nowhere.

> The two
> trains are at rest with respect to the state of the aether in which
> they exist.

How is that determined?

> The two trains synchronize their clocks.

Stipulated. You didn't specify it but I suggest the trains begin
next to each other, at the point M midway along the I-beam.

> The two trains
> back away from each other, then move toward one another, pass one
> another, slow down, stop, and back up toward one another.

That's not specific enough for me. How about this-.

"The two trains accelerate away from each other, then decelerate to
a stop. They then accelerate toward each other, pass each other at
point H, then decelerate to a stop. They then accelerate toward each
other. Constant-velocity drift is allowed but not necessary between
periods of acceleration or deceleration and stops. Thus when the
trains pass each other at M they may be accelerating or moving at
constant velocity in opposite directions. We should assume the trains
are moving at constant velocity when they pass, for simplicity's sake.

Stipulated?

> The motion of the trains throughout the experiment is opposite and
> exactly the same.

You didn't specify it but I assume you mean they are exactly
symmetrical as seen by an observer stationed at M.

Stipulated.

> As the two trains pass one another lightning strikes occur at A/A' and
> B/B' and arrive at M simultaneously.

You didn't specify it but I assume you mean that an observer
stationed at M during the trains' backing and forthing will see no
delay between the flashes from A/A' and B/B'. That means they were
simultaneous *in the rest frame of M*.

Stipulated.

> When the trains get back together A and A' align and B and B' align
> and M is at the midpoint between A and B.

We can simply identify the pairs A/A' and B/B' as the two ends of
the I-beam A and B; obviously they will remain aligned throughout the
procedure. That allows us to identify the trains with the primes, IOW
we can have train T and train T'.

> This means it is physically impossible for M' not to have seen the
> lightning strikes simultaneously.

If by M' you mean an observer aboard train T' when the trains are
passing each other at point M on the I-beam, this is where you
disconnect from Relativity. Relativity points out that an observer on
either train will see the light from the lightning ahead of him (which
he is approaching) *before* he sees the light from the lightning
behind him. Hence neither of the observers aboard T and T' can agree
with the observer at M on when either of the bolts struck.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory/Part_I#Section_9_-_The_Relativity_of_Simultaneity

Until you get that nothing you write will coincide with reality.


Mark L. Fergerson

[G. L. Bradford]

"mpc755" <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c1e1242-2952-451e...@m7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

(mpc755)

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

The lightning strikes:

Trn |A1'~~A0'|------M'------|B0'~~B1'| Trn
Trk |A1~~ A0||------M------||B0~~B1|| Trk

******

The lightning struck:

Trn |A1'~~~A0'|------M'------|B0'~~~B1'| Trn
<><><><>
Trk |A1~~A0|------M------|B0~~B1| Trk

******

M' observes 1) and sees 2) as the probability:

1) Trn |A1'~~~A0'|------>M'<------|B0'~B1'| Trn
<><><><>
2) Trk |A1A0|---->M<--------|B0~~~~B1| Trk

******

In the mean time:

M observes 1) and sees 2) as the probability:

1) Trk |A1~~A0|------>M<------|B0~~B1| Trk
<><><><>
2) Trn |A1'~~~~A0'|-------->M'<----|B0'B1'| Trn

******

GLB

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

[mpc755]

> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_The...

>
>   Until you get that nothing you write will coincide with reality.
>
>  Mark L. Fergerson

What I am saying is that in my gedanken where every movement is
exactly opposite if the light from A and B arrive at M simultaneously
then it is physically impossible for M' to see the light from B' prior
to the light from A'.

What I am saying is that in my gedanken where every movement is
exactly opposite then it is physically impossible for M and M' to
coincide at the time of the lightning strikes.

Everything in my gedanken is exactly opposite in terms of the motion.
This means the length contraction is exactly the same for both of the
trains. This means when the trains get back together A and A' align
and B and B' align. Since A and A' align and B and B' align and the
length contraction was the same for each train then this means the
lightning strikes had to occur simultaneously at A/A' and B/B' on both
trains.

The trains were moving relative to each other at the time of the
lightning strikes. If A and A' align and B and B' align when the
trains get back together and the length contraction was the same for
each train then this means the light from the lightning strikes had to
have arrived simultaneously for M and for M'.

