On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:34:34 AM UTC-5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

The relativity of simultaneity is a self-contradictory idea, so it is not a paradox. A paradox is something that is apparently contradictory but not really contradictory.

To Dear Laurence Clark Crossen

If you admit relativity of simultaneity is a self-contradictory idea, I am happy enough.
But paradox is eye-catching.

Also, paradox could mean self-contradictory . see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox

Jack

On 4/28/2023 11:00 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:29:33 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
>> On 4/28/2023 12:15 PM, Jack Liu wrote:

>>> It is so ridiculous to think Relativity revolution has overthrow the absolute time while Einstein himself trust absolute time.

>> No, Einstein never uses absolute time. It's called the Theory of
>> RELATIVITY, in part because time is relative, not absolute.
>>
>> If you believe the 1905 paper or any of Einstein's gedankens use
>> absolute time, you simply don't understand them.

> Einstein did not use relativity in his relativity paper. That would be circular.
> He used Newtonian mechanics plus the second postulate to draw some conclusions.

That's right. From his postulates and simple relationships, he DERIVED
relativity and time dilation/length contraction.

> Time stands still for the surfer and he can never travel faster than the wave.

Surfer? A physical object moving at c? Einstein stated that would not be
possible because of infinities.
>
> But he can hit a surfboard at 2c

There are no surfboards moving at 2c.

On 4/29/2023 8:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:54:41 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
>> On 4/28/2023 10:56 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
>>>>>> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
>>>>>
>>>>> Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
>>>>> both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
>>>> Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
>>>> contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.
>>>>
>>>> Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
>>>> Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
>>>> is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
>>>> embankment at the rear.
>>>>
>>>> Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
>>>> the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
>>>> reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
>>>> actually happen.
>>>>
>>>> What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
>>>> the strike on the rear.
>>>>
>>>> What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
>>>> the strike on the front.
>>>>
>>>> No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
>>>> finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
>>>> simultaneity of the lightning strikes.
>>>
>>> This is because the person closer to the lightning strikes sees it first.
>> The point is the three observers all disagree which strike happened
>> first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.
>>>
>>> The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.
>> I never mentioned anyone on the train!
>>>
> You are right of course. So what does this all mean?
>
> Why does Einstein use this example?

Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.

This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't
require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.

Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what
happened there 66 million years ago.

Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years
ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither
intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved.
Yet there still is this puzzle.

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:28:43 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

> >
> > Why does Einstein use this example?
> Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.
>
> This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
> reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
> this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't
> require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.
>
> Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
> the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
> let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what
> happened there 66 million years ago.
>
> Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
> evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
> image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years
> ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither
> intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
> is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
> planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved.
> Yet there still is this puzzle.

It doesn't matter whether the distant planets are in relative motion or not.. The key is the distance between the two. Minkowski geometry has shown that the essence of the space-time relationship in the theory of relativity only involves the speed of light and displacement. Speed is of no immediate importance.

Le 29/04/2023 à 16:33, Jack Liu a écrit :

> Dear R.H.
>
> 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²) is the factor for two Coordinate Systems departing from each
> other, which Einstein and Poincaré had considered.

> 1/sqrt(1+v²/c²) is the factor for two Coordinate Systems approaching each
> other, which Einstein and Poincaré had not considered.

No, no.

The direction of the speed does not intervene in the bathmotropy.

In any case, we always have g=1/sqrt(1-v²/c²).

But this direction intervenes effectively in the anisotropy,
and you have to write:
Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

Let Vapp=Vo/(1-Vo/c) if the object is approaching, and Vapp=Vo/(1+Vo/c) if
the object moves away directly in the line of sight.
>
> 1/sqrt(1+v²/c²) can be derived mathematically like1/sqrt(1-v²/c²). My book
> derives them using two different methods, although my derivations are limited to
> the high school math level.
>
> See Chapter Seven for the derivation process.
> https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
>
> Jack
>
> ****************************************************************************************

R.H.

