Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Einstein's Impossible Train Gedanken
181 views
Skip to first unread message
ken...@att.net
Feb 21, 2012, 10:22:35 AM2/21/12
to
Einstein's impossible gedanken:
1. Two spatially separated events e1 and e2 happened simultaneously in
M frame.
2. M is located at the middle of these simultaneous events.....at a
distance L from these events.
3. The speed of light is isotropic in the M frame....Therefore light
rays (r1 and R2) from these events will arrive at M simultaneously
after a time interval of L/c seconds.
4. M' is in a train moving wrt M....at the instant when M' and M are
concided the events e1 and e2 in the M frame happened simultaneously.
Einstein and his followers assert that:
1. The light rays (R1 and R2) from e1 and e2 will arrive at M
simultaneously.
2. The same two light rays R1 and R2 will continue on to arrive at M'
but not simultaneously because M' have different closing velocities
wrt these light fronts. This is the birth of the bogus concept of
Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS).
Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
are not able to continue on to hit M'.
2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
able to reach him.
3. M' is at a different larger distance from the events than M.
4. The speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic and thus there is
no different closing velocities between M' and the light rays R1 and
R2. In other words all incoming light rays from e1 and e2 will arrive
at M' at a speed of c.
Einstein and his followers falied to realize that:
1. The PoR specifiies that if identical events e1' and e2' happened in
the M' frame then the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M'
simultaneously.
2. The delta form of the LT able M to predict the time interval
delta(t') when the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M' as
follows:
On page 964 of the text book Fundamental of Physics the Delta form of
the LT is as follows:
Delta(t') = gamma[Delta(t)-v*Delta(x)/c^2]
Delta(t)=L/c
Delta(x)=L
Therefore the equation is reduced to as follows:
Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
What this equation says is that the light fronts from the events e1'
and e2' will arrive at M' simultaneously at a time of Delta(t').
1. Two spatially separated events e1 and e2 happened simultaneously in
M frame.
2. M is located at the middle of these simultaneous events.....at a
distance L from these events.
3. The speed of light is isotropic in the M frame....Therefore light
rays (r1 and R2) from these events will arrive at M simultaneously
after a time interval of L/c seconds.
4. M' is in a train moving wrt M....at the instant when M' and M are
concided the events e1 and e2 in the M frame happened simultaneously.
Einstein and his followers assert that:
1. The light rays (R1 and R2) from e1 and e2 will arrive at M
simultaneously.
2. The same two light rays R1 and R2 will continue on to arrive at M'
but not simultaneously because M' have different closing velocities
wrt these light fronts. This is the birth of the bogus concept of
Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS).
Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
are not able to continue on to hit M'.
2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
able to reach him.
3. M' is at a different larger distance from the events than M.
4. The speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic and thus there is
no different closing velocities between M' and the light rays R1 and
R2. In other words all incoming light rays from e1 and e2 will arrive
at M' at a speed of c.
Einstein and his followers falied to realize that:
1. The PoR specifiies that if identical events e1' and e2' happened in
the M' frame then the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M'
simultaneously.
2. The delta form of the LT able M to predict the time interval
delta(t') when the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M' as
follows:
On page 964 of the text book Fundamental of Physics the Delta form of
the LT is as follows:
Delta(t') = gamma[Delta(t)-v*Delta(x)/c^2]
Delta(t)=L/c
Delta(x)=L
Therefore the equation is reduced to as follows:
Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
What this equation says is that the light fronts from the events e1'
and e2' will arrive at M' simultaneously at a time of Delta(t').
PD
Feb 21, 2012, 12:39:07 PM2/21/12
to
On Feb 21, 9:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> able to reach him.
Ken, you are an idiot.
>
> Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> able to reach him.
If there are two people (Stan and Lucy) in different rooms in a house
and there is a lightning strike outside, are you SERIOUSLY going to
say that only Stan will be able to see the lightning flash and Lucy
will not, because Stan will have absorbed all the light from the
lightning strike?
Are you SERIOUSLY going to say that Lucy will not be able to see a
lightning flash outside because she's inside the house?
Are you SO DESPERATE to find a way that the gedanken is wrong, that
you will say obviously idiotic things like that?
YBM
Feb 21, 2012, 12:40:47 PM2/21/12
to
Le 21.02.2012 16:22, ken...@att.net a écrit :
> Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> are not able to continue on to hit M'.
This is stupid, Ken.
> Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> able to reach him.
> 3. M' is at a different larger distance from the events than M.
> 4. The speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic and thus there is
> no different closing velocities between M' and the light rays R1 and
> Einstein and his followers falied to realize that:
> 1. The PoR specifiies that if identical events e1' and e2' happened in
> the M' frame then the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M'
> simultaneously.
and e2 I guess), but event e1 and e2 with different coordinates.
You've just invented the stupid concept of different-identical events.
> 2. The delta form of the LT able M to predict the time interval
> delta(t') when the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M' as
> follows:
> On page 964 of the text book Fundamental of Physics the Delta form of
> the LT is as follows:
> Delta(t') = gamma[Delta(t)-v*Delta(x)/c^2]
> Delta(t)=L/c
> Delta(x)=L
> Therefore the equation is reduced to as follows:
> Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
> What this equation says is that the light fronts from the events e1'
> and e2' will arrive at M' simultaneously at a time of Delta(t').
not understand what a coordinate is, what a event is, what delta
means and what transformation are about.
You're just too dumb to deal with this, give up.
Dirk Van de moortel
Feb 21, 2012, 1:08:06 PM2/21/12
to
"ken...@att.net" <set...@att.net> wrote in message news:599ec752-3b48-4d0e...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> Einstein's impossible gedanken:
> 1. Two spatially separated events e1 and e2 happened simultaneously in
> M frame.
> 2. M is located at the middle of these simultaneous events.....at a
> distance L from these events.
> 3. The speed of light is isotropic in the M frame....Therefore light
> rays (r1 and R2) from these events will arrive at M simultaneously
> after a time interval of L/c seconds.
> 4. M' is in a train moving wrt M....at the instant when M' and M are
> concided the events e1 and e2 in the M frame happened simultaneously.
>
> Einstein and his followers assert that:
> 1. The light rays (R1 and R2) from e1 and e2 will arrive at M
> simultaneously.
> 2. The same two light rays R1 and R2 will continue on to arrive at M'
> but not simultaneously because M' have different closing velocities
> wrt these light fronts. This is the birth of the bogus concept of
> Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS).
>
> Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> are not able to continue on to hit M'.
Look at the figure at
> 1. Two spatially separated events e1 and e2 happened simultaneously in
> M frame.
> 2. M is located at the middle of these simultaneous events.....at a
> distance L from these events.
> 3. The speed of light is isotropic in the M frame....Therefore light
> rays (r1 and R2) from these events will arrive at M simultaneously
> after a time interval of L/c seconds.
> 4. M' is in a train moving wrt M....at the instant when M' and M are
> concided the events e1 and e2 in the M frame happened simultaneously.
>
> Einstein and his followers assert that:
> 1. The light rays (R1 and R2) from e1 and e2 will arrive at M
> simultaneously.
> 2. The same two light rays R1 and R2 will continue on to arrive at M'
> but not simultaneously because M' have different closing velocities
> wrt these light fronts. This is the birth of the bogus concept of
> Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS).
>
> Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> are not able to continue on to hit M'.
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
Some part of the B-signal hits M' and another part of the signal misses
M', so it can continue toward M.
Some part of the A-signal hits M and another part of the signal misses
M, so it can continue toward M'.
> 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> able to reach him.
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
It is an *open* carriage.
> 3. M' is at a different larger distance from the events than M.
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
M' is at *equal* distances from the flashes A and B.
> 4. The speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic and thus there is
> no different closing velocities between M' and the light rays R1 and
> R2.
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
M' rides toward the B-signal but away from the A-signal,
so the B-signal hits M' *before* the A-signal hits M'.
> In other words all incoming light rays from e1 and e2 will arrive
> at M' at a speed of c.
and (2) they started at equal distance from M',
and (3) M' assumes that the speed is c,
the signal events cannot have happened simultaneously for M'.
QED.
Dirk Vdm
ken...@att.net
Feb 21, 2012, 1:03:37 PM2/21/12
to
On Feb 21, 12:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 9:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> > 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> > are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> > 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> > able to reach him.
>
> Ken, you are an idiot.
>
> If there are two people (Stan and Lucy) in different rooms in a house
> and there is a lightning strike outside, are you SERIOUSLY going to
> say that only Stan will be able to see the lightning flash and Lucy
> will not, because Stan will have absorbed all the light from the
> lightning strike?
Why are you changing the gedanken? I described a precise and doable
> On Feb 21, 9:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> > 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> > are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> > 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> > able to reach him.
>
> Ken, you are an idiot.
>
> If there are two people (Stan and Lucy) in different rooms in a house
> and there is a lightning strike outside, are you SERIOUSLY going to
> say that only Stan will be able to see the lightning flash and Lucy
> will not, because Stan will have absorbed all the light from the
> lightning strike?
experiment and you come you with these nonsenses.
>
> Are you SERIOUSLY going to say that Lucy will not be able to see a
> lightning flash outside because she's inside the house?
>
> Are you SO DESPERATE to find a way that the gedanken is wrong, that
> you will say obviously idiotic things like that?
Hey idiot....what if M is in a spaceship and M' is in another
> Are you SERIOUSLY going to say that Lucy will not be able to see a
> lightning flash outside because she's inside the house?
>
> Are you SO DESPERATE to find a way that the gedanken is wrong, that
> you will say obviously idiotic things like that?
spaceship? M is performing experiemnta with e1 and e2 and he find them
to be simultaneous. What does M predict for identical experiment in
the M' frame?
PD
Feb 21, 2012, 1:28:19 PM2/21/12
to
On Feb 21, 12:03 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 12:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 9:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> > > 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> > > are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> > > 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> > > able to reach him.
>
> > Ken, you are an idiot.
>
> > If there are two people (Stan and Lucy) in different rooms in a house
> > and there is a lightning strike outside, are you SERIOUSLY going to
> > say that only Stan will be able to see the lightning flash and Lucy
> > will not, because Stan will have absorbed all the light from the
> > lightning strike?
>
> Why are you changing the gedanken? I described a precise and doable
> experiment and you come you with these nonsenses.
You described something that Einstein did NOT describe.
> On Feb 21, 12:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 9:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> > > 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> > > are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> > > 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> > > able to reach him.
>
> > Ken, you are an idiot.
>
> > If there are two people (Stan and Lucy) in different rooms in a house
> > and there is a lightning strike outside, are you SERIOUSLY going to
> > say that only Stan will be able to see the lightning flash and Lucy
> > will not, because Stan will have absorbed all the light from the
> > lightning strike?
>
> Why are you changing the gedanken? I described a precise and doable
> experiment and you come you with these nonsenses.
He did NOT describe, for example, a situation where one observer
absorbs all the light from a lightning flash so that the other
observer can't see it.
He did NOT describe a situation where one observer has all the shades
pulled down and so can't see any lightning flashes at all.
If you want to describe your OWN gedanken where one observer blocks
the view of the lightning strikes for the other observer, or where one
observer is inside and in the dark, and you want to call your OWN
gedanken impossible and stupid, then I will agree that your own
gedanken is impossible and stupid.
>
>
>
> > Are you SERIOUSLY going to say that Lucy will not be able to see a
> > lightning flash outside because she's inside the house?
>
> > Are you SO DESPERATE to find a way that the gedanken is wrong, that
> > you will say obviously idiotic things like that?
>
> Hey idiot....what if M is in a spaceship and M' is in another
> spaceship? M is performing experiemnta with e1 and e2 and he find them
> to be simultaneous. What does M predict for identical experiment in
> the M' frame?
different gedanken.
Idiot.
Desperate idiot.
Poo-flinging, desperate idiot.
Dirk Van de moortel
Feb 21, 2012, 1:47:43 PM2/21/12
to
PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
297ed1c5-1817-4a79...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
I think he's reading
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
and trying to weasel my comments away.
It's silent over there.
Dirk Vdm
297ed1c5-1817-4a79...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
and trying to weasel my comments away.
It's silent over there.
Dirk Vdm
ken...@att.net
Feb 22, 2012, 7:03:27 AM2/22/12
to
On Feb 21, 1:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 12:03 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 12:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 21, 9:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> > > > 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> > > > are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> > > > 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> > > > able to reach him.
>
> > > Ken, you are an idiot.
>
> > > If there are two people (Stan and Lucy) in different rooms in a house
> > > and there is a lightning strike outside, are you SERIOUSLY going to
> > > say that only Stan will be able to see the lightning flash and Lucy
> > > will not, because Stan will have absorbed all the light from the
> > > lightning strike?
>
> > Why are you changing the gedanken? I described a precise and doable
> > experiment and you come you with these nonsenses.
>
> You described something that Einstein did NOT describe.
> He did NOT describe, for example, a situation where one observer
> absorbs all the light from a lightning flash so that the other
> observer can't see it.
So that means that the light fronts that hit M are not the same light
> On Feb 21, 12:03 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 12:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 21, 9:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> > > > 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> > > > are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> > > > 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> > > > able to reach him.
>
> > > Ken, you are an idiot.
>
> > > If there are two people (Stan and Lucy) in different rooms in a house
> > > and there is a lightning strike outside, are you SERIOUSLY going to
> > > say that only Stan will be able to see the lightning flash and Lucy
> > > will not, because Stan will have absorbed all the light from the
> > > lightning strike?
>
> > Why are you changing the gedanken? I described a precise and doable
> > experiment and you come you with these nonsenses.
>
> You described something that Einstein did NOT describe.
> He did NOT describe, for example, a situation where one observer
> absorbs all the light from a lightning flash so that the other
> observer can't see it.
fronts that hit M'....right? But in Einstein's description he seemed
to imply that the same light fronts hit both M and M'. In any case how
do you know that those two different light fronts did not arrive at M'
simultaneously?
> He did NOT describe a situation where one observer has all the shades
> pulled down and so can't see any lightning flashes at all.
Doesn't that limits the gedanken to be useless?
>
> If you want to describe your OWN gedanken where one observer blocks
> the view of the lightning strikes for the other observer, or where one
> observer is inside and in the dark, and you want to call your OWN
> gedanken impossible and stupid, then I will agree that your own
> gedanken is impossible and stupid.
PoR and the delta form of the LT. My description have no
limitation....it works when M' have all the shades drawn and M' is
light years away.
>
>
>
> > > Are you SERIOUSLY going to say that Lucy will not be able to see a
> > > lightning flash outside because she's inside the house?
>
> > > Are you SO DESPERATE to find a way that the gedanken is wrong, that
> > > you will say obviously idiotic things like that?
>
> > Hey idiot....what if M is in a spaceship and M' is in another
> > spaceship? M is performing experiemnta with e1 and e2 and he find them
> > to be simultaneous. What does M predict for identical experiment in
> > the M' frame?
>
> And now YOU are the one that seems to be talking about a completely
> different gedanken.
identical events: e1 and e2 in the M frame and e1' and e2' in the M'
frame. This refutes the claim of RoS.
>
> Idiot.
>
> Desperate idiot.
>
> Poo-flinging, desperate idiot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ken...@att.net
Feb 22, 2012, 7:25:43 AM2/22/12
to
On Feb 21, 1:08 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote in messagenews:599ec752-3b48-4d0e...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
So the light fronts (R1 and R2) hit M simultaneously are not the same
light fronts (R3 and R4) hit M'....right. How do you know that R3 and
R4 didn't hit M' simultaneously?
mean that it is a useless gedanken?
>
> > 3. M' is at a different larger distance from the events than M.
>
> Look at the figure at
> http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
> M' is at *equal* distances from the flashes A and B.
No....M' can't be at the same equal distance from A and B as M....he
is at different equal distance from A and B. In any case what if M' is
thousands of miles from M.