At the time of the lightning strikes the physical midpoint between two
trains, represented by "|", had to be the following.

-A'----------M'|------------B'-
-A-------------|M-----------B--

Another way to think about this is to understand in order for the
lightning strike to be determined to be simultaneous at M and for it
not to be determined to be simultaneous at M' either the trains length
contraction must not be the same when the lightning strikes occur or
if B and B' align then A and A' can not align when the trains get back
together.

In my gedanken since the length contraction of each train is the same
and since A and A' align and B and B' align when the trains get back
together then the light must arrive at M simultaneously and the light
must arrive at M' simultaneously.

This is the reality.

[mpc755]

Your gedanken is correct if the light travels through a medium at rest
on the train and the light travels through a medium at rest on the
embankment. This is not the same as Einstein's train gedanken.

My gedanken proves Einstein's statement "Just when the flashes of

lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M"

is not correct.

If the length contraction is the same between each train and when the
trains get back together after the experiment is performed A and A'
align and B and B' align then it is physically impossible for the
observer at M to have seen the lightning strikes simultaneously while
the observer at M' does not.

If the length contraction of each train is the same and the marks at A
and A' align and the marks at B and B' align when the trains get back
together then the lightning strikes had to have occurred
simultaneously on each train.

This means the following represents what had to have occurred
physically in nature where "|" represents the physically real midpoint
between A/A' and B/B' at the time of the lightning strikes.

[mpc755]

In my gedanken where the length contraction is identical for both
trains then when the lightning strike at B and B' occurs A and A'
align at that instant on both trains.

[set...@att.net]

On Dec 17, 1:53 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why don't you simplify your gedanken as follows:
1. Two trains are of the same length when they are at rest in the same
inertial frame.
2. M is at the middle of one train.
3. M' is at the middle of the other train.
4. The trains are moving toward each other at speed v.
5. When M and M' are coincide with each other a Lightning strike hits
the ends of the train A/A' and B/B' simultaneously.
6. Questions to SRians:
(a) Will M sees the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously?
(b) Will M' sees the light fronts arrive at him simultaneusly?

According to SR the answer to the above questions is that both M and
M' will see the light fronts arrive at them simultaneously. This means
that the SR concept of RoS is refuted.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Dec 18, 8:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is the reality.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nope. The reality is you are viewing the whole thing from a third
frame in which M and M' are both moving at the time of the strikes.
The flashes will meet where M and M' passed each other, but neither M
nor M' will be there when they meet. So in your gedanken neither M or
M' see the strikes as simultaneous.

[Bruce Richmond]

That they coincide is GIVEN as part of the SETUP. If you don't set
the gedanken up as Einstein said to it is no longer Einstein's
gedanken.

> If the length contraction is the same between each train and when the
> trains get back together after the experiment is performed A and A'
> align and B and B' align then it is physically impossible for the
> observer at M to have seen the lightning strikes simultaneously while
> the observer at M' does not.
>
> If the length contraction of each train is the same and the marks at A
> and A' align and the marks at B and B' align when the trains get back
> together then the lightning strikes had to have occurred
> simultaneously on each train.
>
> This means the following represents what had to have occurred
> physically in nature where "|" represents the physically real midpoint
> between A/A' and B/B' at the time of the lightning strikes.
>
> -A'----------M'|------------B'-

> -A-------------|M-----------B--- Hide quoted text -

[mpc755]

We understand you can state in my gedanken the lightning strikes occur
simultaneously at A/A' and B/B' on both trains. However, most
incorrectly assume M and M' coincide at the time of the lightning
strikes.

Once you incorrectly assume M and M' coincide at the time of the
lightning strikes you have no clue as to understanding what actually
occurs physically in nature.

In my gedanken and in terms of true relativity there can be no
preferred frame. This means if everything about the trains is
identical, including their motion relative to one another, then it is
physically impossible for M and M' to coincide at the time of the
lightning strikes.

The following image explains it all in terms of what is actually
occurring physically in nature in my gedanken at the time of the
lightning strikes. The length contraction is physically real.