Jack Liu wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:28:43 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Why does Einstein use this example?
>> Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.
>>
>> This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
>> reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
>> this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't
>> require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.
>>
>> Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
>> the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
>> let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what
>> happened there 66 million years ago.
>>
>> Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
>> evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
>> image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years
>> ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither
>> intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
>> is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
>> planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved.
>> Yet there still is this puzzle.
>
> It doesn't matter whether the distant planets are in relative motion or not. The key is the distance between the two. Minkowski geometry has shown that the essence of the space-time relationship in the theory of relativity only involves the speed of light and displacement. Speed is of no immediate importance.

This is plain wrong. In Minkowski's geometry relative speed
(or "rapidity" if you pick the hyperbolic rotations point
of view) is the main (the only one actually...) parameter defining
coordinates transformations equations.

And, in mathematics, transformation equations (and
the invariant associated to them) IS defining the geometry.

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:37:02 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 29/04/2023 à 16:33, Jack Liu a écrit :
>
> > Dear R.H.
> >
> > 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²) is the factor for two Coordinate Systems departing from each
> > other, which Einstein and Poincaré had considered.
>
>
> > 1/sqrt(1+v²/c²) is the factor for two Coordinate Systems approaching each
> > other, which Einstein and Poincaré had not considered.
> No, no.
>
> The direction of the speed does not intervene in the bathmotropy.
>
> In any case, we always have g=1/sqrt(1-v²/c²).
>
> But this direction intervenes effectively in the anisotropy,
> and you have to write:
> Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
>
> Let Vapp=Vo/(1-Vo/c) if the object is approaching, and Vapp=Vo/(1+Vo/c) if
> the object moves away directly in the line of sight.
> >

Dear R.H.

What I want to explain is that the speed itself is not important; the displacement is important, which affects the time of information transmission. The direction of velocity affects displacement differently: Velocity in the positive direction increases displacement, while velocity in the opposite direction decreases displacement.

For the detailed derivation process, it is not convenient to demonstrate here, please refer to my book for two different method with same conclusion 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²) for two approaching frames .

Jack

On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 17:38:52 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Jack Liu wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:28:43 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> Why does Einstein use this example?
> >> Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.
> >>
> >> This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
> >> reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
> >> this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't
> >> require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.
> >>
> >> Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
> >> the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
> >> let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what
> >> happened there 66 million years ago.
> >>
> >> Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
> >> evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
> >> image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years
> >> ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither
> >> intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
> >> is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
> >> planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved.
> >> Yet there still is this puzzle.
> >
> > It doesn't matter whether the distant planets are in relative motion or not. The key is the distance between the two. Minkowski geometry has shown that the essence of the space-time relationship in the theory of relativity only involves the speed of light and displacement. Speed is of no immediate importance.
> This is plain wrong. In Minkowski's geometry relative speed
> (or "rapidity" if you pick the hyperbolic rotations point
> of view) is the main (the only one actually...) parameter defining
> coordinates transformations equations.
>
> And, in mathematics, transformation equations (and

and speaking of mathematics - it's always good to remind
that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest,
very important part false, as it didn't want to fit your
madness.

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:12:47 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 17:38:52 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> > Jack Liu wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:28:43 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>> Why does Einstein use this example?
> > >> Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.
> > >>
> > >> This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
> > >> reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
> > >> this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't
> > >> require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.
> > >>
> > >> Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
> > >> the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
> > >> let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what
> > >> happened there 66 million years ago.
> > >>
> > >> Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
> > >> evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
> > >> image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years
> > >> ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither
> > >> intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
> > >> is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
> > >> planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved.
> > >> Yet there still is this puzzle.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter whether the distant planets are in relative motion or not. The key is the distance between the two. Minkowski geometry has shown that the essence of the space-time relationship in the theory of relativity only involves the speed of light and displacement. Speed is of no immediate importance.
> > This is plain wrong. In Minkowski's geometry relative speed
> > (or "rapidity" if you pick the hyperbolic rotations point
> > of view) is the main (the only one actually...) parameter defining
> > coordinates transformations equations.
> >
> > And, in mathematics, transformation equations (and
> and speaking of mathematics - it's always good to remind
> that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest,
> very important part false, as it didn't want to fit your
> madness.