>
> > 4. The speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic and thus there is
> > no different closing velocities between M' and the light rays R1 and
> > R2.
>
> Forget about "closing velocities" - just look at the figure.
> http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
> M' rides toward the B-signal but away from the A-signal,
> so the B-signal hits M' *before* the A-signal hits M'.
The speed of light is isotropic c in the M' frame and it is
independent of the motion of M'.
> and (2) they started at equal distance from M',
No M and M' are at different equal distance from the events.
> and (3) M' assumes that the speed is c,
> the signal events cannot have happened simultaneously for M'.
Again this is an assertion. Two different light rays from the events
hit M' simultaneously....this is based on the PoR and the LT.
>
> QED.
>
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote in messagenews:599ec752-3b48-4d0e...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
light fronts (R3 and R4) hit M'....right. How do you know that R3 and
R4 didn't hit M' simultaneously?
>
> > 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> > able to reach him.
>
> Look at the figure at
> http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
> It is an *open* carriage.
So Einstein's gedanken only work on an open carriage? Doesn't that
> > 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> > able to reach him.
>
> Look at the figure at
> http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
> It is an *open* carriage.
mean that it is a useless gedanken?
>
> > 3. M' is at a different larger distance from the events than M.
>
> Look at the figure at
> http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
> M' is at *equal* distances from the flashes A and B.
is at different equal distance from A and B. In any case what if M' is
thousands of miles from M.
>
> > 4. The speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic and thus there is
> > no different closing velocities between M' and the light rays R1 and
> > R2.
>
> Forget about "closing velocities" - just look at the figure.
> http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
> M' rides toward the B-signal but away from the A-signal,
> so the B-signal hits M' *before* the A-signal hits M'.
independent of the motion of M'.
>
> > In other words all incoming light rays from e1 and e2 will arrive
> > at M' at a speed of c.
>
> Since (1) the signals don't arrive at the same time,
This is an assertion and assertion is not a valid arguement.
> > In other words all incoming light rays from e1 and e2 will arrive
> > at M' at a speed of c.
>
> Since (1) the signals don't arrive at the same time,
> and (2) they started at equal distance from M',
> and (3) M' assumes that the speed is c,
> the signal events cannot have happened simultaneously for M'.
hit M' simultaneously....this is based on the PoR and the LT.
>
> QED.
>
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
Dirk Van de moortel
Feb 22, 2012, 8:01:06 AM2/22/12
to
the A-signal.
>>
>>> 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not
>>> be able to reach him.
>>
>> Look at the figure at
>> http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
>> It is an *open* carriage.
>
> So Einstein's gedanken only work on an open carriage? Doesn't that
> mean that it is a useless gedanken?
>
>>
>>> 3. M' is at a different larger distance from the events than M.
>>
>> Look at the figure at
>> http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
>> M' is at *equal* distances from the flashes A and B.
>
> No....M' can't be at the same equal distance from A and B as M....he
> is at different equal distance from A and B. In any case what if M' is
> thousands of miles from M.
I said that M' is at equal distances *from the flashes A and B*.
M is also at equal distances from the flashes A and B, but these
are different than the ones of M'.
If M' is thousands of miles from M, you need a very long train
for this situation to be realistic.
M' is at distance 0 from M when they pass each other.
M' is at some distance from M when the B-signal reaches M'.
In real life that would be a few nanometers.
M' is a bit farther away from M when the A-signal reaches M'.
Read the text.
>
>>
>>> 4. The speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic and thus there is
>>> no different closing velocities between M' and the light rays R1 and
>>> R2.
>>
>> Forget about "closing velocities" - just look at the figure.
>> http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
>> M' rides toward the B-signal but away from the A-signal,
>> so the B-signal hits M' *before* the A-signal hits M'.
>
> The speed of light is isotropic c in the M' frame and it is
> independent of the motion of M'.
For M' both signals travel at speed c.
For M both signals travel at speed c.
>>
>>> In other words all incoming light rays from e1 and e2 will arrive
>>> at M' at a speed of c.
>>
>> Since (1) the signals don't arrive at the same time,
>
> This is an assertion and assertion is not a valid arguement.
and away from the light source A.
>> and (2) they started at equal distance from M',
>
> No M and M' are at different equal distance from the events.
the locations of the flashe events. The situation is set up that
way to make sure that M sees the flashes simultaneously.
Read the text. It is all there.
>
>> and (3) M' assumes that the speed is c,
>> the signal events cannot have happened simultaneously for M'.
>
> Again this is an assertion. Two different light rays from the events
> hit M' simultaneously....this is based on the PoR and the LT.
The consequence of (1), (2), (3) is that M' cannot assume
that the flashes happened simultaneously.
Just look at the figure and read the text.
It was written for school children.
My 14 years old son understood it from first reading.
Dirk Vdm
ken...@att.net
Feb 22, 2012, 10:01:11 AM2/22/12
to
On Feb 22, 8:01 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.comnot> wrote:
But this contradicts the SR postulate that the speed of light is
isotropic.
>
> M is also at equal distances from the flashes A and B, but these
> are different than the ones of M'.
Yes I agree.
>
> If M' is thousands of miles from M, you need a very long train
> for this situation to be realistic.
No you don't need a very long train. M uses the PoR and the LT to
determine the Delta(t') for the light fronts from e1' and e2' to
arrive at M' simultaneously.
>
> M' is at distance 0 from M when they pass each other.
In the case M' would crash into M.
> M' is at some distance from M when the B-signal reaches M'.
> In real life that would be a few nanometers.
So that makes it a useless gedanken.
> M' is a bit farther away from M when the A-signal reaches M'.
> Read the text.
That's why the gedanken is impossible. It cannot be performed
experimentally and cannot be calculated mathematically.
different equal distances from the events. Therefore a pair of light
fronts (R1 and R2) arrive at M simultaneously and a different pair of
light fronts (R3 and R4) at M' simultaneously.
>
>
>
> >> and (3) M' assumes that the speed is c,
> >> the signal events cannot have happened simultaneously for M'.
>
> > Again this is an assertion. Two different light rays from the events
> > hit M' simultaneously....this is based on the PoR and the LT.
>
> Yes, THAT (3) is the assertion: M' assumes that the speed is c.
> The consequence of (1), (2), (3) is that M' cannot assume
> that the flashes happened simultaneously.
>
> Just look at the figure and read the text.
> It was written for school children.
> My 14 years old son understood it from first reading.
>
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.comnot> wrote:
isotropic.
>
>
>
> >>> 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not
> >>> be able to reach him.
>
> >> Look at the figure at
> >>http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
> >> It is an *open* carriage.
>
> > So Einstein's gedanken only work on an open carriage? Doesn't that
> > mean that it is a useless gedanken?
>
> No.
Yes.
>
>
> >>> 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not
> >>> be able to reach him.
>
> >> Look at the figure at
> >>http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
> >> It is an *open* carriage.
>
> > So Einstein's gedanken only work on an open carriage? Doesn't that
> > mean that it is a useless gedanken?
>
> No.
>
>
>
> >>> 3. M' is at a different larger distance from the events than M.
>
> >> Look at the figure at
> >>http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
> >> M' is at *equal* distances from the flashes A and B.
>
> > No....M' can't be at the same equal distance from A and B as M....he
> > is at different equal distance from A and B. In any case what if M' is
> > thousands of miles from M.
>
> I did *not* say that M' is at the same equal distance from A and B as M.
> I said that M' is at equal distances *from the flashes A and B*.
Yes....I agree.
>
>
> >>> 3. M' is at a different larger distance from the events than M.
>
> >> Look at the figure at
> >>http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
> >> M' is at *equal* distances from the flashes A and B.
>
> > No....M' can't be at the same equal distance from A and B as M....he
> > is at different equal distance from A and B. In any case what if M' is
> > thousands of miles from M.
>
> I did *not* say that M' is at the same equal distance from A and B as M.
> I said that M' is at equal distances *from the flashes A and B*.
>
> M is also at equal distances from the flashes A and B, but these
> are different than the ones of M'.
>
> If M' is thousands of miles from M, you need a very long train
> for this situation to be realistic.
determine the Delta(t') for the light fronts from e1' and e2' to
arrive at M' simultaneously.
>
> M' is at distance 0 from M when they pass each other.
> M' is at some distance from M when the B-signal reaches M'.
> In real life that would be a few nanometers.
> M' is a bit farther away from M when the A-signal reaches M'.
> Read the text.
experimentally and cannot be calculated mathematically.
>
>
>
> >>> 4. The speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic and thus there is
> >>> no different closing velocities between M' and the light rays R1 and
> >>> R2.
>
> >> Forget about "closing velocities" - just look at the figure.
> >>http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
> >> M' rides toward the B-signal but away from the A-signal,
> >> so the B-signal hits M' *before* the A-signal hits M'.
>
> > The speed of light is isotropic c in the M' frame and it is
> > independent of the motion of M'.
>
> Yes, that is the whole point.
> For M' both signals travel at speed c.
> For M both signals travel at speed c.
>
>
>
> >>> In other words all incoming light rays from e1 and e2 will arrive
> >>> at M' at a speed of c.
>
> >> Since (1) the signals don't arrive at the same time,
>
> > This is an assertion and assertion is not a valid arguement.
>
> It is because M' is moving toward the light source B
> and away from the light source A.
>
> >> and (2) they started at equal distance from M',
>
> > No M and M' are at different equal distance from the events.
>
> when M passes M', they both know that they are half way
> the locations of the flashe events. The situation is set up that
> way to make sure that M sees the flashes simultaneously.
> Read the text. It is all there.
No when the flashes occur simultaneously both M and M' are at
>
>
> >>> 4. The speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic and thus there is
> >>> no different closing velocities between M' and the light rays R1 and
> >>> R2.
>
> >> Forget about "closing velocities" - just look at the figure.
> >>http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
> >> M' rides toward the B-signal but away from the A-signal,
> >> so the B-signal hits M' *before* the A-signal hits M'.
>
> > The speed of light is isotropic c in the M' frame and it is
> > independent of the motion of M'.
>
> Yes, that is the whole point.
> For M' both signals travel at speed c.
> For M both signals travel at speed c.
>
>
>
> >>> In other words all incoming light rays from e1 and e2 will arrive
> >>> at M' at a speed of c.
>
> >> Since (1) the signals don't arrive at the same time,
>
> > This is an assertion and assertion is not a valid arguement.
>
> It is because M' is moving toward the light source B
> and away from the light source A.
>
> >> and (2) they started at equal distance from M',
>
> > No M and M' are at different equal distance from the events.
>
> when M passes M', they both know that they are half way
> the locations of the flashe events. The situation is set up that
> way to make sure that M sees the flashes simultaneously.
> Read the text. It is all there.
different equal distances from the events. Therefore a pair of light
fronts (R1 and R2) arrive at M simultaneously and a different pair of
light fronts (R3 and R4) at M' simultaneously.
>
>
>
> >> and (3) M' assumes that the speed is c,
> >> the signal events cannot have happened simultaneously for M'.
>
> > Again this is an assertion. Two different light rays from the events
> > hit M' simultaneously....this is based on the PoR and the LT.
>
> Yes, THAT (3) is the assertion: M' assumes that the speed is c.
> The consequence of (1), (2), (3) is that M' cannot assume
> that the flashes happened simultaneously.
>
> Just look at the figure and read the text.
> It was written for school children.
> My 14 years old son understood it from first reading.
>
PD
Feb 22, 2012, 10:08:02 AM2/22/12
to
On Feb 22, 6:03 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 1:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 12:03 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 21, 12:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 21, 9:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> > > > > 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> > > > > are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> > > > > 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> > > > > able to reach him.
>
> > > > Ken, you are an idiot.
>
> > > > If there are two people (Stan and Lucy) in different rooms in a house
> > > > and there is a lightning strike outside, are you SERIOUSLY going to
> > > > say that only Stan will be able to see the lightning flash and Lucy
> > > > will not, because Stan will have absorbed all the light from the
> > > > lightning strike?
>
> > > Why are you changing the gedanken? I described a precise and doable
> > > experiment and you come you with these nonsenses.
>
> > You described something that Einstein did NOT describe.
> > He did NOT describe, for example, a situation where one observer
> > absorbs all the light from a lightning flash so that the other
> > observer can't see it.
>
> So that means that the light fronts that hit M are not the same light
> fronts that hit M'....right?
No. The same light front can be seen by two different observers.
> On Feb 21, 1:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 12:03 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 21, 12:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 21, 9:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> > > > > 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> > > > > are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> > > > > 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> > > > > able to reach him.
>
> > > > Ken, you are an idiot.
>
> > > > If there are two people (Stan and Lucy) in different rooms in a house
> > > > and there is a lightning strike outside, are you SERIOUSLY going to
> > > > say that only Stan will be able to see the lightning flash and Lucy
> > > > will not, because Stan will have absorbed all the light from the
> > > > lightning strike?
>
> > > Why are you changing the gedanken? I described a precise and doable
> > > experiment and you come you with these nonsenses.
>
> > You described something that Einstein did NOT describe.
> > He did NOT describe, for example, a situation where one observer
> > absorbs all the light from a lightning flash so that the other
> > observer can't see it.
>
> So that means that the light fronts that hit M are not the same light
> fronts that hit M'....right?
Einstein did NOT describe a situation where one observer absorbs all
the light from a light front.
This is why I mentioned your common, everyday experience that two
people in separate rooms in a house can BOTH see the light from a
lightning bolt outside. They BOTH receive light from the SAME light
front. Your everyday experience should tell you that one observer does
not absorb all the light from a light front, and Einstein knew that as
well.
> But in Einstein's description he seemed
> to imply that the same light fronts hit both M and M'. In any case how
> do you know that those two different light fronts did not arrive at M'
> simultaneously?
>
> > He did NOT describe a situation where one observer has all the shades
> > pulled down and so can't see any lightning flashes at all.
>
> So Einstein's gedanken only works when M' have all the shades drawn?
> Doesn't that limits the gedanken to be useless?
describe a situation where one observer has all the shades pulled down
and so can't see any lightning flashes at all." Do you understand what
this sentence says?
Dirk Van de moortel
Feb 22, 2012, 10:09:16 AM2/22/12
to
Read the text.
Again.
And again.
And again again.
And one more gain.
Until you get it.
Dirk Vdm
Bruce Richmond
Feb 22, 2012, 8:02:53 PM2/22/12
to
On Feb 21, 10:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> Einstein's impossible gedanken:
> 1. Two spatially separated events e1 and e2 happened simultaneously in
> M frame.
> 2. M is located at the middle of these simultaneous events.....at a
> distance L from these events.
> 3. The speed of light is isotropic in the M frame....Therefore light
> rays (r1 and R2) from these events will arrive at M simultaneously
> after a time interval of L/c seconds.
> 4. M' is in a train moving wrt M....at the instant when M' and M are
> concided the events e1 and e2 in the M frame happened simultaneously.
Good so far.
> Einstein's impossible gedanken:
> 1. Two spatially separated events e1 and e2 happened simultaneously in
> M frame.
> 2. M is located at the middle of these simultaneous events.....at a
> distance L from these events.
> 3. The speed of light is isotropic in the M frame....Therefore light
> rays (r1 and R2) from these events will arrive at M simultaneously
> after a time interval of L/c seconds.
> 4. M' is in a train moving wrt M....at the instant when M' and M are
> concided the events e1 and e2 in the M frame happened simultaneously.
> Einstein and his followers assert that:
> 1. The light rays (R1 and R2) from e1 and e2 will arrive at M
> simultaneously.