---A'----------M'|------------B'-->
<--A-------------|M-----------B---

The following represents what occurs physically in nature in my
gedanken when the light from the lighting strikes arrive at M and M'.

----A'-----------M'------------B'->
<-A--------------M-----------B---

[mpc755]

In my gedanken the light arrives at M simultaneously. Are you saying
this is physically impossible?

In my gedanken the length contraction between the trains is identical.
The light arrives at M simultaneously and when the trains are brought
back together B and B' align and A and A' align. This means it is
physically impossible for the lightning strikes not to have arrived at
M' simultaneously.

What you are unable to do is to explain how the length contraction of
the trains is identical, light arrives at M simultaneously, when the
trains are brought back together B and B' align and A and A' align,
and the light does not arrive at M' simultaneously.

[mpc755]

On Dec 18, 11:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> That they coincide is GIVEN as part of the SETUP.

And the GIVEN is not what occurs physically in nature.

> If you don't set
> the gedanken up as Einstein said to it is no longer Einstein's
> gedanken.
>

My gedanken more correctly describes what actually occurs physically
in nature. Two trains with identical length contractions pass each
other. As they pass one another lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/
B'. The light from the lightning strikes arrive at M and M'
simultaneously. The reason why this occurs is because M and M' do not
coincide at the time of the lightning strikes.

The following represents what occurs physically in nature at the time
of the lightning strikes where "|" represents the physical midpoint
between A/A' and B/B'.

[Bruce Richmond]

What you actually wrote was "As the two trains pass one another

lightning strikes occur at A/A' and

B/B' and arrive at M simultaneously." Whether you wish to admit it or
not you are viewing things from a third frame in which both trains are
moving. If the strikes occour as you stipulated the flashes will meet
at the midpoint between them in the frame you are viewing from. Both
M and M' have moved from that point before the flashes arrive, so
neither sees the flashes simultaneously. So yes, it is physically
impossible for M' to see the strikes as simultaneous as you have set
up your gedanken.

> In my gedanken the length contraction between the trains is identical.
> The light arrives at M simultaneously and when the trains are brought
> back together B and B' align and A and A' align. This means it is
> physically impossible for the lightning strikes not to have arrived at
> M' simultaneously.

Guess again.

> What you are unable to do is to explain how the length contraction of
> the trains is identical, light arrives at M simultaneously, when the
> trains are brought back together B and B' align and A and A' align,

> and the light does not arrive at M' simultaneously.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

It is up to you to explain how light arrived at M simultaneously.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 11:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That they coincide is GIVEN as part of the SETUP.
>
> And the GIVEN is not what occurs physically in nature.

There is no question that it is possible for M and M' to coincide at
the instant of the strikes as viewed from the tracks. That you don't
like it doesn't make it invalid.

> > If you don't set
> > the gedanken up as Einstein said to it is no longer Einstein's
> > gedanken.
>
> My gedanken more correctly describes what actually occurs physically
> in nature. Two trains with identical length contractions pass each
> other. As they pass one another lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/
> B'. The light from the lightning strikes arrive at M and M'
> simultaneously. The reason why this occurs is because M and M' do not
> coincide at the time of the lightning strikes.

M and M' are not together when they see the flashes so there is no way
they can both be at the point where the flashes meet on the tracks.
In fact the way you have set it up neither will be at the point where
the flashes meet.

> The following represents what occurs physically in nature at the time
> of the lightning strikes where "|" represents the physical midpoint
> between A/A' and B/B'.
>
> ---A'----------M'|------------B'-->
> <--A-------------|M-----------B---

So you're saying M and M' aren't at the midpoints of their respective
trains? It's your gedanken so I suppose you can do that if you want,
but it's pretty stupid considering M was used to represent the
Midpoint. It also means your gedanken says nothing about Einstein's
gedanken.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Dec 18, 11:17 am, seto...@att.net wrote:

> that the SR concept of RoS is refuted.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Wrong again Ken, neither will see the strikes simultaneously.

[mpc755]

How can I set up a gedanken which makes it impossible for the light to
arrive at M simultaneously? You are able to understand that lightning
strikes are able to occur on a moving train and arrive at M on that
train simultaneously, are you not? You are able to understand that
those locations on the train also coincide with locations on train M',
are you not? You are able to understand there is a midpoint between A'
and B' on train M', are you not?