Where light arrives together in space time there is a simultaneity appearance.

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:45:20 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > > Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
> > > >
> > > > How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
> > > > The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
> > > > According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.
> > > >
> > > > His Conclusion is against his premise !!!
> > > >
> > > > Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
> > > >
> > > > for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
> > > >
> > > I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
> > > Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special
> > > relativity to the world.
> > The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work,
> > "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book,
> > Einstein translated the formal presentation of his paper into
> > terms more easily grasped by a wide audience.
> >
> > To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the
> > first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
> > I struggled with the question,
> >
> > | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
> > | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
> > | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
> > | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
> > | different times?
> > |
> > | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results? Is
> > | this possibly a paradox that invalidates the gedanken?
> >
> > It took me years before I worked out the answer.
> >
> > 1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper
> > distance between the lightning strikes.
> > 2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz-
> > contracted so that its length is the same as the distance
> > between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in
> > the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
> > 3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning
> > strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
> > length of the train, which of course when measured in the
> > frame of the train is its proper length.
> >
> > Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can
> > miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several
> > times before you see everything.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
> There is no mention of length contraction in the book.
>
> The experiment no longer bothers me because it is an exact description of what would happen if there is an Aether in the frame of the tracks.
>
> At least agree on this.

Absolutely not. Aether theories of the sort that you envision
predict that the train observer would predict variation in the
one-way speed of light coming at him from different directions.

Note that measurement of *variation* in the one-way speed of
light in different directions does not require being able to
measure the actual *value* of the one-way speed of light.

No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,
(1) given that he is in the *middle* of the train and that (2)
light moves at the same speed whether coming from the
front of the train or the back, and (3) light arrives at his spot
at different times, is that (4) the lightning strikes did not
occur at the same time.

Which, of course, contradicts the conclusion of the observer
on the embankment.

On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 01:52:00 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
> will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
> to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,

A gedanken observer has only one posibility, indeed -
to obey, agree and confirm any delusion his creator
invented.

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:11:28 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
> On 4/28/2023 11:00 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:29:33 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
> >> On 4/28/2023 12:15 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
>
> >>> It is so ridiculous to think Relativity revolution has overthrow the absolute time while Einstein himself trust absolute time.
>
> >> No, Einstein never uses absolute time. It's called the Theory of
> >> RELATIVITY, in part because time is relative, not absolute.
> >>
> >> If you believe the 1905 paper or any of Einstein's gedankens use
> >> absolute time, you simply don't understand them.
>
> > Einstein did not use relativity in his relativity paper. That would be circular.
> > He used Newtonian mechanics plus the second postulate to draw some conclusions.
> That's right. From his postulates and simple relationships, he DERIVED
> relativity and time dilation/length contraction.

We agree!

> > Time stands still for the surfer and he can never travel faster than the wave.
> Surfer? A physical object moving at c? Einstein stated that would not be
> possible because of infinities.
> >
> > But he can hit a surfboard at 2c
> There are no surfboards moving at 2c.

Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are chasing
a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave equation does
not apply. So you make up a theory. Nothing travels faster than a wave.
Because the equation says so.