> 2. The same two light rays R1 and R2 will continue on to arrive at M'
> but not simultaneously because M' have different closing velocities
> wrt these light fronts.
at M. If you insist on bringing up closing velocities keep in mind
that the different velocities are measured in the frame of M. M'
measures things in his own coordinate system, so the different closing
speeds measured in the frame of M do not violate the speed of light
being c in the frame of M'.
> This is the birth of the bogus concept of
> Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS).
> Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> able to reach him.
> 3. M' is at a different larger distance from the events than M.
the same as what M measures doesn't matter.
> 4. The speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic and thus there is
> no different closing velocities between M' and the light rays R1 and
> R2.
> In other words all incoming light rays from e1 and e2 will arrive
> at M' at a speed of c.
and M' is at a different point on the tracks.
> Einstein and his followers falied to realize that:
> 1. The PoR specifiies that if identical events e1' and e2' happened in
> the M' frame then the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M'
> simultaneously.
events were simultaneous in the frame of M'. They would then nolonger
be simultaneous in the frame of M.
> 2. The delta form of the LT able M to predict the time interval
> delta(t') when the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M' as
> follows:
> On page 964 of the text book Fundamental of Physics the Delta form of
> the LT is as follows:
> Delta(t') = gamma[Delta(t)-v*Delta(x)/c^2]
> Delta(t)=L/c
> Delta(x)=L
> Therefore the equation is reduced to as follows:
> Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
> What this equation says is that the light fronts from the events e1'
> and e2' will arrive at M' simultaneously at a time of Delta(t').
travel times are equal, but they do not establish when the waves
started from the events. The fact that they arrive at M' at different
times tells us that the events happen at different times in the frame
of M'.
ken...@att.net
Feb 23, 2012, 9:11:57 AM2/23/12
to
On Feb 22, 10:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 6:03 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 1:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 21, 12:03 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 21, 12:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 21, 9:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > >Einstein'sassertions areimpossiblefor the following reasons:
> On Feb 22, 6:03 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 1:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 21, 12:03 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 21, 12:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 21, 9:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> > > > > > are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> > > > > > 2. M' is in an enclosedtrainand the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> > > > > > are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> > > > > > able to reach him.
>
> > > > > Ken, you are an idiot.
>
> > > > > If there are two people (Stan and Lucy) in different rooms in a house
> > > > > and there is a lightning strike outside, are you SERIOUSLY going to
> > > > > say that only Stan will be able to see the lightning flash and Lucy
> > > > > will not, because Stan will have absorbed all the light from the
> > > > > lightning strike?
>
> > > > Why are you changing thegedanken? I described a precise and doable
>
> > > > > Ken, you are an idiot.
>
> > > > > If there are two people (Stan and Lucy) in different rooms in a house
> > > > > and there is a lightning strike outside, are you SERIOUSLY going to
> > > > > say that only Stan will be able to see the lightning flash and Lucy
> > > > > will not, because Stan will have absorbed all the light from the
> > > > > lightning strike?
>
> > > > experiment and you come you with these nonsenses.
>
> > > You described something thatEinsteindid NOT describe.
>
> > > He did NOT describe, for example, a situation where one observer
> > > absorbs all the light from a lightning flash so that the other
> > > observer can't see it.
>
> > So that means that the light fronts that hit M are not the same light
> > fronts that hit M'....right?
>
> No. The same light front can be seen by two different observers.Einsteindid NOT describe a situation where one observer absorbs all
> > > absorbs all the light from a lightning flash so that the other
> > > observer can't see it.
>
> > So that means that the light fronts that hit M are not the same light
> > fronts that hit M'....right?
>
> the light from a light front.
>
> This is why I mentioned your common, everyday experience that two
> people in separate rooms in a house can BOTH see the light from a
> lightning bolt outside. They BOTH receive light from the SAME light
> front. Your everyday experience should tell you that one observer does
> not absorb all the light from a light front, andEinsteinknew that as
> well.
>
> > But inEinstein'sdescription he seemed
>
> This is why I mentioned your common, everyday experience that two
> people in separate rooms in a house can BOTH see the light from a
> lightning bolt outside. They BOTH receive light from the SAME light
> front. Your everyday experience should tell you that one observer does
> not absorb all the light from a light front, andEinsteinknew that as
> well.
>
> > to imply that the same light fronts hit both M and M'. In any case how
> > do you know that those two different light fronts did not arrive at M'
> > simultaneously?
>
> > > He did NOT describe a situation where one observer has all the shades
> > > pulled down and so can't see any lightning flashes at all.
>
> > SoEinstein'sgedankenonly works when M' have all the shades drawn?
> > do you know that those two different light fronts did not arrive at M'
> > simultaneously?
>
> > > He did NOT describe a situation where one observer has all the shades
> > > pulled down and so can't see any lightning flashes at all.
>
> > Doesn't that limits thegedankento be useless?
>
> No. You cannot read. Reread the sentence I wrote above. "He did NOT
> describe a situation where one observer has all the shades pulled down
> and so can't see any lightning flashes at all." Do you understand what
> this sentence says?
The point is: It is not about what M' will see in an open flat car. It
> No. You cannot read. Reread the sentence I wrote above. "He did NOT
> describe a situation where one observer has all the shades pulled down
> and so can't see any lightning flashes at all." Do you understand what
> this sentence says?
is about what M predicts what M' will see....based on the data
obtained in his (M) frame. M assumes that the PoR applies in the M'
frame and he uses the delta form of the LT to transform the time
interval when the light fronts from e1 and e2 arrive at him
simultaneously.
Einstein assumed that M' moved wrt the light fronts is wrong....it
violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the M' frame.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > If you want to describe your OWNgedankenwhere one observer blocks
> > > the view of the lightning strikes for the other observer, or where one
> > > observer is inside and in the dark, and you want to call your OWN
> > >gedankenimpossibleand stupid, then I will agree that your own
> > > observer is inside and in the dark, and you want to call your OWN
> > >gedankenisimpossibleand stupid.
>
> > It's not mygedanken. I described the correctgedankenbased on the
> > PoR and the delta form of the LT. My description have no
> > limitation....it works when M' have all the shades drawn and M' is
> > light years away.
>
> > > > > Are you SERIOUSLY going to say that Lucy will not be able to see a
> > > > > lightning flash outside because she's inside the house?
>
> > > > > Are you SO DESPERATE to find a way that thegedankenis wrong, that
> > limitation....it works when M' have all the shades drawn and M' is
> > light years away.
>
> > > > > Are you SERIOUSLY going to say that Lucy will not be able to see a
> > > > > lightning flash outside because she's inside the house?
>
> > > > > you will say obviously idiotic things like that?
>
> > > > Hey idiot....what if M is in a spaceship and M' is in another
> > > > spaceship? M is performing experiemnta with e1 and e2 and he find them
> > > > to be simultaneous. What does M predict for identical experiment in
> > > > the M' frame?
>
> > > And now YOU are the one that seems to be talking about a completely
> > > differentgedanken.
>
> > No what I described is that M and M' can agree on the simultaneity of
> > identical events: e1 and e2 in the M frame and e1' and e2' in the M'
> > frame. This refutes the claim of RoS.
>
> > > Idiot.
>
> > > Desperate idiot.
>
> > > Poo-flinging, desperate idiot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > Hey idiot....what if M is in a spaceship and M' is in another
> > > > spaceship? M is performing experiemnta with e1 and e2 and he find them
> > > > to be simultaneous. What does M predict for identical experiment in
> > > > the M' frame?
>
> > > And now YOU are the one that seems to be talking about a completely
> > > differentgedanken.
>
> > No what I described is that M and M' can agree on the simultaneity of
> > identical events: e1 and e2 in the M frame and e1' and e2' in the M'
> > frame. This refutes the claim of RoS.
>
> > > Idiot.
>
> > > Desperate idiot.
>
> > > Poo-flinging, desperate idiot.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ken...@att.net
Feb 23, 2012, 9:15:50 AM2/23/12
to
On Feb 22, 10:09 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
he has different closing velocities wrt the light fronts from the ends
of the train.
> Read the text.
> Again.
> And again.
> And again again.
> And one more gain.
> Until you get it.
>
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.comnot> wrote:
> ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 8:01 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.comnot> wrote:
> >> ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 21, 1:08 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> >>> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> >>>> "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote in
> >>>> messagenews:599ec752-3b48-4d0e...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>Einstein'simpossiblegedanken:
> >>>>> 1. Two spatially separated events e1 and e2 happened
> >>>>> simultaneously in M frame.
> >>>>> 2. M is located at the middle of these simultaneous events.....at
> >>>>> a distance L from these events.
> >>>>> 3. The speed of light is isotropic in the M frame....Therefore
> >>>>> light rays (r1 and R2) from these events will arrive at M
> >>>>> simultaneously after a time interval of L/c seconds.
> >>>>> 4. M' is in atrainmoving wrt M....at the instant when M' and M
> ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 8:01 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.comnot> wrote:
> >> ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 21, 1:08 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> >>> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> >>>> "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote in
> >>>> messagenews:599ec752-3b48-4d0e...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>Einstein'simpossiblegedanken:
> >>>>> 1. Two spatially separated events e1 and e2 happened
> >>>>> simultaneously in M frame.
> >>>>> 2. M is located at the middle of these simultaneous events.....at
> >>>>> a distance L from these events.
> >>>>> 3. The speed of light is isotropic in the M frame....Therefore
> >>>>> light rays (r1 and R2) from these events will arrive at M
> >>>>> simultaneously after a time interval of L/c seconds.
> >>>>> are concided the events e1 and e2 in the M frame happened
> >>>>> simultaneously.
>
> >>>>>Einsteinand his followers assert that:
> >>>>> simultaneously.
>
> >>>>> 1. The light rays (R1 and R2) from e1 and e2 will arrive at M
> >>>>> simultaneously.
> >>>>> 2. The same two light rays R1 and R2 will continue on to arrive at
> >>>>> M' but not simultaneously because M' have different closing
> >>>>> velocities wrt these light fronts. This is the birth of the bogus
> >>>>> concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS).
>
> >>>>>Einstein'sassertions areimpossiblefor the following reasons:
> >>>>> simultaneously.
> >>>>> 2. The same two light rays R1 and R2 will continue on to arrive at
> >>>>> M' but not simultaneously because M' have different closing
> >>>>> velocities wrt these light fronts. This is the birth of the bogus
> >>>>> concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS).
>
> >>>>> 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus
> >>>>> they are not able to continue on to hit M'.
>
> >>>> Look at the figure at
> >>>>http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
> >>>> Some part of the B-signal hits M' and another part of the signal
> >>>> misses
> >>>> M', so it can continue toward M.
> >>>> Some part of the A-signal hits M and another part of the signal
> >>>> misses
> >>>> M, so it can continue toward M'.
>
> >>> So the light fronts (R1 and R2) hit M simultaneously are not the
> >>> same light fronts (R3 and R4) hit M'....right. How do you know that
> >>> R3 and R4 didn't hit M' simultaneously?
>
> >> Because M' is moving toward the B-light signal, and away from
> >> the A-signal.
>
> > But this contradicts the SR postulate that the speed of light is
> > isotropic.
>
> No, it does not.
Yes it does. The speed of light cannot be isotropic in the M' frame if
> >>>>> they are not able to continue on to hit M'.
>
> >>>> Look at the figure at
> >>>>http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011804774#page/n51/mode/2up
> >>>> Some part of the B-signal hits M' and another part of the signal
> >>>> misses
> >>>> M', so it can continue toward M.
> >>>> Some part of the A-signal hits M and another part of the signal
> >>>> misses
> >>>> M, so it can continue toward M'.
>
> >>> So the light fronts (R1 and R2) hit M simultaneously are not the
> >>> same light fronts (R3 and R4) hit M'....right. How do you know that
> >>> R3 and R4 didn't hit M' simultaneously?
>
> >> Because M' is moving toward the B-light signal, and away from
> >> the A-signal.
>
> > But this contradicts the SR postulate that the speed of light is
> > isotropic.
>
> No, it does not.
he has different closing velocities wrt the light fronts from the ends
of the train.
> Read the text.
> Again.
> And again.
> And again again.
> And one more gain.
> Until you get it.
>
PD
Feb 23, 2012, 9:29:50 AM2/23/12
to
see.
That was the *whole point* of the gedanken.
Ken, Ken, Ken, you keep grasping at straws, looking for some way that
the gedanken fails. It doesn't fail. You keep going around in circles,
over and over and over again, because you just can't give it up. But
you're just going around in circles and not getting anywhere.
ken...@att.net
Feb 23, 2012, 9:37:28 AM2/23/12
to
On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 10:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Einstein'simpossiblegedanken:
> > 1. Two spatially separated events e1 and e2 happened simultaneously in
> > M frame.
> > 2. M is located at the middle of these simultaneous events.....at a
> > distance L from these events.
> > 3. The speed of light is isotropic in the M frame....Therefore light
> > rays (r1 and R2) from these events will arrive at M simultaneously
> > after a time interval of L/c seconds.
> > 4. M' is in atrainmoving wrt M....at the instant when M' and M are
> On Feb 21, 10:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Einstein'simpossiblegedanken:
> > 1. Two spatially separated events e1 and e2 happened simultaneously in
> > M frame.
> > 2. M is located at the middle of these simultaneous events.....at a
> > distance L from these events.
> > 3. The speed of light is isotropic in the M frame....Therefore light
> > rays (r1 and R2) from these events will arrive at M simultaneously
> > after a time interval of L/c seconds.
> > concided the events e1 and e2 in the M frame happened simultaneously.
>
> Good so far.
>
> >Einsteinand his followers assert that:
>
> Good so far.
>
> > 1. The light rays (R1 and R2) from e1 and e2 will arrive at M
> > simultaneously.
>
> Ok.
>
> > 2. The same two light rays R1 and R2 will continue on to arrive at M'
> > but not simultaneously because M' have different closing velocities
> > wrt these light fronts.
>
> Better to say that M' is at a different location when the fronts meet
> at M. If you insist on bringing up closing velocities keep in mind
> that the different velocities are measured in the frame of M. M'
> measures things in his own coordinate system, so the different closing
> speeds measured in the frame of M do not violate the speed of light
> being c in the frame of M'.
>
> > This is the birth of the bogus concept of
> > Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS).
>
> No, this is where you show your lack of understanding.
>
> >Einstein'sassertions areimpossiblefor the following reasons:
> > simultaneously.
>
> Ok.
>
> > 2. The same two light rays R1 and R2 will continue on to arrive at M'
> > but not simultaneously because M' have different closing velocities
> > wrt these light fronts.
>
> Better to say that M' is at a different location when the fronts meet
> at M. If you insist on bringing up closing velocities keep in mind
> that the different velocities are measured in the frame of M. M'
> measures things in his own coordinate system, so the different closing
> speeds measured in the frame of M do not violate the speed of light
> being c in the frame of M'.
>
> > This is the birth of the bogus concept of
> > Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS).
>
> No, this is where you show your lack of understanding.
>
> > 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> > are not able to continue on to hit M'.
>
> Lame dodge.
No not lame dodge....you claimed that the same light rays (R1 and R2)
> > are not able to continue on to hit M'.
>
> Lame dodge.
that arrived at M simultaneously will continue onto hit M'. This is an
impossibility I was talking about.
>
> > 2. M' is in an enclosedtrainand the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> > able to reach him.
>
> Another lame dodge.
No....it is you who assumed impossible situations and not able to
>
> Another lame dodge.
defend them.
>
> > 3. M' is at a different larger distance from the events than M.
>
> M' is at equal distances from the events. Whether that distance is
> the same as what M measures doesn't matter.
distance from e1 and e2 larger than L.
>
> > 4. The speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic and thus there is
> > no different closing velocities between M' and the light rays R1 and
> > R2.
>
> As measured in the coordinates of M' that is correct.
Then M cannot claim that M' has different closing speeds wrt the light
> > 4. The speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic and thus there is
> > no different closing velocities between M' and the light rays R1 and
> > R2.