My only stipulation which is different than Einstein's gedanken is
that the trains are physically length contracted by identical amounts.

In my gedanken, it is still physically possible for the light to
arrive at M simultaneously. If you don't believe so, remove train M'
from the gadanken, have the lightning strikes occur at A and B and
have the light arrive at M simultaneously. Then add in train M'.

It's up to you to understand lightning strikes are able to occur at A/

[mpc755]

On Dec 18, 1:31 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 11:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > That they coincide is GIVEN as part of the SETUP.
>
> > And the GIVEN is not what occurs physically in nature.
>
> There is no question that it is possible for M and M' to coincide at
> the instant of the strikes as viewed from the tracks.  That you don't
> like it doesn't make it invalid.
>

Not if they are moving relative to one another.

> > > If you don't set
> > > the gedanken up as Einstein said to it is no longer Einstein's
> > > gedanken.
>
> > My gedanken more correctly describes what actually occurs physically
> > in nature. Two trains with identical length contractions pass each
> > other. As they pass one another lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/
> > B'. The light from the lightning strikes arrive at M and M'
> > simultaneously. The reason why this occurs is because M and M' do not
> > coincide at the time of the lightning strikes.
>
> M and M' are not together when they see the flashes so there is no way
> they can both be at the point where the flashes meet on the tracks.
> In fact the way you have set it up neither will be at the point where
> the flashes meet.
>
> > The following represents what occurs physically in nature at the time
> > of the lightning strikes where "|" represents the physical midpoint
> > between A/A' and B/B'.
>
> > ---A'----------M'|------------B'-->
> > <--A-------------|M-----------B---
>
> So you're saying M and M' aren't at the midpoints of their respective
> trains?  It's your gedanken so I suppose you can do that if you want,
> but it's pretty stupid considering M was used to represent the
> Midpoint.  It also means your gedanken says nothing about Einstein's
> gedanken.

M is the midpoint of train M. M' is the midpoint of train M'. The
trains are physically length contracted with respect to the state of
the aether in which they exist. The further from the direction of
motion with respect to the state of the aether the trains exist in the
greater the contraction. Where "|" is in the above is the physical
midpoint between A/A' and B/B' with respect to the state of the aether.

[Bruce Richmond]

Just look at what you did.

> You are able to understand that lightning
> strikes are able to occur on a moving train and arrive at M on that
> train simultaneously, are you not?

In the setup you started with if the flashes reach M simultaneously
the strikes at A and B were not simultaneous. You said the strikes at
A and B were simultaneous so the flashes did not reach M at the same
time. Take your pick, you can have one or the other but not both.

> You are able to understand that
> those locations on the train also coincide with locations on train M',
> are you not? You are able to understand there is a midpoint between A'
> and B' on train M', are you not?

I understand those things just fine. Do you understand that light
travels at c in the frame you are viewing things from, resulting in
closing speeds different from c on the trains?

> My only stipulation which is different than Einstein's gedanken is
> that the trains are physically length contracted by identical amounts.

That stipulation includes the stipulation that both trains are moving
and that you are viewing things from a third frame which you consider
to be at rest.

> In my gedanken, it is still physically possible for the light to
> arrive at M simultaneously.

Not if the strikes at A and B were simultaneous and he was at the

midpoint between A and B.

> If you don't believe so, remove train M'
> from the gadanken, have the lightning strikes occur at A and B and
> have the light arrive at M simultaneously. Then add in train M'.

If the AB train is still moving you have just made it identical to the
moving train in Einstein's gedanken and the flashes arrive at
different times. If the train is no longer moving the observer just
frame jumped.

> It's up to you to understand lightning strikes are able to occur at A/

> A' and B/B' and arrive at M simultaneously.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Not with the setup you described it isn't.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Dec 18, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 1:31 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 11:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > That they coincide is GIVEN as part of the SETUP.
>
> > > And the GIVEN is not what occurs physically in nature.
>
> > There is no question that it is possible for M and M' to coincide at
> > the instant of the strikes as viewed from the tracks.  That you don't
> > like it doesn't make it invalid.
>
> Not if they are moving relative to one another.
>

What prevents it? So far we have the strikes at A and B were
simultaneous and the wave fronts meet at M. We have said nothing
about the location of M' up to this point, so what prevents him from
being with M at the instant the strikes took place as viewed from the
frame of M?