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:28:43 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
> On 4/29/2023 8:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:54:41 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
> >> On 4/28/2023 10:56 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> >>>>>> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
> >>>>> both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
> >>>> Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
> >>>> contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.
> >>>>
> >>>> Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
> >>>> Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
> >>>> is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
> >>>> embankment at the rear.
> >>>>
> >>>> Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
> >>>> the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
> >>>> reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
> >>>> actually happen.
> >>>>
> >>>> What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
> >>>> the strike on the rear.
> >>>>
> >>>> What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
> >>>> the strike on the front.
> >>>>
> >>>> No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
> >>>> finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
> >>>> simultaneity of the lightning strikes.
> >>>
> >>> This is because the person closer to the lightning strikes sees it first.
> >> The point is the three observers all disagree which strike happened
> >> first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.
> >>>
> >>> The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.
> >> I never mentioned anyone on the train!
> >>>
> > You are right of course. So what does this all mean?
> >
> > Why does Einstein use this example?
> Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.
>
> This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
> reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
> this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't
> require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.
>
> Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
> the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
> let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what
> happened there 66 million years ago.
>
> Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
> evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
> image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years
> ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither
> intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
> is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
> planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved.
> Yet there still is this puzzle.

There is no problem with this scenario. If you can't see it, you do not know.
If sun blinked out you would not know for 8 minutes. Is it now or then?

On 4/30/23 1:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are
> chasing a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave
> equation does not apply.

That just means you did not "create" a wave equation that remains valid
in your scenario.

Note the equation given in virtually all textbooks for water waves is
valid ONLY in the rest frame of the water. So it's no surprise it
doesn't work in your scenario.

Tom Roberts

On 4/30/2023 2:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:11:28 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
>> On 4/28/2023 11:00 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> Time stands still for the surfer and he can never travel faster than the wave.
>> Surfer? A physical object moving at c? Einstein stated that would not be
>> possible because of infinities.
>>>
>>> But he can hit a surfboard at 2c
>> There are no surfboards moving at 2c.
>
> Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are chasing
> a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave equation does
> not apply. So you make up a theory. Nothing travels faster than a wave.
> Because the equation says so.

And how is this (a speed in a medium) relevant to the speed of light?
BTW reductio ad absurdum proofs are considered valid. Your example looks
like one.

On 4/30/2023 2:45 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:28:43 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
>> On 4/29/2023 8:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:54:41 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:56 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
>>>>>>>> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
>>>>>>> both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
>>>>>> Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
>>>>>> contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
>>>>>> Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
>>>>>> is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
>>>>>> embankment at the rear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
>>>>>> the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
>>>>>> reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
>>>>>> actually happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
>>>>>> the strike on the rear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
>>>>>> the strike on the front.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
>>>>>> finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
>>>>>> simultaneity of the lightning strikes.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is because the person closer to the lightning strikes sees it first.
>>>> The point is the three observers all disagree which strike happened
>>>> first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>> The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.
>>>> I never mentioned anyone on the train!
>>>>>
>>> You are right of course. So what does this all mean?
>>>
>>> Why does Einstein use this example?
>> Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.
>>
>> This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
>> reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
>> this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't
>> require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.
>>
>> Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
>> the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
>> let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what
>> happened there 66 million years ago.
>>
>> Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
>> evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
>> image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years
>> ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither
>> intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
>> is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
>> planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved.
>> Yet there still is this puzzle.
>
> There is no problem with this scenario. If you can't see it, you do not know.
> If sun blinked out you would not know for 8 minutes. Is it now or then?

That's the relativity of simultaneity. From observations, I can say
their dinosaurs just got wiped out just now, while our dinosaurs got
wiped out 66 million years ago. Meanwhile, they can say our dinosaurs
got wiped out just now (they witnessed it!) while their dinosaurs got
wiped out 66 million years ago. Relativity of simultaneity, strictly
from distance and a constant speed of light.

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:17:41 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/30/23 1:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are
> > chasing a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave
> > equation does not apply.
> That just means you did not "create" a wave equation that remains valid
> in your scenario.
>
> Note the equation given in virtually all textbooks for water waves is
> valid ONLY in the rest frame of the water. So it's no surprise it
> doesn't work in your scenario.
>
> Tom Roberts

The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of Aether!

No wonder it does not work in the rest frame of nothing. Einstein's harmonization process with the knowledge base that was 100 years behind us now.