>
> As measured in the coordinates of M' that is correct.
fronts R1 and R2.
>
> > In other words all incoming light rays from e1 and e2 will arrive
> > at M' at a speed of c.
>
> No, they wont, because the light fronts meet on the tracks where M is,
> and M' is at a different point on the tracks.
>
> > 1. The PoR specifiies that if identical events e1' and e2' happened in
> > the M' frame then the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M'
> > simultaneously.
>
> For the experiments to be identical you would have to specify that the
> events were simultaneous in the frame of M'. They would then nolonger
> be simultaneous in the frame of M.
They are specified to be simultaneous in both frames.
> > the M' frame then the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M'
> > simultaneously.
>
> For the experiments to be identical you would have to specify that the
> events were simultaneous in the frame of M'. They would then nolonger
> be simultaneous in the frame of M.
>
> > 2. The delta form of the LT able M to predict the time interval
> > delta(t') when the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M' as
> > follows:
> > On page 964 of the text book Fundamental of Physics the Delta form of
> > the LT is as follows:
> > Delta(t') = gamma[Delta(t)-v*Delta(x)/c^2]
> > Delta(t)=L/c
> > Delta(x)=L
> > Therefore the equation is reduced to as follows:
> > Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
> > What this equation says is that the light fronts from the events e1'
> > and e2' will arrive at M' simultaneously at a time of Delta(t').
>
> You have already been told that the delta equations show that the
> travel times are equal,
M' will see the light fronts from e1' and e2' arrive at him
simultaneously.
>but they do not establish when the waves
> started from the events.
>The fact that they arrive at M' at different
> times tells us that the events happen at different times in the frame
> of M'.
fronts arrive at M'simultaneously at delta(t') as predicted by M.
Tony M
Feb 23, 2012, 9:51:47 AM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 9:15 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> The speed of light cannot be isotropic in the M' frame if
> he has different closing velocities wrt the light fronts from the ends
> of the train.
Wrong, Ken. M' has CLOSING velocity c+v or c-v to the light front as
> The speed of light cannot be isotropic in the M' frame if
> he has different closing velocities wrt the light fronts from the ends
> of the train.
measured by M. The RELATIVE velocity of M' to the light front is still
c as measured by M'. Closing and relative velocity are not the same
thing and the fact that they are different is not a logical
inconsitency. Velocity is a frame dependent quantity.
ken...@att.net
Feb 23, 2012, 10:10:21 AM2/23/12
to
the light fronts from the ends of the train. Such assertion is wrong.
ken...@att.net
Feb 23, 2012, 10:11:10 AM2/23/12
to
Androcles
Feb 23, 2012, 10:17:34 AM2/23/12
to
"Tony M" <mar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c17a0151-175e-4df4...@l16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
What's the difference between c+v closing and c+v relative
if they are not the same thing?
2+1 adding is not the same thing as 2+1 summing.
The idiot Tony M is not the same thing as the imbecile Tony M.
ken...@att.net
Feb 23, 2012, 10:24:32 AM2/23/12
to
based on bogus assumption that M' has different closing velocities wrt
the light fronts from the ends of the train. No such different closing
velocities exist in the M' frame.
What I said is correct. M predicts that the light fronts from
identical experiment in the M' frame will arrive at M' in the time
interval of
delta(t').
>
> Ken, Ken, Ken, you keep grasping at straws, looking for some way that
> the gedanken fails. It doesn't fail. You keep going around in circles,
> over and over and over again, because you just can't give it up. But
> you're just going around in circles and not getting anywhere.
assertion and my arguement is based on the PoR and the delta form of
Tony M
Feb 23, 2012, 10:27:25 AM2/23/12
to
velocity c+v or c-v). Nothing wrong with that asseetion. As observed
from frame M', M' is NOT moving wrt the light fronts (RELATIVE
velocity c). You must always consider/remember which frame you're
making observations from.
PD
Feb 23, 2012, 10:31:31 AM2/23/12
to
what M predicts M' will see. You cannot read.
> Your assertion is
> based on bogus assumption that M' has different closing velocities wrt
> the light fronts from the ends of the train. No such different closing
> velocities exist in the M' frame.
> What I said is correct. M predicts that the light fronts from
> identical experiment in the M' frame will arrive at M' in the time
> interval of
> delta(t').
>
>
>
> > Ken, Ken, Ken, you keep grasping at straws, looking for some way that
> > the gedanken fails. It doesn't fail. You keep going around in circles,
> > over and over and over again, because you just can't give it up. But
> > you're just going around in circles and not getting anywhere.
>
> It is you who is grasping for straw. Your arguement is based on
> assertion and my arguement is based on the PoR and the delta form of
> the LT.
You made some statements about *Einstein's* gedanken which are not
what he actually said. They are your own misinterpretations of what
you think you read. But you have difficulty reading.
Ken, NO ONE IS TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU OF ANYTHING. If you don't
believe it, you don't believe it and NO ONE CAN MAKE YOU.
If you think there MUST be some flaw in the gedanken, you will go
around in circles FOREVER looking for it. That's your fate.
Tony M
Feb 23, 2012, 11:21:40 AM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 10:17 am, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
> "Tony M" <marc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
A is approaching you at .8c from the left, B is approaching you at .8c
from the right. In your frame the closing velocity vAB=1.6c. What's
the relative velocity v'AB measured by A or B?
> "Tony M" <marc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
from the right. In your frame the closing velocity vAB=1.6c. What's
the relative velocity v'AB measured by A or B?
Dirk Van de moortel
Feb 23, 2012, 1:18:42 PM2/23/12
to
07f8ada8-553b-423c...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
The speed of light has no "closing velocities". That is nonsense.
I'm going to explain something.
Forget for a moment what M' sees or measures.
We (and M) see this in the drawing:
1) M' starts moving (at v) when a flash occurs behind him at A,
with speed c at distance L.
After some time T, the flash reaches him in the back.
He has then covered a distance v T.
So, the light signal has covered a distance L + v T.
But the light goes at c, so this distance is also c T.
So, algebraicly we have
L + v T = c T
and thus
L = c T - v T
= (c-v) T
In the beginning, the distance between the A-signal and M' was L.
After that time T, the distance between the A-signal and M' was 0.
So, in the time T, the distance shrunk from L to 0 at a "rate" c-v.
2) Likewise, when M' starts moving a flash occurs in front of him at B,
with speed c at distance L.
After some time U, the flash reaches him in the face.
He has then covered a distance v U.
So, the light signal has covered a distance L - v U.
But the light goes at c, so this distance is also c U.
So, algebraicly we have
L - v U = c U
and thus
L = c U + v U
= (c+v) U
In the beginning, the distance between the B-signal and M' was L.
After that time U, the distance between the B-signal and M' was 0.
So, in the time U, the distance shrunk from L to 0 at a "rate" c+v.
These numbers c-v and c+v are "called" the "closing velocities
between M' and the signals, as calculated by M".
Nothing moves at that velocity though. Some distance (according
to us, and according to M) shrinks at those rates
3) Now note that T and U *cannot* be the same, because we have
T = L / (c-v)
and
U = L / (c+v)
so they can only be equal if v = 0, which is not the case.
you also see that
U < T
which means that M' is first hit by the B-signal, and then by
the A-signal.
So M' first sees the B-signal, and then the A-signal.
Now, what does M' see and calculate?
4) Initially, when the flashes started, he knows that they
must have started in the front and on the back of his carriage,
at equal distances because he knows that he is sitting in the
middle, and he actually sees that the flashes came from
the front and the back.
5) He assumes that the speed of light is c.
6) He first sees the B-signal and then the A-signal.
7) Therefore, he must assume that the B-signal started
before the A-signal, so the signals cannot have been
emitted simultaneously.
So, go back to the text and read it a few more times.
I'm going to explain something.
Forget for a moment what M' sees or measures.
We (and M) see this in the drawing:
1) M' starts moving (at v) when a flash occurs behind him at A,
with speed c at distance L.
After some time T, the flash reaches him in the back.
He has then covered a distance v T.
So, the light signal has covered a distance L + v T.
But the light goes at c, so this distance is also c T.
So, algebraicly we have
L + v T = c T
and thus
L = c T - v T
= (c-v) T
In the beginning, the distance between the A-signal and M' was L.
After that time T, the distance between the A-signal and M' was 0.
So, in the time T, the distance shrunk from L to 0 at a "rate" c-v.
2) Likewise, when M' starts moving a flash occurs in front of him at B,
with speed c at distance L.
After some time U, the flash reaches him in the face.
He has then covered a distance v U.
So, the light signal has covered a distance L - v U.
But the light goes at c, so this distance is also c U.
So, algebraicly we have
L - v U = c U
and thus
L = c U + v U
= (c+v) U
In the beginning, the distance between the B-signal and M' was L.
After that time U, the distance between the B-signal and M' was 0.
So, in the time U, the distance shrunk from L to 0 at a "rate" c+v.
These numbers c-v and c+v are "called" the "closing velocities
between M' and the signals, as calculated by M".
Nothing moves at that velocity though. Some distance (according
to us, and according to M) shrinks at those rates
3) Now note that T and U *cannot* be the same, because we have
T = L / (c-v)
and
U = L / (c+v)
so they can only be equal if v = 0, which is not the case.
you also see that
U < T
which means that M' is first hit by the B-signal, and then by
the A-signal.
So M' first sees the B-signal, and then the A-signal.
Now, what does M' see and calculate?
4) Initially, when the flashes started, he knows that they
must have started in the front and on the back of his carriage,
at equal distances because he knows that he is sitting in the
middle, and he actually sees that the flashes came from
the front and the back.
5) He assumes that the speed of light is c.
6) He first sees the B-signal and then the A-signal.
7) Therefore, he must assume that the B-signal started
before the A-signal, so the signals cannot have been
emitted simultaneously.
So, go back to the text and read it a few more times.
PD
Feb 23, 2012, 1:21:05 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 12:18 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> 07f8ada8-553b-423c-9a98-c6e1d97d7...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
Right here is where you lost him. Rest will be ignored.
> 07f8ada8-553b-423c-9a98-c6e1d97d7...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
Dirk Van de moortel
Feb 23, 2012, 1:49:52 PM2/23/12
to
PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
c48940ec-01d4-4e8c...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
it took me at least 10 minutes to decide on the wording on these
3 sentences.
In the worst case, perhaps it can help someone else who is
struggling with this.
Let's see how it goes...
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
Feb 23, 2012, 3:11:24 PM2/23/12
to
news:a43a0cea-389c-46fc...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
=============================================
For A:
At t = 0, B is 0.8 * 300,000,000 metres from me, 1.6 * 300,000,000
metres from A.
At t = 1, B has reached me and I have reached A.
Therefore B has travelled 480,000,000 metres in 1 second.
v'AB = 480,000,000/300,000,000 = 1.6c
By the Principle of Relativistic Insanity, B reaches A
after I reach A at the same instant B reaches me.
For B:
At t = 0, A is 0.8 * 300,000,000 metres from me, 1.6 * 300,000,000
metres from B.
At t = 1, A has reached me and I have reached B.
Therefore A has travelled 480,000,000 metres in 1 second.
v'BA= 480,000,000/300,000,000 = 1.6c
By the Principle of Relativistic Idiocy, A doesn't reach B
because it isn't going fast enough but A does reach me at t = 1
when I reach B.
What's the difference between c+v closing and c+v relative
if they are not the same thing?
You are as insane as that lunatic Einstein, aren't you?
Just admit it and we can move on, I'll teach you some
real physics.
For A:
At t = 0, B is 0.8 * 300,000,000 metres from me, 1.6 * 300,000,000
metres from A.
At t = 1, B has reached me and I have reached A.
Therefore B has travelled 480,000,000 metres in 1 second.
v'AB = 480,000,000/300,000,000 = 1.6c
By the Principle of Relativistic Insanity, B reaches A
after I reach A at the same instant B reaches me.
For B:
At t = 0, A is 0.8 * 300,000,000 metres from me, 1.6 * 300,000,000
metres from B.
At t = 1, A has reached me and I have reached B.
Therefore A has travelled 480,000,000 metres in 1 second.
v'BA= 480,000,000/300,000,000 = 1.6c
By the Principle of Relativistic Idiocy, A doesn't reach B
because it isn't going fast enough but A does reach me at t = 1
when I reach B.
What's the difference between c+v closing and c+v relative
if they are not the same thing?
Just admit it and we can move on, I'll teach you some
real physics.
PD
Feb 23, 2012, 4:01:26 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 2:11 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
>
> What's the difference between c+v closing and c+v relative
> if they are not the same thing?
What's the difference between 6 mph relative velocity and 6 mph
>
> What's the difference between c+v closing and c+v relative
> if they are not the same thing?
absolute velocity? Are you going to tell me that 6 mph doesn't equal 6
mph?
Tony, you are talking with Androcles, professional nothing and amateur
gadfly. His whole purpose in life is sparring, including bobs, feints,
limp jabs, and bouncing off the ropes.
ken...@att.net
Feb 23, 2012, 4:41:25 PM2/23/12
to
exist.
Bruce Richmond
Feb 23, 2012, 7:56:43 PM2/23/12
to
from M, standing by the tracks, that the light that hits him and the
light that hits M' on the tracks, is for all practical purposes the
same ray of light. If you want to be a dickhead about it, consider
the tracks to be the X axis. M is one meter off to the side. That
would make his actual distance from the event (10000^2+1)^.5 or
10000.00005 meters, or for all practical purposes the same 10000
meters it would have been to M' if he hadn't moved. But M' did move,
and far more than .00005 meters. Forget about the velocity of M' for
a moment and just consider his position after he passes M. From his
position alone we know that he will see the flash from e2 before M,
and the flash from e1 after M. And it was given that M sees both
flashes at the same instant.
>
> > > 2. M' is in an enclosedtrainand the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> > > able to reach him.
>
> > Another lame dodge.
>
> No....it is you who assumed impossible situations and not able to
> defend them.
>
allows some light to pass, and M' leans out the window so he is in
line. If you want to make shit up so can I.
>
> > > 3. M' is at a different larger distance from the events than M.
>
> > M' is at equal distances from the events. Whether that distance is
> > the same as what M measures doesn't matter.
>
> Sigh....M is at equal distance L from e1 and e2 and M' is at equal
> distance from e1 and e2 larger than L.
>
distances from e1 and e2. And I will agree that M' measures those
distances to be larger than L.
>
> > > 4. The speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic and thus there is
> > > no different closing velocities between M' and the light rays R1 and
> > > R2.
>
> > As measured in the coordinates of M' that is correct.
>
> Then M cannot claim that M' has different closing speeds wrt the light
> fronts R1 and R2.
>
reference. You are in a car traveling down the road at the speed v
relative to the road. If you measure the speed of the dashboard
relative to you it is zero. If observers standing on the side of the
road measure the speed of the dashboard relative to the road they
measure it to be v. You get different answers because you are making
your measurements in different frames of reference. Same thing with M
and M'.
>
> > > In other words all incoming light rays from e1 and e2 will arrive
> > > at M' at a speed of c.
>
> > No, they wont, because the light fronts meet on the tracks where M is,
> > and M' is at a different point on the tracks.
>
> > >Einsteinand his followers falied to realize that:
> > > 1. The PoR specifiies that if identical events e1' and e2' happened in
> > > the M' frame then the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M'
> > > simultaneously.
>
> > For the experiments to be identical you would have to specify that the
> > events were simultaneous in the frame of M'. They would then nolonger
> > be simultaneous in the frame of M.
>
> They are specified to be simultaneous in both frames.