>
>
>
> > > > If you don't set
> > > > the gedanken up as Einstein said to it is no longer Einstein's
> > > > gedanken.
>
> > > My gedanken more correctly describes what actually occurs physically
> > > in nature. Two trains with identical length contractions pass each
> > > other. As they pass one another lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/
> > > B'. The light from the lightning strikes arrive at M and M'
> > > simultaneously. The reason why this occurs is because M and M' do not
> > > coincide at the time of the lightning strikes.
>
> > M and M' are not together when they see the flashes so there is no way
> > they can both be at the point where the flashes meet on the tracks.
> > In fact the way you have set it up neither will be at the point where
> > the flashes meet.
>
> > > The following represents what occurs physically in nature at the time
> > > of the lightning strikes where "|" represents the physical midpoint
> > > between A/A' and B/B'.
>
> > > ---A'----------M'|------------B'-->
> > > <--A-------------|M-----------B---
>
> > So you're saying M and M' aren't at the midpoints of their respective
> > trains?  It's your gedanken so I suppose you can do that if you want,
> > but it's pretty stupid considering M was used to represent the
> > Midpoint.  It also means your gedanken says nothing about Einstein's
> > gedanken.
>
> M is the midpoint of train M. M' is the midpoint of train M'.

Ok, but what you write below is crap. It has nothing to do with
relativity or reality. It is part of a crackpot theory you have made
up on your own.

> The
> trains are physically length contracted with respect to the state of
> the aether in which they exist. The further from the direction of
> motion with respect to the state of the aether the trains exist in the
> greater the contraction. Where "|" is in the above is the physical

> midpoint between A/A' and B/B' with respect to the state of the aether.- Hide quoted text -

[Sam Wormley]

Watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6328514962912264988

[Sam Wormley]

Watch The Mechanical Universe series.
http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html

42. The Lorentz Transformation

Lesson 42: The Lorentz Transformation
If the speed of light is to be the same for all inertial observers (as
indicated by the Michelson-Morley experiment) the equations for time and
space are not difficult to find. But what do they mean? They mean that
the length of a meter stick, or the rate of ticking of a clock depends
on who measure it.

[Aetherist]

1. The speed of light is fixed and finite
2. For any closed path the 'speed' of light will be MEASURED to
have the same value
3. The poening/closing speed of light source ARE NOT! the same for
all observers and is the source of the Doppler shift.
4. The field behavior of moving sources is decribed by the mathematics
embodied in the Lorentz transform and provides the basis and reason
for #2 above...


>

[G. L. Bradford]

"mpc755" <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ed65a818-b58b-4013...@cs7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 18, 11:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> That they coincide is GIVEN as part of the SETUP.

And the GIVEN is not what occurs physically in nature.

> If you don't set
> the gedanken up as Einstein said to it is no longer Einstein's
> gedanken.
>

My gedanken more correctly describes what actually occurs physically

in nature.......

(mpc755)

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

What actually occurs physically in nature!?!?

******

1) The lightning is about to strike:

Trn A'------M'------B' Trn
Trk A------M------B Trk

******

2) The lightning strikes:

Trn |A1'~~A0'|------M'------|B0'~~B1'| Trn
Trk |A1~~ A0||------M------||B0~~B1|| Trk

******

3) The lightning struck:

Trn |A1'~~~A0'|------M'------|B0'~~~B1'| Trn
<><><><>
Trk |A1~~A0|------M------|B0~~B1| Trk

******

Where M observes M' to be at the very moment of lightning's arrival,
1)....about where M' [was], not [is].
At the very moment of lightning's arrival, M' observes M to be just about
that far *to his front* and not yet opposite to him.
Where M' [is] -opposite to M- at the very moment (the very instant) of
lightning's arrival, 2). (Though not where M' is observed to be by M!)
(Though not where M is observed to be by M'!)

('c' does not equal infinite velocity.) (Light is not an instantaneous
transmitter of information.)