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:52:00 AM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:45:20 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > > On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > > > Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
> > > > >
> > > > > How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
> > > > > The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
> > > > > According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.
> > > > >
> > > > > His Conclusion is against his premise !!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
> > > > >
> > > > > for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
> > > > >
> > > > I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
> > > > Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special
> > > > relativity to the world.
> > > The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work,
> > > "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book,
> > > Einstein translated the formal presentation of his paper into
> > > terms more easily grasped by a wide audience.
> > >
> > > To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the
> > > first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
> > > I struggled with the question,
> > >
> > > | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
> > > | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
> > > | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
> > > | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
> > > | different times?
> > > |
> > > | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results? Is
> > > | this possibly a paradox that invalidates the gedanken?
> > >
> > > It took me years before I worked out the answer.
> > >
> > > 1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper
> > > distance between the lightning strikes.
> > > 2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz-
> > > contracted so that its length is the same as the distance
> > > between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in
> > > the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
> > > 3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning
> > > strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
> > > length of the train, which of course when measured in the
> > > frame of the train is its proper length.
> > >
> > > Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can
> > > miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several
> > > times before you see everything.
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
> > There is no mention of length contraction in the book.
> >
> > The experiment no longer bothers me because it is an exact description of what would happen if there is an Aether in the frame of the tracks.
> >
> > At least agree on this.

> Absolutely not. Aether theories of the sort that you envision
> predict that the train observer would predict variation in the
> one-way speed of light coming at him from different directions.

> predict that the train observer would predict variation

Is this this science? A predicts what B would predict? I think not. Sciene is measurements.
>
> Note that measurement of *variation* in the one-way speed of
> light in different directions does not require being able to
> measure the actual *value* of the one-way speed of light.
>

I do not understand this statement. Or how it could be true.

> No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
> will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
> to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,
> (1) given that he is in the *middle* of the train and that (2)
> light moves at the same speed whether coming from the
> front of the train or the back, and (3) light arrives at his spot
> at different times, is that (4) the lightning strikes did not
> occur at the same time.
>
> Which, of course, contradicts the conclusion of the observer
> on the embankment.Leave the embankment out. That is Newtonian.

Let us take this one by one:

The observer is in the middle of the train and he knows it.

Light moves at the same speed in empty space and he knows it.

The speed of light is independent of the source. He know that.

Light moving from the front of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him.

Light from the back of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him

The rule is: if a light source is moving towards observer with speed v

and it does not matter if v = 0 or v= 1 or v =-1 0r 30,0000

Then it can be replaced with a light source moving at v=0 to the observer..

From which we get: all light sources have zero velocity with respect to the observer.

This is the second postulate.

How can light from light sources from the front and back of the train, moving with v=0 relative to the observer arrive at different times?

I would be happy for anyone to point out my error in logic so I can just leave.

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:01:51 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:17:41 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 4/30/23 1:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are
> > > chasing a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave
> > > equation does not apply.
> > That just means you did not "create" a wave equation that remains valid
> > in your scenario.
> >
> > Note the equation given in virtually all textbooks for water waves is
> > valid ONLY in the rest frame of the water. So it's no surprise it
> > doesn't work in your scenario.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of Aether!
>
false, imbecile