>
events were simultaneous in both frames.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 2. The delta form of the LT able M to predict the time interval
> > > delta(t') when the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M' as
> > > follows:
> > > On page 964 of the text book Fundamental of Physics the Delta form of
> > > the LT is as follows:
> > > Delta(t') = gamma[Delta(t)-v*Delta(x)/c^2]
> > > Delta(t)=L/c
> > > Delta(x)=L
> > > Therefore the equation is reduced to as follows:
> > > Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
> > > What this equation says is that the light fronts from the events e1'
> > > and e2' will arrive at M' simultaneously at a time of Delta(t').
>
> > You have already been told that the delta equations show that the
> > travel times are equal,
>
> No the transformed time interval delta(t') is that time interval when
> M' will see the light fronts from e1' and e2' arrive at him
> simultaneously.
> >but they do not establish when the waves
> > started from the events.
>
> Yes they do.
simultaneously, but we know that they cannot.
> >The fact that they arrive at M' at different
> > times tells us that the events happen at different times in the frame
> > of M'.
>
> No they were specified to happen at the same time....but the light
They were only specified to arrive at M simultaneously. Quit making
stuff up.
ken...@att.net
Feb 24, 2012, 8:52:43 AM2/24/12
to
the light fronts from the ends of the train to get RoS??
There is no need for what M see.....M' would see the light fronts
arrive simultaneously if they were generated simultaneously.
We need M as follows:
M measures two events e1 and e2 to be simultaneous. He uses the delta
form of the LT to predict the time interval for identical events e1'
and e2' in the M' frame to reach M' simultaneously.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Your assertion is
> > based on bogus assumption that M' has different closing velocities wrt
> > the light fronts from the ends of the train. No such different closing
> > velocities exist in the M' frame.
> > What I said is correct. M predicts that the light fronts from
> > identical experiment in the M' frame will arrive at M' in the time
> > interval of
> > delta(t').
>
> > > Ken, Ken, Ken, you keep grasping at straws, looking for some way that
> > > the gedanken fails. It doesn't fail. You keep going around in circles,
> > > over and over and over again, because you just can't give it up. But
> > > you're just going around in circles and not getting anywhere.
>
> > It is you who is grasping for straw. Your arguement is based on
> > assertion and my arguement is based on the PoR and the delta form of
> > the LT.
>
> There is no argument being made here.
> You made some statements about *Einstein's* gedanken which are not
> what he actually said. They are your own misinterpretations of what
> you think you read. But you have difficulty reading.
M' is moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train to get
RoS. No such different closing velocities is measurable by M'. In
other words Einstein's gedanken is based on pure fantasy.
ken...@att.net
Feb 24, 2012, 9:11:16 AM2/24/12
to
On Feb 23, 1:18 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> 07f8ada8-553b-423c-9a98-c6e1d97d7...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
OK....so what Einstein and PD said are nonsense.
>
> I'm going to explain something.
> Forget for a moment what M' sees or measures.
>
> We (and M) see this in the drawing:
The drawing does not represent the real picture. Why? Because it is an
impossible gedanken.
The real gedanken:
M measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame to be simultaneous after
a time interval of L/c when the events happened simultaneously. It is
irrelevant the position of M' wrt M.....M can use the LT to predict
the time interval of simultaneity of two identical events e1' and e2'
in the M' frame and the result is delta(t').
> 07f8ada8-553b-423c-9a98-c6e1d97d7...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
>
> I'm going to explain something.
> Forget for a moment what M' sees or measures.
>
> We (and M) see this in the drawing:
impossible gedanken.
The real gedanken:
M measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame to be simultaneous after
a time interval of L/c when the events happened simultaneously. It is
irrelevant the position of M' wrt M.....M can use the LT to predict
the time interval of simultaneity of two identical events e1' and e2'
in the M' frame and the result is delta(t').
ken...@att.net
Feb 24, 2012, 9:31:45 AM2/24/12
to
The real gedanken is as follows:
M measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame to be simultaneous at a
time interval of L/c. M uses the LT to predict the time interval for
the light fronts from identical events e1' and e2' in the M' frame to
arrive at M' simultaneously as follows:
PD
Feb 24, 2012, 10:12:03 AM2/24/12
to
both see, and then to show that what M' sees is consistent with the laws
of physics as M knows them, and that what M sees is consistent with the
laws of physics as M' knows them.
This is obvious to anyone who can read.
You have great difficulty reading.
Bruce Richmond
Feb 24, 2012, 7:15:36 PM2/24/12
to
No Ken, you just refuse to consider the gedanken as it is presented.
There is nothing wrong with Einstein's gedanken.
Roger Onslow
Feb 24, 2012, 10:58:11 PM2/24/12
to
On Feb 22, 2:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> Einstein's impossible gedanken:
> 1. Two spatially separated events e1 and e2 happened simultaneously in
> M frame.
> 2. M is located at the middle of these simultaneous events.....at a
> distance L from these events.
> 3. The speed of light is isotropic in the M frame....Therefore light
> rays (r1 and R2) from these events will arrive at M simultaneously
> after a time interval of L/c seconds.
> 4. M' is in a train moving wrt M....at the instant when M' and M are
> Einstein's impossible gedanken:
> 1. Two spatially separated events e1 and e2 happened simultaneously in
> M frame.
> 2. M is located at the middle of these simultaneous events.....at a
> distance L from these events.
> 3. The speed of light is isotropic in the M frame....Therefore light
> rays (r1 and R2) from these events will arrive at M simultaneously
> after a time interval of L/c seconds.
> concided the events e1 and e2 in the M frame happened simultaneously.
OK
> Einstein and his followers assert that:
> 1. The light rays (R1 and R2) from e1 and e2 will arrive at M
> simultaneously.
Of course, if nothing gets in their way
> simultaneously.
> 2. The same two light rays R1 and R2 will continue on to arrive at M'
> but not simultaneously because M' have different closing velocities
> wrt these light fronts.
closing velocities in frame M)
> This is the birth of the bogus concept of
> Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS).
both M and M' if they are at different x locations
> Einstein's assertions are impossible for the following reasons:
> 1. The light rays R1 and R2 will have been absorbed by M and thus they
> are not able to continue on to hit M'.
Noone said they were absorbed .. we can simply assume they aren't
> are not able to continue on to hit M'.
> 2. M' is in an enclosed train and the light rays R1 and R2 will not be
> able to reach him.
Noone said the train was enclosed .. we can simply assume it isn't
> 3. M' is at a different larger distance from the events than M.
distances.
> 4. The speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic
> and thus there is
> no different closing velocities between M' and the light rays R1 and
> R2.
> In other words all incoming light rays from e1 and e2 will arrive
> at M' at a speed of c.
> Einstein and his followers falied to realize that:
> 1. The PoR specifiies that if identical events e1' and e2' happened in
> the M' frame then the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M'
> simultaneously.
No .. it doesn't specify that at all
> the M' frame then the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M'
> simultaneously.
> 2. The delta form of the LT able M to predict the time interval
> delta(t') when the light fronts R1' and R2' will arrive at M' as
> follows:
> On page 964 of the text book Fundamental of Physics the Delta form of
> the LT is as follows:
> Delta(t') = gamma[Delta(t)-v*Delta(x)/c^2]
> Delta(t)=L/c
> Delta(x)=L
> Therefore the equation is reduced to as follows:
> Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
> What this equation says is that the light fronts from the events e1'
> and e2' will arrive at M' simultaneously at a time of Delta(t').
clumsy of you
ken...@att.net
Feb 25, 2012, 9:12:42 AM2/25/12
to
destoyed and thus they cannot continue to move on to hit M'. That's
why the gedanken is impossible.
Thye real gedanken is as follows:
M measure two events e1 and e2 are simultaneous in his frame at a time
interval of L/c. M predicts that the light fronts from identical
events e1' and e2' in the M' frame will take a time interval of
delta(t') to arrive at M' simultaneously as follows:
Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c)- v*L/c^2]
ken...@att.net
Feb 25, 2012, 9:20:45 AM2/25/12
to
pair of light fronts meet simultaneously at M and the same pair of
light front continue on to hit M'. This is physically impossible.
The real gedanken is as follows:
The real gedanken is as follows:
M measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame to be simultaneous at a
time interval of L/c. M uses the LT to predict the time interval for
the light fronts from identical events e1' and e2' in the M' frame to
arrive at M' simultaneously as follows:
Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
>
Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
>
> This is obvious to anyone who can read.
>
> You have great difficulty reading.
>
>
>
> > There is no need for what M see.....M' would see the light fronts
> > arrive simultaneously if they were generated simultaneously.
> > We need M as follows:
> > M measures two events e1 and e2 to be simultaneous. He uses the delta
> > form of the LT to predict the time interval for identical events e1'
> > and e2' in the M' frame to reach M' simultaneously.- Hide quoted text -
>
> You have great difficulty reading.
>
>
>
> > There is no need for what M see.....M' would see the light fronts
> > arrive simultaneously if they were generated simultaneously.
> > We need M as follows:
> > M measures two events e1 and e2 to be simultaneous. He uses the delta
> > form of the LT to predict the time interval for identical events e1'
ken...@att.net
Feb 25, 2012, 9:36:45 AM2/25/12
to
On Feb 24, 10:58 pm, Roger Onslow <roger.k.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Einstein's impossible gedanken:
> > 1. Two spatially separated events e1 and e2 happened simultaneously in
> > M frame.
> > 2. M is located at the middle of these simultaneous events.....at a
> > distance L from these events.
> > 3. The speed of light is isotropic in the M frame....Therefore light
> > rays (r1 and R2) from these events will arrive at M simultaneously
> > after a time interval of L/c seconds.
> > 4. M' is in a train moving wrt M....at the instant when M' and M are
> > concided the events e1 and e2 in the M frame happened simultaneously.
>
> OK
>
> > Einstein and his followers assert that:
> > 1. The light rays (R1 and R2) from e1 and e2 will arrive at M
> > simultaneously.
>
> Of course, if nothing gets in their way
>
> > 2. The same two light rays R1 and R2 will continue on to arrive at M'
> > but not simultaneously because M' have different closing velocities
> > wrt these light fronts.
>
> Of course, if nothing gets in their way (if you are talking about
> closing velocities in frame M)
Einstein's gedanken is impossible.
> On Feb 22, 2:22 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Einstein's impossible gedanken:
> > 1. Two spatially separated events e1 and e2 happened simultaneously in
> > M frame.
> > 2. M is located at the middle of these simultaneous events.....at a
> > distance L from these events.
> > 3. The speed of light is isotropic in the M frame....Therefore light
> > rays (r1 and R2) from these events will arrive at M simultaneously
> > after a time interval of L/c seconds.
> > 4. M' is in a train moving wrt M....at the instant when M' and M are
> > concided the events e1 and e2 in the M frame happened simultaneously.
>
> OK
>
> > Einstein and his followers assert that:
> > 1. The light rays (R1 and R2) from e1 and e2 will arrive at M
> > simultaneously.
>
> Of course, if nothing gets in their way
>
> > 2. The same two light rays R1 and R2 will continue on to arrive at M'
> > but not simultaneously because M' have different closing velocities
> > wrt these light fronts.
>
> Of course, if nothing gets in their way (if you are talking about
> closing velocities in frame M)
The real gedanken is as follows:
M measure two events e1 and e2 are simultaneous in his frame at a
time
interval of L/c. M predicts that the light fronts from identical
events e1' and e2' in the M' frame will take a time interval of
delta(t') to arrive at M' simultaneously as follows:
events e1' and e2' in the M' frame will take a time interval of
Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c)- v*L/c^2]
papa...@gmail.com
Feb 25, 2012, 10:34:20 AM2/25/12
to
On Feb 25, 11:12 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> The same pair of light fronts meet simultaneously at M will have been
> destoyed and thus they cannot continue to move on to hit M'. That's
> why the gedanken is impossible.
> Thye real gedanken is as follows:
> M measure two events e1 and e2 are simultaneous in his frame at a time
> interval of L/c. M predicts that the light fronts from identical
> events e1' and e2' in the M' frame will take a time interval of
> delta(t') to arrive at M' simultaneously as follows:
> Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c)- v*L/c^2]
>
>
Perform the experiment yourself with two of your grandchildren. Draw a
>
> The same pair of light fronts meet simultaneously at M will have been
> destoyed and thus they cannot continue to move on to hit M'. That's
> why the gedanken is impossible.
> Thye real gedanken is as follows:
> M measure two events e1 and e2 are simultaneous in his frame at a time
> interval of L/c. M predicts that the light fronts from identical
> events e1' and e2' in the M' frame will take a time interval of
> delta(t') to arrive at M' simultaneously as follows:
> Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c)- v*L/c^2]
>
>
100 feet line and locate one of your grandchildren at the begining
point with a flash light (do this at midnight). Locate the second
grandchildren at 50 feet over the line. Finally locate yourself at the
100 feet location (right behind your second grandchildren). Ask the
first grandchildren to put the flash light on. Verify yourself how
stupid are you, by realizing you can see the flashlight even with your
second grandchildren blocking part of the light of the flashlight.
You are so stupid!!!
rotchm
Feb 25, 2012, 11:08:36 AM2/25/12
to
> Einstein's gedanken is impossible.
Einstein's gedanken does NOT contain any enclosed wagons.
In Einstein's gedanken, all wagons are OPEN and all detectors
(observers) are TRANSPARENT to the light traversing them. E.g. a very
thin transparent film/glass.
If YOU ASSUME that there are opaque walls preventing light to traverse
then light will not attain the detectors in question.
PD
Feb 25, 2012, 11:12:42 AM2/25/12
to
stop at nothing.
He would say, "What if the observers are blind men, and they can't see
light? Doesn't that mean the gedanken doesn't work? Doesn't that mean
that relativity is useless? Relativity should be right whether people
are blind or not."
Androcles
Feb 25, 2012, 11:21:19 AM2/25/12
to
<papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:43454197-835a-4c20...@a15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
One grandchild, two grandchildren.
Use a laser pointer instead of a flashlight.
You are so stooopid!!!!!!
PD
Feb 25, 2012, 10:40:53 AM2/25/12
to
Never was.
The evidence for relativity isn't even in the gedankens. If you want
to look for the evidence of relativity, you have to stop looking at
gedankens and start looking at experimental papers.
The gedankens aren't intended to convince you of the assertions.
They're simply designed to show you the *implications* of the
assertions, whether you believe the assertions or not.
All this time, and you've missed the whole point of the gedankens
entirely.
Bruce Richmond
Feb 25, 2012, 12:45:36 PM2/25/12
to
No Ken, we already went over that lame excuse. The rays that just
miss M will reach M' just fine.
PD
Feb 25, 2012, 1:23:33 PM2/25/12
to
On 2/25/2012 8:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
> The same pair of light fronts meet simultaneously at M will have been
> destoyed and thus they cannot continue to move on to hit M'. That's
> why the gedanken is impossible.
Once again, Ken believes that a light front can only be seen by one
>
> The same pair of light fronts meet simultaneously at M will have been
> destoyed and thus they cannot continue to move on to hit M'. That's
> why the gedanken is impossible.
observer, when in fact everyday experience tells him that two people in
different rooms can both see the same light front from a lightning bolt
outside.
Ken is willing to say the stupidest things, even when he knows better,
to try to find some fault in Einstein's gedankens. Ken believes that if
he can somehow find fault in the gedankens, then relativity will fall.
Ken has no idea where the support for relativity really comes from.
ken...@att.net
Feb 25, 2012, 4:13:46 PM2/25/12
to
two events e1 and e2 in the M frame meet simultaneously at M. This
same pair of light fronts cannot continue on to hit M' non-
simultaneously as claimed by you runts of the SRians..... a different
pair of light fronts is needed.
ken...@att.net
Feb 25, 2012, 4:15:55 PM2/25/12
to
ken...@att.net
Feb 25, 2012, 4:29:33 PM2/25/12
to
On Feb 25, 1:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/25/2012 8:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > The same pair of light fronts meet simultaneously at M will have been
> > destoyed and thus they cannot continue to move on to hit M'. That's
> > why the gedanken is impossible.