******

What actually occurs physically in nature!?!?

******

GLB

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

[mpc755]

On Dec 18, 3:42 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 1:31 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 18, 11:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > That they coincide is GIVEN as part of the SETUP.
>
> > > > And the GIVEN is not what occurs physically in nature.
>
> > > There is no question that it is possible for M and M' to coincide at
> > > the instant of the strikes as viewed from the tracks.  That you don't
> > > like it doesn't make it invalid.
>
> > Not if they are moving relative to one another.
>
> What prevents it?  So far we have the strikes at A and B were
> simultaneous and the wave fronts meet at M.  We have said nothing
> about the location of M' up to this point, so what prevents him from
> being with M at the instant the strikes took place as viewed from the
> frame of M?
>

Length contraction.

It has everything to do with relativity. I am explaining how in
special relativity two trains moving identically and oppositely will
both see the light from the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B'
simultaneously.

[mpc755]

For two trains moving identically and oppositely with the same exact
length contractions the following represents what occurs physically in
nature when the lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B', where "|"

represents the physical midpoint between A/A' and B/B'.

---A'----------M'|------------B'-->
<--A-------------|M-----------B---

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/18/11 10:17 AM, set...@att.net wrote:
> According to SR the answer to the above questions is that both M and
> M' will see the light fronts arrive at them simultaneously. This means
> that the SR concept of RoS is refuted.

When an event occurs has no meaning without saying where it occurs!

This shows correctly the perspectives of two observers, setoken.

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/18/11 10:17 AM, set...@att.net wrote:

>

> According to SR the answer to the above questions is that both M and
> M' will see the light fronts arrive at them simultaneously. This means
> that the SR concept of RoS is refuted.

When an event occurs has no meaning without saying where it occurs!

This shows correctly the perspectives of two observers, setoken.

Watch The Mechanical Universe series.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6328514962912264988

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Dec 18, 4:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/18/11 10:17 AM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > According to SR the answer to the above questions is that both M and
> > M' will see the light fronts arrive at them simultaneously. This means
> > that the SR concept of RoS is refuted.
>
>    When an event occurs has no meaning without saying where it occurs!

How are we going to do that without absolute space?
How without a dimensional distance standard?
Nothing has never been measured to shrink.
1 AU is always One AU.

Mitchell Raemsch; the prize

[Sam Wormley]

You need to also watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7753498041250713145

[Neo]

On Dec 19, 9:55 am, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Dec 18, 4:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 12/18/11 10:17 AM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> > > According to SR the answer to the above questions is that both M and
> > > M' will see the light fronts arrive at them simultaneously. This means
> > > that the SR concept of RoS is refuted.
>
> >    When an event occurs has no meaning without saying where it occurs!
>
> How are we going to do that without absolute space?
> How without a dimensional distance standard?
> Nothing has never been measured to shrink.
> 1 AU is always One AU.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch; the prize

The truth is.. there is no physical space.. hence no absolute space.
SR is simply about relationships and the lorentz symmetry and
equations that all physics need to be the same in every frame. This
lorentz invariance is built right in the very program of reality,
SpaceTime(TM). Ponder on it.

>
>
>
>
>
> >    This shows correctly the perspectives of two observers, setoken.
>
> >    Watch The Mechanical Universe series.

> >      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6328514962912264988- Hide quoted text -

[mpc755]

Lightning strikes occur simultaneously as determined by an observer
who remains at rest with respect to the midpoint of the two trains
with respect to A/A' and B/B' as best as can be determined. The closer
to 'c' the two trains travel one or the following is going to be
determined by the Observers at M and M'. Either the lightning strikes
are going to continually be determined to have occurred further apart
or closer together. I think it very likely the faster the trains move
the closer to simultaneous the lightning strikes are to be determined
to be by both M and M'.