On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 22:36:27 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 4/30/2023 2:45 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:28:43 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
> >> On 4/29/2023 8:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:54:41 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/28/2023 10:56 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox.. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
> >>>>>>> both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
> >>>>>> Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
> >>>>>> contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped)..
> >>>>>> Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
> >>>>>> is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
> >>>>>> embankment at the rear.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
> >>>>>> the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
> >>>>>> reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
> >>>>>> actually happen.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
> >>>>>> the strike on the rear.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
> >>>>>> the strike on the front.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
> >>>>>> finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
> >>>>>> simultaneity of the lightning strikes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is because the person closer to the lightning strikes sees it first.
> >>>> The point is the three observers all disagree which strike happened
> >>>> first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.
> >>>> I never mentioned anyone on the train!
> >>>>>
> >>> You are right of course. So what does this all mean?
> >>>
> >>> Why does Einstein use this example?
> >> Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.
> >>
> >> This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
> >> reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
> >> this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't
> >> require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.
> >>
> >> Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
> >> the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
> >> let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what
> >> happened there 66 million years ago.
> >>
> >> Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
> >> evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
> >> image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years
> >> ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither
> >> intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
> >> is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
> >> planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved.
> >> Yet there still is this puzzle.
> >
> > There is no problem with this scenario. If you can't see it, you do not know.
> > If sun blinked out you would not know for 8 minutes. Is it now or then?
> That's the relativity of simultaneity. From observations, I can say
> their dinosaurs just got wiped out just now, while our dinosaurs got
> wiped out 66 million years ago. Meanwhile, they can say our dinosaurs
> got wiped out just now (they witnessed it!) while their dinosaurs got
> wiped out 66 million years ago. Relativity of simultaneity, strictly
> from distance and a constant speed of light.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep
measuring t'=t in improper seconds.

On 5/1/2023 1:01 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:17:41 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 4/30/23 1:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are
>>> chasing a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave
>>> equation does not apply.
>> That just means you did not "create" a wave equation that remains valid
>> in your scenario.
>>
>> Note the equation given in virtually all textbooks for water waves is
>> valid ONLY in the rest frame of the water. So it's no surprise it
>> doesn't work in your scenario.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of Aether!

Nope. Maxwell's equations don't even reference the aether, despite
Maxwell believing in the aether. The equations come up with a speed of
light which doesn't have ANY reference to anything or any frame.

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:10:57 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:52:00 AM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:45:20 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > > > On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > > > > Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
> > > > > > The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
> > > > > > According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > His Conclusion is against his premise !!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
> > > > > >
> > > > > I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
> > > > > Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special
> > > > > relativity to the world.
> > > > The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work,
> > > > "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book,
> > > > Einstein translated the formal presentation of his paper into
> > > > terms more easily grasped by a wide audience.
> > > >
> > > > To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the
> > > > first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
> > > > I struggled with the question,
> > > >
> > > > | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
> > > > | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
> > > > | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
> > > > | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
> > > > | different times?
> > > > |
> > > > | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results? Is
> > > > | this possibly a paradox that invalidates the gedanken?
> > > >
> > > > It took me years before I worked out the answer.
> > > >
> > > > 1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper
> > > > distance between the lightning strikes.
> > > > 2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz-
> > > > contracted so that its length is the same as the distance
> > > > between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in
> > > > the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
> > > > 3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning
> > > > strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
> > > > length of the train, which of course when measured in the
> > > > frame of the train is its proper length.
> > > >
> > > > Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can
> > > > miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several
> > > > times before you see everything.
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
> > > There is no mention of length contraction in the book.
> > >
> > > The experiment no longer bothers me because it is an exact description of what would happen if there is an Aether in the frame of the tracks.
> > >
> > > At least agree on this.
>
>
> > Absolutely not. Aether theories of the sort that you envision
> > predict that the train observer would predict variation in the
> > one-way speed of light coming at him from different directions.
>
> > predict that the train observer would predict variation
> Is this this science? A predicts what B would predict? I think not. Sciene is measurements.
> >
> > Note that measurement of *variation* in the one-way speed of
> > light in different directions does not require being able to
> > measure the actual *value* of the one-way speed of light.
> >
> I do not understand this statement. Or how it could be true.
> > No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
> > will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
> > to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,
> > (1) given that he is in the *middle* of the train and that (2)
> > light moves at the same speed whether coming from the
> > front of the train or the back, and (3) light arrives at his spot
> > at different times, is that (4) the lightning strikes did not
> > occur at the same time.
> >
> > Which, of course, contradicts the conclusion of the observer
> > on the embankment.Leave the embankment out. That is Newtonian.
>
> Let us take this one by one:
>
> The observer is in the middle of the train and he knows it.
>
> Light moves at the same speed in empty space and he knows it.
>
> The speed of light is independent of the source. He know that.
>
> Light moving from the front of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him.