>
> Once again, Ken believes that a light front can only be seen by one
> observer, when in fact everyday experience tells him that two people in
> different rooms can both see the same light front from a lightning bolt
> outside.
Sigh....such experiment is not doable. First you have to have two
> On 2/25/2012 8:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > The same pair of light fronts meet simultaneously at M will have been
> > destoyed and thus they cannot continue to move on to hit M'. That's
> > why the gedanken is impossible.
>
> Once again, Ken believes that a light front can only be seen by one
> observer, when in fact everyday experience tells him that two people in
> different rooms can both see the same light front from a lightning bolt
> outside.
lightning bolts happened simultaneously.....then you need two
observers moving wrt each other at different equal distances from the
strikes. When you have these conditions then you will get the results
that disagree with RoS. Why? Because light fronts from the strikes
will arrive at both observers simultaneously.....but at different
times. Why? Because they are at different equal distances from the
strikes.
The real doable gedanken is as follows:
M measure two events e1 and e2 are simultaneous in his frame at a
time
interval of L/c. M predicts that the light fronts from identical
events e1' and e2' in the M' frame will take a time interval of
delta(t') to arrive at M' simultaneously as follows:
Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c)- v*L/c^2]
>
time
interval of L/c. M predicts that the light fronts from identical
events e1' and e2' in the M' frame will take a time interval of
delta(t') to arrive at M' simultaneously as follows:
Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c)- v*L/c^2]
>
ken...@att.net
Feb 25, 2012, 4:34:27 PM2/25/12
to
The following gedanken is doable experimentally and the result will
refute the claim of RoS..
M measure two events e1 and e2 are simultaneous in his frame at a
time
interval of L/c. M predicts that the light fronts from identical
events e1' and e2' in the M' frame will take a time interval of
delta(t') to arrive at M' simultaneously as follows:
events e1' and e2' in the M' frame will take a time interval of
PD
Feb 25, 2012, 4:51:04 PM2/25/12
to
that talked about a test of relativity in your entire life.
You have no idea what you're talking about, Ken. Stop bullshitting.
> The following gedanken is doable experimentally and the result will
> refute the claim of RoS..
Take their comments to heart, rewrite it to correct and resubmit.
Get whatever experimental information you need to convince you either
that you're right or that you're wrong. That's what a scientist would
do.
Instead, you spend twenty years going around in little circles about a
gedanken.
PD
Feb 25, 2012, 4:54:40 PM2/25/12
to
On Feb 25, 3:29 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 1:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/25/2012 8:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
> > > The same pair of light fronts meet simultaneously at M will have been
> > > destoyed and thus they cannot continue to move on to hit M'. That's
> > > why the gedanken is impossible.
>
> > Once again, Ken believes that a light front can only be seen by one
> > observer, when in fact everyday experience tells him that two people in
> > different rooms can both see the same light front from a lightning bolt
> > outside.
>
> Sigh....such experiment is not doable.
Ken. Stop.
> On Feb 25, 1:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/25/2012 8:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>
> > > The same pair of light fronts meet simultaneously at M will have been
> > > destoyed and thus they cannot continue to move on to hit M'. That's
> > > why the gedanken is impossible.
>
> > Once again, Ken believes that a light front can only be seen by one
> > observer, when in fact everyday experience tells him that two people in
> > different rooms can both see the same light front from a lightning bolt
> > outside.
>
> Sigh....such experiment is not doable.
You make the claim that ANY light front (whether it's one or two) will
be destroyed by an observer M so that it cannot be received by another
observer M'.
If your claim is right, then you would be able to generate ONE light
front with two observers, and only one of the observers would be able
to view it because the light front would be completely destroyed by
that observer, and the other observer would not see it.
This happens all the time. A camera flash goes off in a room. There
are two people in the room. Both people see the flash. It DOES NOT
HAPPEN as you claim that one observer destroys the light front so that
the other observer cannot see it.
papa...@gmail.com
Feb 25, 2012, 6:17:07 PM2/25/12
to
walk towards you. Again appreciate how stupid is your assertion of
information being "destroyed".
You are a waste
ken...@att.net
Feb 25, 2012, 6:23:09 PM2/25/12
to
cannot continue on to hit M' in a different frame moving wrt M. Gee
you are stupid for a professor.
Bruce Richmond
Feb 26, 2012, 8:36:00 AM2/26/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
You provide the equipment and I will. Why are you afraid to accept
> - Show quoted text -
that it would be possible to do the experiment?
ken...@att.net
Feb 26, 2012, 9:18:08 AM2/26/12
to
experiment is impossible?
ken...@att.net
Feb 26, 2012, 9:25:29 AM2/26/12
to
experiment that support the OWLS. RoS is an assumed concept. Its
function is to explain the paradoxes of the constancy of the speed of
light.
Bruce Richmond
Feb 26, 2012, 10:42:37 AM2/26/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
A' M' B'
> - Show quoted text -
e1 e2
A M B
M and M' face each other from 1 meter apart. E1 is 10 kilometers away
from M. If M' wasn't moving he wave front from e1 would reach him at
the same time as M. If M moves to the right it will take longer for
the front to reach him than M. M is not blocking the front from e1
from reaching M'. Now can we discuss the experiment or are you going
to keep making lame excuses not to?
ken...@att.net
Feb 26, 2012, 11:41:45 AM2/26/12
to
So you are assuming that M is not moving wrt the light fronts and M'
is moving wrt the light fronts? Does that mean that M is the preferred
frame? Also what if M and M' is a light-hour apart, does your gedanken
stll work? Also what if e1 and e2 are lasers do M and M' still see
them?
The real gedanken is as follows:
time interval of L/c. M uses the LT to predict the time interval for
the light fronts from identical events e1' and e2' in the M' frame to
arrive at M' simultaneously as follows:
Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
Notice in this gedanken it doesn't matter the location of M' wrt
Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
M....M uses the LT to calculate if identical events in the M' frame
will be simultaNEOUS
ken...@att.net
Feb 26, 2012, 11:52:48 AM2/26/12
to
FRONTS MEET AT m' SIMULTANEOUSLY WILL CONTINUE ON TO METT m'.
Obviously the same pair of light fronts cannot hit M and M'. They must
be a different pair of light fronts. Also what if M and M' are a light
year apart will the same pair of light fronts still hit both of
them??? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
> You are a waste- Hide quoted text -
Dirk Van de moortel
Feb 26, 2012, 12:23:31 PM2/26/12
to
ken...@att.net <set...@att.net> wrote in message
5a80a379-23c7-4932...@f30g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
> On Feb 23, 1:18 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> > ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote in message
> > 07f8ada8-553b-423c-9a98-c6e1d97d7...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
> > > On Feb 22, 10:09 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > > <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.comnot> wrote:
[snip]
> > The speed of light has no "closing velocities". That is nonsense.
>
> OK....so what Einstein and PD said are nonsense.
>
> >
> > I'm going to explain something.
> > Forget for a moment what M' sees or measures.
> >
> > We (and M) see this in the drawing:
>
> The drawing does not represent the real picture. Why? Because it is
> an impossible gedanken.
> The real gedanken:
> is irrelevant the position of M' wrt M.....M can use the LT to predict
> the time interval of simultaneity of two identical events e1' and
> e2' in the M' frame and the result is delta(t').
You are a coward.
You are a big coward.
You are the biggest coward I have ever seen.
Here below you got it all on a plate, and don't even dare to *begin to try*
to understand it.
> >
> > 1) M' starts moving (at v) when a flash occurs behind him at A,
> > with speed c at distance L.
>
> > After some time T, the flash reaches him in the back.
> > He has then covered a distance v T.
> > So, the light signal has covered a distance L + v T.
> > But the light goes at c, so this distance is also c T.
> > So, algebraicly we have
> > L + v T = c T
> > and thus
> > L = c T - v T
> > = (c-v) T
> > In the beginning, the distance between the A-signal and M' was L.
> > After that time T, the distance between the A-signal and M' was 0.
> > So, in the time T, the distance shrunk from L to 0 at a "rate"
> > c-v.
> >
> > 2) Likewise, when M' starts moving a flash occurs in front of him
> > at B, with speed c at distance L.
> > After some time U, the flash reaches him in the face.
> > He has then covered a distance v U.
> > So, the light signal has covered a distance L - v U.
> > But the light goes at c, so this distance is also c U.
> > So, algebraicly we have
> > L - v U = c U
> > and thus
> > L = c U + v U
> > = (c+v) U
> > In the beginning, the distance between the B-signal and M' was L.
> > After that time U, the distance between the B-signal and M' was 0.
> > So, in the time U, the distance shrunk from L to 0 at a "rate" c+v.
> >
> > These numbers c-v and c+v are "called" the "closing velocities
> > between M' and the signals, as calculated by M".
> > Nothing moves at that velocity though. Some distance (according
> > to us, and according to M) shrinks at those rates
> >
> > 3) Now note that T and U *cannot* be the same, because we have
> > T = L / (c-v)
> > and
> > U = L / (c+v)
> > so they can only be equal if v = 0, which is not the case.
> > you also see that
> > U < T
> > which means that M' is first hit by the B-signal, and then by
> > the A-signal.
> > So M' first sees the B-signal, and then the A-signal.
> >
> > Now, what does M' see and calculate?
> >
> > 4) Initially, when the flashes started, he knows that they
> > must have started in the front and on the back of his carriage,
> > at equal distances because he knows that he is sitting in the
> > middle, and he actually sees that the flashes came from
> > the front and the back.
> >
> > 5) He assumes that the speed of light is c.
> >
> > 6) He first sees the B-signal and then the A-signal.
> >
> > 7) Therefore, he must assume that the B-signal started
> > before the A-signal, so the signals cannot have been
> > emitted simultaneously.
> >
> > So, go back to the text and read it a few more times.
> > Until you get it.
Good grief, what a coward you are.
Dirk Vdm
5a80a379-23c7-4932...@f30g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
> On Feb 23, 1:18 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> > ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote in message
> > 07f8ada8-553b-423c-9a98-c6e1d97d7...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
> > > On Feb 22, 10:09 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > > <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.comnot> wrote:
[snip]
> > The speed of light has no "closing velocities". That is nonsense.
>
> OK....so what Einstein and PD said are nonsense.
>
> >
> > I'm going to explain something.
> > Forget for a moment what M' sees or measures.
> >
> > We (and M) see this in the drawing:
>
> The drawing does not represent the real picture. Why? Because it is
> an impossible gedanken.
> The real gedanken:
> M measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame to be simultaneous
> after a time interval of L/c when the events happened simultaneously. It
> is irrelevant the position of M' wrt M.....M can use the LT to predict
> the time interval of simultaneity of two identical events e1' and
> e2' in the M' frame and the result is delta(t').
You are a coward.
You are a big coward.
You are the biggest coward I have ever seen.
Here below you got it all on a plate, and don't even dare to *begin to try*
to understand it.
> >
> > 1) M' starts moving (at v) when a flash occurs behind him at A,
> > with speed c at distance L.
>
> > After some time T, the flash reaches him in the back.
> > He has then covered a distance v T.
> > So, the light signal has covered a distance L + v T.
> > But the light goes at c, so this distance is also c T.
> > So, algebraicly we have
> > L + v T = c T
> > and thus
> > L = c T - v T
> > = (c-v) T
> > In the beginning, the distance between the A-signal and M' was L.
> > After that time T, the distance between the A-signal and M' was 0.
> > So, in the time T, the distance shrunk from L to 0 at a "rate"
> > c-v.
> >
> > 2) Likewise, when M' starts moving a flash occurs in front of him
> > at B, with speed c at distance L.
> > After some time U, the flash reaches him in the face.
> > He has then covered a distance v U.
> > So, the light signal has covered a distance L - v U.
> > But the light goes at c, so this distance is also c U.
> > So, algebraicly we have
> > L - v U = c U
> > and thus
> > L = c U + v U
> > = (c+v) U
> > In the beginning, the distance between the B-signal and M' was L.
> > After that time U, the distance between the B-signal and M' was 0.
> > So, in the time U, the distance shrunk from L to 0 at a "rate" c+v.
> >
> > These numbers c-v and c+v are "called" the "closing velocities
> > between M' and the signals, as calculated by M".
> > Nothing moves at that velocity though. Some distance (according
> > to us, and according to M) shrinks at those rates
> >
> > 3) Now note that T and U *cannot* be the same, because we have
> > T = L / (c-v)
> > and
> > U = L / (c+v)
> > so they can only be equal if v = 0, which is not the case.
> > you also see that
> > U < T
> > which means that M' is first hit by the B-signal, and then by
> > the A-signal.
> > So M' first sees the B-signal, and then the A-signal.
> >
> > Now, what does M' see and calculate?
> >
> > 4) Initially, when the flashes started, he knows that they
> > must have started in the front and on the back of his carriage,
> > at equal distances because he knows that he is sitting in the
> > middle, and he actually sees that the flashes came from
> > the front and the back.
> >
> > 5) He assumes that the speed of light is c.
> >
> > 6) He first sees the B-signal and then the A-signal.
> >
> > 7) Therefore, he must assume that the B-signal started
> > before the A-signal, so the signals cannot have been
> > emitted simultaneously.
> >
> > So, go back to the text and read it a few more times.
> > Until you get it.
Good grief, what a coward you are.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
Feb 26, 2012, 12:25:14 PM2/26/12
to
PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
c48940ec-01d4-4e8c...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
> On Feb 23, 12:18 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > I'm going to explain something.
> > Forget for a moment what M' sees or measures.
> >
> > We (and M) see this in the drawing:
> >
He didn't even get that far. Oh dear.
Dirk Vdm
c48940ec-01d4-4e8c...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
> On Feb 23, 12:18 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > I'm going to explain something.
> > Forget for a moment what M' sees or measures.
> >
> > We (and M) see this in the drawing:
> >
> > 1) M' starts moving (at v) when a flash occurs behind him at A,
> > with speed c at distance L.
> > After some time T, the flash reaches him in the back.
> > He has then covered a distance v T.
> > So, the light signal has covered a distance L + v T.
> > But the light goes at c, so this distance is also c T.
> > So, algebraicly we have
> > L + v T = c T
>
> Right here is where you lost him. Rest will be ignored.
> > with speed c at distance L.
> > After some time T, the flash reaches him in the back.
> > He has then covered a distance v T.
> > So, the light signal has covered a distance L + v T.
> > But the light goes at c, so this distance is also c T.
> > So, algebraicly we have
> > L + v T = c T
>
He didn't even get that far. Oh dear.
Dirk Vdm
Message has been deleted
Bruce Richmond
Feb 26, 2012, 12:54:15 PM2/26/12
to
them.
> Does that mean that M is the preferred
> frame?
> Also what if M and M' is a light-hour apart, does your gedanken
> stll work?
asking a useless question as a distraction.
> Also what if e1 and e2 are lasers do M and M' still see
> them?
question as a distraction.
> The real gedanken is as follows:
> M measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame to be simultaneous at a
> time interval of L/c.
same time. A time interval is the time spanning the sepreation of two
points in time. There is no time interval seperating two simultaneous
events.
> M uses the LT to predict the time interval for
> the light fronts from identical events e1' and e2' in the M' frame to
> arrive at M' simultaneously as follows:
> Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
time intervals, it translates the spacetime coordinates of a single
event from one frame to another. The delta equations are not the LT.
> Notice in this gedanken it doesn't matter the location of M' wrt
> M....M uses the LT to calculate if identical events in the M' frame
>
> - Show quoted text -
If he actually uses the LT rather than the delta equations you keep
> - Show quoted text -
trying to use he would find that t' is different at the two events,
meaning that the events are not simultaneous in the train frame.