I think it very likely the following accurately reflects what is
occurring physically in nature for two trains traveling close to 'c'
in 'empty' space where "|" represents the actual midpoint between the
two trains at the time of the lightning strikes.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Dec 18, 6:19 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 3:42 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 1:31 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 18, 11:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > That they coincide is GIVEN as part of the SETUP.
>
> > > > > And the GIVEN is not what occurs physically in nature.
>
> > > > There is no question that it is possible for M and M' to coincide at
> > > > the instant of the strikes as viewed from the tracks.  That you don't
> > > > like it doesn't make it invalid.
>
> > > Not if they are moving relative to one another.
>
> > What prevents it?  So far we have the strikes at A and B were
> > simultaneous and the wave fronts meet at M.  We have said nothing
> > about the location of M' up to this point, so what prevents him from
> > being with M at the instant the strikes took place as viewed from the
> > frame of M?
>
> Length contraction.
>

Your ass is sucking wind. We have said nothing to establish where
anything is on the train yet, so lenght contraction doesn't enter into
it. Guess again.

Below you are saying that one part of the train is length contracted
while the other part is not, putting M and M' off from the centers of
their respective trains. That is bullshit and doesn't agree with any
theory. Guess again.

>
>
>
> > > The
> > > trains are physically length contracted with respect to the state of
> > > the aether in which they exist. The further from the direction of
> > > motion with respect to the state of the aether the trains exist in the
> > > greater the contraction. Where "|" is in the above is the physical
> > > midpoint between A/A' and B/B' with respect to the state of the aether.- Hide quoted text -
>

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

[Neo]

> <--A-------------|M-----------B---- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

My dear mpc755.. in the real world where your real body is in the
storage vat and facility. It is ruled by absolute space and time and
there is an aether. But inside the Matrix prison where you are now,
the program SpaceTime is running, and objects in different frames can
have different length and time and relativity of simultaneity is all
there is. The reason for this Lorentz Invariance is so we can't detect
the edge of space. Because in absolute space and time, there is an
edge and the Matrix programmers don't want us to reach it and face a
blank wall. Also Lorentz invariance is less processor intensive
because of the symmetry. Briane Greene hinted of all this in his book
"The Hidden Reality" where he stated:

"To simulate not just individual minds but also their interactions
among themselves and with an evolving enviroment, the computational
load would grow orders of magnitude later. But a sophisticated
simulation could cut computional corners with minimal impact on
quality. Simulated humans on a simulated earth won't be bothered if
the computer simulates only things lying within the cosmic horizon.
More boldly, the simulation might simulate stars beyond the sun only
during simulated nights, and then only when the simulated local
weather resulted in clear skies. When no one's looking, the computer's
celestrial simulator routines could take a break from working out the
appropriate stimulus to provide each and every person who could look
skyward. A sufficiently well-structured program would keep track of
the mental states and intentions of its simulated inhabitants, and so
would anticipate, and appropriately respond to, any inpending
stargazing. The same goes for simulating cells, molecules, and atoms.
For the most part they'd be necessary only for simulated specialists
of one scientific persuation or another, and then only when such
specialists were in the act of studying these exotic realms. A
computationally cheaper replica of familiar reality that adjusts the
simulation's degree of detail on an as-needed basis would be adequate."

[mpc755]

I am saying the whole length of the trains are length contracted. The
further on the train from the direction of travel the more length
contracted the train.

[Paul Cardinale]

If you could do math, you would realize that what you posted was crap.

[mpc755]

On Dec 21, 1:51 pm, Paul Cardinale <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
> If you could do math, you would realize that what you posted was crap.

If length contraction is physically real and the length contraction is
greater the further from the direction the trains travel and the
trains approach 'c' then the following accurately reflects the
physical reality of the trains where "|" represents the midpoint of

[micro...@hotmail.com]

> > >      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6328514962912264988-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dimensionality cannot be denied. You are in denial if you think space
or time doesn't exist.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Bruce Richmond]

> <--A-------------|M-----------B---- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That would have to be part of your screwed up theory. It certainly
has nothing to do with any other theory I have seen, or with reality.
Perhaps you would like to explain how that comes about.

[mpc755]

On Dec 21, 8:43 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> That would have to be part of your screwed up theory.  It certainly
> has nothing to do with any other theory I have seen, or with reality.
> Perhaps you would like to explain how that comes about.

What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Aether has mass
and aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether displaced by
matter pushes back and exerts pressure toward matter. This is what
Voyager just found evidence of.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

The aether displaced by the solar system is pushing back and exerting
inward pressure toward the solar system.