Ideally, events HAVE NO DURATION, and hence NO SPEED
An event is a single point in spacetime having coordinates x,y,z,t.

The tokens often used to represent events in popular writings, like
firecrackers, sparks and the like, are not true events because they
have finite extent and finite duration, and yes, can have a speed.

*** Not understanding this point is a MAJOR source of confusion. ***

> Light from the back of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him

Wrong, for the same reason.
TRUE EVENTS HAVE NO DURATION and hence NO SPEED

An event is just a single point in spacetime.
> The rule is: if a light source is moving towards observer with speed v
>
> and it does not matter if v = 0 or v= 1 or v =-1 0r 30,0000
>
> Then it can be replaced with a light source moving at v=0 to the observer.
>
> From which we get: all light sources have zero velocity with respect to the observer.
>
> This is the second postulate.
>
> How can light from light sources from the front and back of the train, moving with v=0 relative to the observer arrive at different times?
>
>
> I would be happy for anyone to point out my error in logic so I can just leave.

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:43:18 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:10:57 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Light moving from the front of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him.
> Ideally, events HAVE NO DURATION, and hence NO SPEED
> An event is a single point in spacetime having coordinates x,y,z,t.
>
> The tokens often used to represent events in popular writings, like
> firecrackers, sparks and the like, are not true events because they
> have finite extent and finite duration, and yes, can have a speed.
>
> *** Not understanding this point is a MAJOR source of confusion. ***
> > Light from the back of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him
> Wrong, for the same reason.
> TRUE EVENTS HAVE NO DURATION and hence NO SPEED
>
> An event is just a single point in spacetime.

I restored a couple of sentences from the Wiki article Spacetime that
had been deleted sometime between 2017 and now.

| Unlike the analogies used in popular writings to explain events, such
| as firecrackers or sparks, mathematical events have zero duration and
| represent a single point in spacetime. Although it is possible to be in
| motion relative to the popping of a firecracker or a spark, it is not
| possible for an observer to be in motion relative to an event.

On Monday, 1 May 2023 at 15:13:00 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 5/1/2023 1:01 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:17:41 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 4/30/23 1:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are
> >>> chasing a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave
> >>> equation does not apply.
> >> That just means you did not "create" a wave equation that remains valid
> >> in your scenario.
> >>
> >> Note the equation given in virtually all textbooks for water waves is
> >> valid ONLY in the rest frame of the water. So it's no surprise it
> >> doesn't work in your scenario.
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> > The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of Aether!
> Nope. Maxwell's equations don't even reference the aether, despite

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion

On April 29, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> Aether theories of the sort that you envision
> predict that the train observer would predict variation in the
> one-way speed of light coming at him from different directions.
> No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
> will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
> to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,
> (1) given that he is in the *middle* of the train and that (2)
> light moves at the same speed whether coming from the
> front of the train or the back, and (3) light arrives at his spot
> at different times, is that (4) the lightning strikes did not
> occur at the same time.

Not so, there's another valid inference.

He might postulate an ether which fills the universe, which transmits
light at constant speed c, relative to itself. And further, that the train
carries an equivalent ether inside itself. (just as it carries its own
atmosphere, which transmits sound) Hence measurements of light
speed within the train also indicate c.

Then, from your conditions 1.. 3, he can conclude, validly, that the light
from the lighting strikes reach him at different times because the train
moves relative to the universal ether. And the lightning strikes were
simultaneous, where time is defined absolutely in the frame of the ether.

> Which, of course, contradicts the conclusion of the observer
> on the embankment.

No contradiction, in the case of this alternative deduction.

--
Rich