Message has been deleted
rotchm
Feb 26, 2012, 2:02:00 PM2/26/12
to
> So you are assuming that M is not moving wrt the light fronts and M'
> is moving wrt the light fronts?
The *sources* are perhaps not moving wrt M. The wavefronts are.
> is moving wrt the light fronts?
> Does that mean that M is the preferred frame?
gedanken as YOU posed. We call this frame the M frame or "the
ground".
Dont start changing the words around by calling it thee preferred
frame.
> Also what if M and M' is a light-hour apart, does your gedanken
> stll work?
> Also what if e1 and e2 are lasers do M and M' still see
> them?
EG: their detectors are transparent thin films.
> The real gedanken is as follows:
> M measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame to be simultaneous at a
> time interval of L/c.
language, it makes no sense. The expression "at a time interval"
makes
no sense; we dont know what you mean by it. Be respectful by
rephrasing it all in our common language.
papa...@gmail.com
Feb 26, 2012, 3:29:47 PM2/26/12
to
understand that.
You are asserting that if a boy with a flash light sends a light
signal to you, and a second boy is walking to you in the same line, he
will destroy the ligth signal and you will not be able to see any of
the light signal. That is what you are asserting and, of course, is
totally idiotic.
But, of course you are unable to understand any of this, and that is
the reason you are a waste!!
PD
Feb 26, 2012, 5:04:16 PM2/26/12
to
never read a SINGLE experimental paper about relativity. Not one.
> Just as there is no
> experiment that support the OWLS. RoS is an assumed concept. Its
> function is to explain the paradoxes of the constancy of the speed of
> light.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The following gedanken is doable experimentally and the result will
> > > refute the claim of RoS..
>
> > Then write up an experimental proposal and submit it for grant review.
> > Take their comments to heart, rewrite it to correct and resubmit.
>
ken...@att.net
Feb 26, 2012, 5:49:51 PM2/26/12
to
On Feb 26, 3:29 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 1:52 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 6:17 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You are the stupidiest of all stupids. Make your middle subject to
> > > walk towards you. Again appreciate how stupid is your assertion of
> > > information being "destroyed".
>
> > fUCKING IDIOT....IN eINSTEIN'S GEDANKEN HE ASSERTED THAT THE LIGHT
> > FRONTS MEET AT m' SIMULTANEOUSLY WILL CONTINUE ON TO METT m'.
> > Obviously the same pair of light fronts cannot hit M and M'. They must
> > be a different pair of light fronts. Also what if M and M' are a light
> > year apart will the same pair of light fronts still hit both of
> > them??? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
> We are not talking about Einstein´s gedanken. You are too stupid to
> understand that.
Fucking idiot....look at the title of this thread. Gee you are so
> On Feb 26, 1:52 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 6:17 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You are the stupidiest of all stupids. Make your middle subject to
> > > walk towards you. Again appreciate how stupid is your assertion of
> > > information being "destroyed".
>
> > fUCKING IDIOT....IN eINSTEIN'S GEDANKEN HE ASSERTED THAT THE LIGHT
> > FRONTS MEET AT m' SIMULTANEOUSLY WILL CONTINUE ON TO METT m'.
> > Obviously the same pair of light fronts cannot hit M and M'. They must
> > be a different pair of light fronts. Also what if M and M' are a light
> > year apart will the same pair of light fronts still hit both of
> > them??? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
> We are not talking about Einstein´s gedanken. You are too stupid to
> understand that.
fucking stupid
>
> You are asserting that if a boy with a flash light sends a light
> signal to you, and a second boy is walking to you in the same line, he
> will destroy the ligth signal and you will not be able to see any of
> the light signal. That is what you are asserting and, of course, is
> totally idiotic.
I did not assert such thing. It was you who asserted that. what if the
> signal to you, and a second boy is walking to you in the same line, he
> will destroy the ligth signal and you will not be able to see any of
> the light signal. That is what you are asserting and, of course, is
> totally idiotic.
light is a laser will he still aee it? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
PD
Feb 26, 2012, 5:02:41 PM2/26/12
to
relativity in your life. You lie through your teeth, and you know it.
> The following gedanken is doable experimentally and the result will
> refute the claim of RoS..
and submit it for publication to a half-dozen journals. Take the
reviewer comments to heart, revise the paper and resubmit it. This is
what EVERYONE in science does. You are no exception, unless you are a
coward.
rotchm
Feb 26, 2012, 6:06:10 PM2/26/12
to
> > You are asserting that if a boy with a flash light sends a light
> > signal to you, and a second boy is walking to you in the same line, he
> > will destroy the ligth signal and you will not be able to see any of
> > the light signal. That is what you are asserting and, of course, is
> > totally idiotic.
>
> I did not assert such thing.
Yes you did ken.
> > signal to you, and a second boy is walking to you in the same line, he
> > will destroy the ligth signal and you will not be able to see any of
> > the light signal. That is what you are asserting and, of course, is
> > totally idiotic.
>
> I did not assert such thing.
> what if the light is a laser will he still aee it?
He will see it if YOU posit it. If there is nothing in the laser/ray's
way, it will attain the observer.
Of someone blocks it, then it will not be seen. In the gedanken, the
light/laser/fronts ARE NO BLOCKED as POSITED in the setup. The signal/
light/etc can be detected by an observer without it being blocked for
other observers. E.g. The ray of light passing from outside, through
your window, to you, passes "in" the window THEN "into" your eyes.
The window "detects" the light THEN you detect it. Simple to
understand?
PD
Feb 26, 2012, 7:03:38 PM2/26/12
to
On Feb 26, 4:49 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> I did not assert such thing. It was you who asserted that. what if the
> light is a laser will he still aee it? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
Ken, you can always make the observers blind. That way, they wouldn't
>
> I did not assert such thing. It was you who asserted that. what if the
> light is a laser will he still aee it? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
be able to see anything from lasers or lightning flashes.
That way you could attempt to say relativity fails because the
gedanken doesn't work for blind people.
How desperate are you?
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/bozo.jpg
ken...@att.net
Feb 27, 2012, 9:48:18 AM2/27/12
to
Einstein had to invent a bogus gedanken to illustrate the concept of
RoS.
>
> > The following gedanken is doable experimentally and the result will
> > refute the claim of RoS..
>
> If you want an experiment to be done, then write up a paper about it
> and submit it for publication to a half-dozen journals. Take the
> reviewer comments to heart, revise the paper and resubmit it. This is
> what EVERYONE in science does. You are no exception, unless you are a
> coward.
ken...@att.net
Feb 27, 2012, 9:53:59 AM2/27/12
to
On Feb 26, 12:23 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> 5a80a379-23c7-4932-98a4-866ab59a7...@f30g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
realistic gedanken.
>
> Here below you got it all on a plate, and don't even dare to *begin to try*
> to understand it.
Your premise is based on the assertion that M' is a few nonometer away
from M and that's an impossble situation. M and M' are real human
being.
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> 5a80a379-23c7-4932-98a4-866ab59a7...@f30g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
>
> > On Feb 23, 1:18 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> > > ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote in message
> > > 07f8ada8-553b-423c-9a98-c6e1d97d7...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
> > > > On Feb 22, 10:09 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > > > <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.comnot> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The speed of light has no "closing velocities". That is nonsense.
>
> > OK....so what Einstein and PD said are nonsense.
>
> > > I'm going to explain something.
> > > Forget for a moment what M' sees or measures.
>
> > > We (and M) see this in the drawing:
>
> > The drawing does not represent the real picture. Why? Because it is
> > an impossible gedanken.
> > The real gedanken:
> > M measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame to be simultaneous
> > after a time interval of L/c when the events happened simultaneously. It
> > is irrelevant the position of M' wrt M.....M can use the LT to predict
> > the time interval of simultaneity of two identical events e1' and
> > e2' in the M' frame and the result is delta(t').
>
> You are a coward.
> You are a big coward.
> You are the biggest coward I have ever seen.
No you are the coward.....that's why you don't give any comment on my
> > On Feb 23, 1:18 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> > > ken...@att.net <seto...@att.net> wrote in message
> > > 07f8ada8-553b-423c-9a98-c6e1d97d7...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
> > > > On Feb 22, 10:09 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > > > <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.comnot> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The speed of light has no "closing velocities". That is nonsense.
>
> > OK....so what Einstein and PD said are nonsense.
>
> > > I'm going to explain something.
> > > Forget for a moment what M' sees or measures.
>
> > > We (and M) see this in the drawing:
>
> > The drawing does not represent the real picture. Why? Because it is
> > an impossible gedanken.
> > The real gedanken:
> > M measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame to be simultaneous
> > after a time interval of L/c when the events happened simultaneously. It
> > is irrelevant the position of M' wrt M.....M can use the LT to predict
> > the time interval of simultaneity of two identical events e1' and
> > e2' in the M' frame and the result is delta(t').
>
> You are a coward.
> You are a big coward.
> You are the biggest coward I have ever seen.
realistic gedanken.
>
> Here below you got it all on a plate, and don't even dare to *begin to try*
> to understand it.
from M and that's an impossble situation. M and M' are real human
being.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ken...@att.net
Feb 27, 2012, 10:08:22 AM2/27/12
to
On Feb 26, 7:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 4:49 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I did not assert such thing. It was you who asserted that. what if the
> > light is a laser will he still aee it? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
> Ken, you can always make the observers blind. That way, they wouldn't
> be able to see anything from lasers or lightning flashes.
> That way you could attempt to say relativity fails because the
> gedanken doesn't work for blind people.
Hey idiot in order for M to determine if the light rays arrive
> On Feb 26, 4:49 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I did not assert such thing. It was you who asserted that. what if the
> > light is a laser will he still aee it? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
> Ken, you can always make the observers blind. That way, they wouldn't
> be able to see anything from lasers or lightning flashes.
> That way you could attempt to say relativity fails because the
> gedanken doesn't work for blind people.
simultaneously he have to catch it in a detector. Now how can this
same pair of light rays continue on to hit M'?...the answer is they
can't. It is obvious to any intelligent human that a different light
pair of light fronts from the strikes hit M'. That means that the
assertion of RoS is not valid. The same pair of light rays did not
meet simultaneously at M and and continue on to meet at M'. M'.
ken...@att.net
Feb 27, 2012, 10:17:13 AM2/27/12
to
>
> > Does that mean that M is the preferred
> > frame?
>
> Nope.
>
> > Also what if M and M' is a light-hour apart, does your gedanken
> > stll work?
>
> There is no need for them to be a light hour apart so you are just
> asking a useless question as a distraction.
situations.
>
> > Also what if e1 and e2 are lasers do M and M' still see
> > them?
>
> Again, they do not need to be lasers so you are just asking a useless
> question as a distraction.
impossible.
>
> > The real gedanken is as follows:
> > M measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame to be simultaneous at a
> > time interval of L/c.
>
> Nope, you need to learn what words mean. Simultaneous means at the
> same time. A time interval is the time spanning the sepreation of two
> points in time. There is no time interval seperating two simultaneous
> events.
transit time for the light fronts form the strikes arrive at M
simultaneously.
>
> > M uses the LT to predict the time interval for
> > the light fronts from identical events e1' and e2' in the M' frame to
> > arrive at M' simultaneously as follows:
> > Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
>
He doesn't use what word? My gedanken is universal and it can be
tested universally.
-
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
ken...@att.net
Feb 27, 2012, 10:18:58 AM2/27/12
to
of RoS. It is based on false assumptions....such as the train
gedanken.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Just as there is no
> > experiment that support the OWLS. RoS is an assumed concept. Its
> > function is to explain the paradoxes of the constancy of the speed of
> > light.
>
> > > > The following gedanken is doable experimentally and the result will
> > > > refute the claim of RoS..
>
> > > Then write up an experimental proposal and submit it for grant review.
> > > Take their comments to heart, rewrite it to correct and resubmit.
>
> Do it.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
> > Just as there is no
> > experiment that support the OWLS. RoS is an assumed concept. Its
> > function is to explain the paradoxes of the constancy of the speed of
> > light.
>
> > > > The following gedanken is doable experimentally and the result will
> > > > refute the claim of RoS..
>
> > > Then write up an experimental proposal and submit it for grant review.
> > > Take their comments to heart, rewrite it to correct and resubmit.
>
rotchm
Feb 27, 2012, 11:20:40 AM2/27/12
to
> Hey idiot in order for M to determine if the light rays arrive
> simultaneously he have to catch it in a detector. Now how can this
> same pair of light rays continue on to hit M'?...
This was explained to you many times and dont hide from it; we know
> simultaneously he have to catch it in a detector. Now how can this
> same pair of light rays continue on to hit M'?...
you saw the explanations but you are too much of a coward to reply to
an answer that stumped you. In YOUR own words, back to you: " No you
are the coward.....that's why you don't give any comment on my
realistic gedanken."
ere is th explanation again: The detector need not be opaque. It does
realistic gedanken."
not need to stop completely the light/pulse/EM/photon. The detector
can be a transparent window, a transparent thin film, DuH.
> the answer is they can't.
rotchm
Feb 27, 2012, 11:25:43 AM2/27/12
to
> > Nope, you need to learn what words mean. Simultaneous means at
the
> > same time. A time interval is the time spanning the sepreation of two
> > points in time. There is no time interval seperating two simultaneous
> > events.
>
> ROTFLOL....pot calling the kettle black. The time interval is the
> transit time for the light fronts form the strikes arrive at M
> simultaneously.
You need to learn what the words mean. A "time interval" is NOT
the
> > same time. A time interval is the time spanning the sepreation of two
> > points in time. There is no time interval seperating two simultaneous
> > events.
>
> ROTFLOL....pot calling the kettle black. The time interval is the
> transit time for the light fronts form the strikes arrive at M
> simultaneously.
"time".
The "transit time" between TWO events does NOT give the "time" at
which the events occurred.
PD
Feb 27, 2012, 11:30:28 AM2/27/12
to
relativity would ever make such an idiotic claim.
You are not sane.
PD
Feb 27, 2012, 11:28:55 AM2/27/12
to
On Feb 27, 9:08 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 7:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 4:49 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > I did not assert such thing. It was you who asserted that. what if the
> > > light is a laser will he still aee it? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
> > Ken, you can always make the observers blind. That way, they wouldn't
> > be able to see anything from lasers or lightning flashes.
> > That way you could attempt to say relativity fails because the
> > gedanken doesn't work for blind people.
>
> Hey idiot in order for M to determine if the light rays arrive
> simultaneously he have to catch it in a detector. Now how can this
> same pair of light rays continue on to hit M'?.
A light front is not a light ray.
> On Feb 26, 7:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 4:49 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > I did not assert such thing. It was you who asserted that. what if the
> > > light is a laser will he still aee it? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
> > Ken, you can always make the observers blind. That way, they wouldn't
> > be able to see anything from lasers or lightning flashes.
> > That way you could attempt to say relativity fails because the
> > gedanken doesn't work for blind people.
>
> Hey idiot in order for M to determine if the light rays arrive
> simultaneously he have to catch it in a detector. Now how can this
> same pair of light rays continue on to hit M'?.
When a lightning bolt strikes, how do two people in different rooms
see the same light front? Obviously one light ray does not hit two
different rooms. But a light front does.
You're an idiot. You don't even know what physics terms mean. And when
you don't, you assume idiotic things. Just anything you can
desperately cling to, just to try to find something wrong with a
gedanken.
Dirk Van de moortel
Feb 27, 2012, 12:13:22 PM2/27/12
to
a60fc7ac-f770-44f0...@f5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
Not only are you an incredible coward.
First of all you are the most stupid person on this entire newsgroup.
> that's why you don't give any comment on
> my realistic gedanken.
You got the comment, but you are too stupid to even notice it.