This is gravity.

Now, since the above is beyond your abilities of understanding and
since you are probably one of the many who insist just because you
choose to remain ignorant of understanding it is the displaced aether
which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar
system which is causing the the magnetic filed to 'pile-up' and
intensify you will also be unable to understand the following.

The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in
which it exists the more aether the object displaces. The more aether
an object displaces the greater the pushing back and pressure exerted
inward toward the object.

Now, in this situation there are a multitude of things which can
actually be occurring physically in nature. One is the pushing back
and pressure exerted inward toward the object does not physically
affect the length of the object. Another is the object is equally
physically length contracted towards its midpoint. Another is the
midpoint actually moves forward during the objects contraction.

My guess is during acceleration of the object the midpoint of the
object is physically moved toward the back of the object. Once
momentum is reached the object stays in this configuration.

So, the following represents the physical state of the object where
"|" is the physical midpoint of the object with respect to the state
of the aether in which it exists.

---A'----------M'|------------B'-->
<--A-------------|M-----------B---

Now, I realize this is not going to make sense to you. You can't even
understand the pushing back and pressure exerted inward toward matter
by aether displaced by the matter is gravity.

Nor can you explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
experiment.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle has a well defined trajectory
which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave
passes through both.

How do people get to the point where they think they know everything
when they can't even understand what occurs physically in nature for
the simplest things such as gravity or a double slit experiment?

[Bruce Richmond]

On Dec 21, 10:19 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My guess is [snip]

Right,.... And nobody else is smart enough to see this.

[mpc755]

You can't even understand what occurs physically in nature to cause
gravity or the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment.

What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Aether has mass
and aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether displaced by
matter pushes back and exerts pressure toward matter. This is what
Voyager just found evidence of.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

The aether displaced by the solar system is pushing back and exerting
inward pressure toward the solar system.

This is gravity.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Dec 22, 8:02 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nothing that had to do with what was being discussed. [plonk]

[mpc755]

On Dec 22, 10:13 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 8:02 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nothing that had to do with what was being discussed. [plonk]

It has everything to do with what is being discussed. This reply of
yours is evidence of how screwed up physics is. You choose to remain
ignorant of understanding what occurs physically in nature which
causes gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment
so you don't have to understand I may have figured out what occurs
physically in nature in terms of length contraction at speeds close to
'c'.

You are choosing to be ignorant in order to remain ignorant.

You are choosing not to understand what occurs physically in nature to
cause gravity so you don't have to consider my understanding of length
contraction as being correct.

You are choosing not to understand what occurs physically in nature in
a double slit experiment so you don't have to consider my
understanding of length contraction as being correct.

[mpc755]

How are you supposed to understand what I am proposing in terms of
length contraction at speeds close to 'c' may be correct when you
don't even understand what occurs physically in nature which causes
gravity? What I am proposing in terms of length contraction at speeds
close to 'c' is the same physical phenomenon as what occurs physically
in nature which causes gravity.

What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Aether has

mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is

[Aetherist]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:13:46 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>On Dec 22, 8:02 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Nothing that had to do with what was being discussed. [plonk]

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but he has no idea
what 'plonk' means. :(

[mpc755]

On Dec 22, 11:56 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:13:46 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 22, 8:02 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Nothing that had to do with what was being discussed. [plonk]
>
> I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but he has no idea
> what 'plonk' means. :(

What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Aether has

mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is

[Paul Cardinale]

Apply the LT. Show your work.

[mpc755]

Explain what occurs physically in nature which causes gravity.

Explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Aether has
mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is
physically displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter pushes back
and exerts pressure toward matter. This is what Voyager just found
evidence of.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

The aether displaced by the solar system is pushing back and exerting
inward pressure toward the solar system.

This is gravity.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

"When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was
looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles,
of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in
his “Theory of light quanta”. I had no doubt whatsoever about the
physical reality of waves and particles."

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium"

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether.

The "energetic contact" is the state of displacement of the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle has a well defined trajectory
which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave

passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave
interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it
travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting the
particle turns the associated aether wave into chop, there is no wave
interference and the direction the particle travels is not altered.