>
> >
> > Here below you got it all on a plate, and don't even dare to
> > *begin to try* to understand it.
>
> Your premise is based on the assertion that M' is a few nonometer
> away from M and that's an impossble situation. M and M' are real
> human being.
"Impossible nonometer":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImpossibleNonometer.html
Dirk Vdm
First of all you are the most stupid person on this entire newsgroup.
> that's why you don't give any comment on
> my realistic gedanken.
>
> >
> > Here below you got it all on a plate, and don't even dare to
> > *begin to try* to understand it.
>
> Your premise is based on the assertion that M' is a few nonometer
> away from M and that's an impossble situation. M and M' are real
> human being.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImpossibleNonometer.html
Dirk Vdm
rotchm
Feb 27, 2012, 12:50:29 PM2/27/12
to
> Not only are you an incredible coward.
> First of all you are the most stupid person on this entire newsgroup.
I second that. He is even dumber that the least bright light in his
> First of all you are the most stupid person on this entire newsgroup.
household.
I recently contacted his kin advising them on ken's detrimental
activities here. The are aware of his failing mental health and are
taking steps to limit his internet activities. They also told me that
they are in the works to institutionalize him soon...never soon
enough !
> > that's why you don't give any comment on
> > my realistic gedanken.
>
> You got the comment, but you are too stupid to even notice it.
them. Although he doesnt know how to operate a video session, I am
amazed that he still knows how to use a keyboard! But he will slowly
loose this capacity too!
rotchm
Feb 27, 2012, 12:56:15 PM2/27/12
to
> M and M' are real human being.
No idiot ken, they are NOT real human beings. You need to learn the
meaning of the words used.
M and M' represent observers which mean detectors; devices that do not
interfere and that log the coordinates (time) of the event.
Go read a few physics and SR books. Do the problems/exercises therein.
When you correctly get 50% of the answers, then come back to this NG.
Till then, GET OUT OF HERE. You are a irrespectfull dishonest coward.
We dont want you here anymore.
PD
Feb 27, 2012, 1:07:48 PM2/27/12
to
Do something, or decide not to do it. Bitching about wanting something
but complaining that it will never happen accomplishes nothing. If you
want to be remembered for ineffectual whining, Ken, then I'd say you
have a lock on ineffectual whining.
Bruce Richmond
Feb 27, 2012, 6:15:17 PM2/27/12
to
On Feb 27, 10:17 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 12:54 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 11:41 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 10:42 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 26, 9:18 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 26, 8:36 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
> On Feb 26, 12:54 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 11:41 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 10:42 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 26, 9:18 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 26, 8:36 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > A' M' B'
> > > > e1 e2
> > > > A M B
>
> > > > M and M' face each other from 1 meter apart. E1 is 10 kilometers away
> > > > from M. If M' wasn't moving he wave front from e1 would reach him at
> > > > the same time as M. If M moves to the right it will take longer for
> > > > the front to reach him than M. M is not blocking the front from e1
> > > > from reaching M'. Now can we discuss the experiment or are you going
> > > > to keep making lame excuses not to?-
>
> > > So you are assuming that M is not moving wrt the light fronts and M'
> > > is moving wrt the light fronts?
>
> > Nope, I am saying that the light front is moving relative to both of
> > them.
>
> So how can M sees the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously?
>
the fronts travel the same distance and arrive at M at the same
instant they were emitted simultaneously. It was specified that this
would happen for this gedanken.
>
> > > Does that mean that M is the preferred
> > > frame?
>
> > Nope.
>
> Yes ....because M see the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously.
>
preferred frame.
>
> > > Also what if M and M' is a light-hour apart, does your gedanken
> > > stll work?
>
> > There is no need for them to be a light hour apart so you are just
> > asking a useless question as a distraction.
>
> So there is a need .....the gedanken must be able to include all
> situations.
>
>
> > > Also what if e1 and e2 are lasers do M and M' still see
> > > them?
>
> > Again, they do not need to be lasers so you are just asking a useless
> > question as a distraction.
>
> No I am asking question to illustrate Einstein's geadnken is
> impossible.
>
The way Einstein set it up works just fine.
>
> > > The real gedanken is as follows:
> > > M measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame to be simultaneous at a
> > > time interval of L/c.
>
> > Nope, you need to learn what words mean. Simultaneous means at the
> > same time. A time interval is the time spanning the sepreation of two
> > points in time. There is no time interval seperating two simultaneous
> > events.
>
> ROTFLOL....pot calling the kettle black. The time interval is the
> transit time for the light fronts form the strikes arrive at M
> simultaneously.
>
end time. Simultaneous means at the same time. You cannot have a
simultaneous interval.
>
> > > M uses the LT to predict the time interval for
> > > the light fronts from identical events e1' and e2' in the M' frame to
> > > arrive at M' simultaneously as follows:
> > > Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
>
> > No, he doesn't use the- Hide quoted text
>
> He doesn't use what word? My gedanken is universal and it can be
> tested universally.
> -
"No, he doesn't use the LT to do that because the LT doesn't deal
with
time intervals, it translates the spacetime coordinates of a single
event from one frame to another. The delta equations are not the LT."
"If he actually uses the LT rather than the delta equations you keep
trying to use he would find that t' is different at the two events,
meaning that the events are not simultaneous in the train frame."
ken...@att.net
Feb 28, 2012, 8:38:32 AM2/28/12
to
> simultaneous interval.
Hey idiot....the gedanken specified that e1 and e2 happened
simultaneously....and the distance betweem M' and the events is L.
Therefore the light fronts meet simultaneously at M after a time of L/
c.
>
>
>
> > > > M uses the LT to predict the time interval for
> > > > the light fronts from identical events e1' and e2' in the M' frame to
> > > > arrive at M' simultaneously as follows:
> > > > Delta(t') = gamma[(L/c) - v*L/c^2]
>
> > > No, he doesn't use the- Hide quoted text
>
> > He doesn't use what word? My gedanken is universal and it can be
> > tested universally.
> > -
>
> If you had clicked on "read more" you could have read
>
> "No, he doesn't use the LT to do that because the LT doesn't deal
> with
> time intervals, it translates the spacetime coordinates of a single
> event from one frame to another. The delta equations are not the LT."
>
> and
>
> "If he actually uses the LT rather than the delta equations you keep
> trying to use he would find that t' is different at the two events,
> meaning that the events are not simultaneous in the train frame."
>
No idiot....delta(t') is the same for both events in the M' frame.
> and
>
> "If he actually uses the LT rather than the delta equations you keep
> trying to use he would find that t' is different at the two events,
> meaning that the events are not simultaneous in the train frame."
>
ken...@att.net
Feb 28, 2012, 8:44:45 AM2/28/12
to
On Feb 27, 12:13 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> a60fc7ac-f770-44f0-95a3-0c7498d41...@f5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
ROTFLOLL....pot kettle black
>
> > that's why you don't give any comment on
> > my realistic gedanken.
>
> You got the comment, but you are too stupid to even notice it.
No....your math manipulation by inserting a (-) sign in front of L but
not in front of L/c is bogus. Gee you are stupid.
> a60fc7ac-f770-44f0-95a3-0c7498d41...@f5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>
> > that's why you don't give any comment on
> > my realistic gedanken.
>
> You got the comment, but you are too stupid to even notice it.
not in front of L/c is bogus. Gee you are stupid.
>
>
>
> > > Here below you got it all on a plate, and don't even dare to
> > > *begin to try* to understand it.
>
> > Your premise is based on the assertion that M' is a few nonometer
> > away from M and that's an impossble situation. M and M' are real
> > human being.
>
> "Impossible nonometer":
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImpossibleNono...
>
>
> > > Here below you got it all on a plate, and don't even dare to
> > > *begin to try* to understand it.
>
> > Your premise is based on the assertion that M' is a few nonometer
> > away from M and that's an impossble situation. M and M' are real
> > human being.
>
> "Impossible nonometer":
ken...@att.net
Feb 28, 2012, 8:41:16 AM2/28/12
to
On Feb 27, 11:28 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 9:08 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 7:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 4:49 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I did not assert such thing. It was you who asserted that. what if the
> > > > light is a laser will he still aee it? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
> > > Ken, you can always make the observers blind. That way, they wouldn't
> > > be able to see anything from lasers or lightning flashes.
> > > That way you could attempt to say relativity fails because the
> > > gedanken doesn't work for blind people.
>
> > Hey idiot in order for M to determine if the light rays arrive
> > simultaneously he have to catch it in a detector. Now how can this
> > same pair of light rays continue on to hit M'?.
>
> A light front is not a light ray.
So that means that the pair of light rays meet at M simultaneously is
> On Feb 27, 9:08 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 7:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 4:49 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I did not assert such thing. It was you who asserted that. what if the
> > > > light is a laser will he still aee it? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
> > > Ken, you can always make the observers blind. That way, they wouldn't
> > > be able to see anything from lasers or lightning flashes.
> > > That way you could attempt to say relativity fails because the
> > > gedanken doesn't work for blind people.
>
> > Hey idiot in order for M to determine if the light rays arrive
> > simultaneously he have to catch it in a detector. Now how can this
> > same pair of light rays continue on to hit M'?.
>
> A light front is not a light ray.
not the same pair of light rays that meet at M' simultaneously. That's
why RoS is bogus. Gee you are stupid.
>
> When a lightning bolt strikes, how do two people in different rooms
> see the same light front? Obviously one light ray does not hit two
> different rooms. But a light front does.
>
> You're an idiot. You don't even know what physics terms mean. And when
> you don't, you assume idiotic things. Just anything you can
> desperately cling to, just to try to find something wrong with a
> gedanken.
>
>
>
> >..the answer is they
> > can't. It is obvious to any intelligent human that a different light
> > pair of light fronts from the strikes hit M'. That means that the
> > assertion of RoS is not valid. The same pair of light rays did not
> > meet simultaneously at M and and continue on to meet at M'. M'.
>
> > > How desperate are you?
>
ken...@att.net
Feb 28, 2012, 8:48:45 AM2/28/12
to
to die off before anything can happen. I did my part.....my website
will be maintained after I die.
>
> Do something, or decide not to do it. Bitching about wanting something
> but complaining that it will never happen accomplishes nothing. If you
> want to be remembered for ineffectual whining, Ken, then I'd say you
PD
Feb 28, 2012, 9:28:37 AM2/28/12
to
unappreciated and suppressed in life, but that your name will be
redeemed when your "lost work" is discovered after you die, and that
your descendents will bask in your post-mortem glory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
40 points for item 34.
40 more points for item 36.
Recognize yourself?
PD
Feb 28, 2012, 9:29:36 AM2/28/12
to
On 2/28/2012 7:41 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> On Feb 27, 11:28 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 9:08 am, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 26, 7:03 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 26, 4:49 pm, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I did not assert such thing. It was you who asserted that. what if the
>>>>> light is a laser will he still aee it? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>
>>>> Ken, you can always make the observers blind. That way, they wouldn't
>>>> be able to see anything from lasers or lightning flashes.
>>>> That way you could attempt to say relativity fails because the
>>>> gedanken doesn't work for blind people.
>>
>>> Hey idiot in order for M to determine if the light rays arrive
>>> simultaneously he have to catch it in a detector. Now how can this
>>> same pair of light rays continue on to hit M'?.
>>
>> A light front is not a light ray.
>
> So that means that the pair of light rays meet at M simultaneously is
> not the same pair of light rays that meet at M' simultaneously. That's
> why RoS is bogus. Gee you are stupid.
But the light *fronts* are the same.
> On Feb 27, 11:28 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 9:08 am, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 26, 7:03 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 26, 4:49 pm, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I did not assert such thing. It was you who asserted that. what if the
>>>>> light is a laser will he still aee it? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>
>>>> Ken, you can always make the observers blind. That way, they wouldn't
>>>> be able to see anything from lasers or lightning flashes.
>>>> That way you could attempt to say relativity fails because the
>>>> gedanken doesn't work for blind people.
>>
>>> Hey idiot in order for M to determine if the light rays arrive
>>> simultaneously he have to catch it in a detector. Now how can this
>>> same pair of light rays continue on to hit M'?.
>>
>> A light front is not a light ray.
>
> So that means that the pair of light rays meet at M simultaneously is
> not the same pair of light rays that meet at M' simultaneously. That's
> why RoS is bogus. Gee you are stupid.
You cannot read.
>
>>
>> When a lightning bolt strikes, how do two people in different rooms
>> see the same light front? Obviously one light ray does not hit two
>> different rooms. But a light front does.
>>
>> You're an idiot. You don't even know what physics terms mean. And when
>> you don't, you assume idiotic things. Just anything you can
>> desperately cling to, just to try to find something wrong with a
>> gedanken.
>>
rotchm
Feb 28, 2012, 11:05:13 AM2/28/12
to
> Hey idiot....the gedanken specified that e1 and e2 happened
> simultaneously....
> and the distance betweem M' and the events is L.
> Therefore the light fronts meet simultaneously at M after a time of L/
> c.
does not follow. It is meaningless and we have no idea what you mean
by it. You need to learn how to communicate and write well. Do you
mean M or M'? If M', but does not M' move?
> No idiot....delta(t') is the same for both events in the M' frame.
write well. We have no idea what it means.Do you mean that each event
has the same delta? or do you mean that the pair of events produces
one delta and that it is the same (value) in each frame?
PD
Feb 28, 2012, 11:09:57 AM2/28/12
to
On Feb 28, 10:05 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This sentence is meaningless. You need to learn how to communicate and
> write well. We have no idea what it means.Do you mean that each event
> has the same delta? or do you mean that the pair of events produces
> one delta and that it is the same (value) in each frame?
Ken doesn't know what delta(t) means.
>
> This sentence is meaningless. You need to learn how to communicate and
> write well. We have no idea what it means.Do you mean that each event
> has the same delta? or do you mean that the pair of events produces
> one delta and that it is the same (value) in each frame?
Part of him says it's the time between the creation of the light at
the source and the arrival of the light at the observer. Part of him
says it's the difference in time between the arrival of the two
flashes at the observer. He can't remember from one sentence to the
next which he means, and so of course whatever he says on this is
going to make no sense.
rotchm
Feb 28, 2012, 11:12:07 AM2/28/12
to
> So that means that the pair of light rays meet at M simultaneously is
> not the same pair of light rays that meet at M' simultaneously.
It is not the rays but the light FRONTS, the pair of pulses, the pair
> not the same pair of light rays that meet at M' simultaneously.
of photons. You need to learn how to write and to communicate if you
want to be understood.
The pair of light fronts meet M simul. This pair of light fronts do
not meet M' simul since M' ha moved out of the way and is no longer
"there" where M is.
>That's why RoS is bogus.
sense of, they are wrong.
>Gee you are stupid.
If I, PD, Bruce, DvDM, your family, etc say that you are stupid, then
so many people cant be wrong! YOU are stupid idiot ken.
rotchm
Feb 28, 2012, 11:18:32 AM2/28/12
to
> No....your math manipulation by inserting a (-) sign in front of L but
> not in front of L/c is bogus. Gee you are stupid.
Idiot ken, it is YOU that put a (-) sign in front of the (L)
> not in front of L/c is bogus. Gee you are stupid.
(x_coord_e1). But for some strange reason, when you want to us this -L
in the formulas, you magically drop the (-). Why do you drop it idiot
ken? -5 = -5. -5 <> 5.
Here, lets see if you can do this simple exercise:
F(x,t) := t - x
What is F(3,-5) = ?
rotchm
Feb 28, 2012, 11:24:11 AM2/28/12
to
> I did my part.....my website
> will be maintained after I die.
No it wont. I will remove it.
> will be maintained after I die.
Btw, you were quick to write an open letter concerning your false
claim that I am DdH.
Now that you know you erred on this, where is the open apology to him
and to ME?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages