On April 29, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work,
> "Relativity: The Special and General Theory".
> 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?

Yes, that's given in the thought experiment.
The unprimed observer is moving toward the eastern strike.

> | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results?

?
Nothing is reversed.

> 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.

You're confused. No reference to length contraction is required.
It's explained by relative simultaneity.

The length of the train is actually a misdirection. We need merely
specify that the train passenger is at the midpoint between the
strikes, which is well defined in the frame of the earth.

PS This gedanken is a direct analog of the limo in the garage
paradox; the train is the car, the strikes are the doors. In that one,
we do need to invoke relative lengths, to explain the paradox.

--
Rich

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:00:48 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> On April 29, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work,
> > "Relativity: The Special and General Theory".
> > 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?
> Yes, that's given in the thought experiment.
> The unprimed observer is moving toward the eastern strike.
> > | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results?
> ?
> Nothing is reversed.
> > 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.
> You're confused. No reference to length contraction is required.
> It's explained by relative simultaneity.
>
> The length of the train is actually a misdirection. We need merely
> specify that the train passenger is at the midpoint between the
> strikes, which is well defined in the frame of the earth.
>
> PS This gedanken is a direct analog of the limo in the garage
> paradox; the train is the car, the strikes are the doors. In that one,
> we do need to invoke relative lengths, to explain the paradox.

You obviously don't "get it". These are subtle points that are
glossed over in the usual presentation of the gedanken, which
focus only on first order effects.

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:07:31 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> You obviously don't "get it". These are subtle points that are
> glossed over in the usual presentation of the gedanken, which
> focus only on first order effects.

Let's go over things one at a time.

The measured length of the train, which is moving in the
track frame, is precisely equal to the measured distance
between the lightning strikes as measured in the track
frame.

What does that tell you about the proper length of the
train compared with the proper distance between the
lightning strikes.

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:13:00 AM UTC-7, 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
> 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.

Yes and no. Let's start with the "no": the equations were originally considered with the
then-obvious unstated assumption in mind: the aether medium. It was a big mystery
that the equations were observer-dependent while Newtonian mechanics was not.
(It was a very troubling problem because all mechanical interactions were thought
to be due to the electromagnetic ones at the microscopic level, so Newton's theory
"suddenly" allowing for an observer change, without anything in either theory
indicating why this should be so, was an annoying puzzle.)

Regardless, one could in theory use Maxwell's theory in a Galilean-transformed
frame, so no contradiction there. It's just puzzling viz. its relation to Newton and
basically mathematically ugly.

And yes, the equations can be interpreted to be invariant if one reformulates
the relevant kinematics. This is what Einstein did in his 1905 paper whose
main impetus was (I think) Einstein's observation that the transformations
keeping Maxwell's equations invariant (the Lorentz transformation) can be
derived from certain simple first principles concerning time and space,
without referring to the mathematical details of electrodynamics. My
guess is this was the instant when Einstein realised he had something
non-trivial to communicate (and not just a rephrasing of something known
which was the mistake even the great E. T. Whittaker made, he didn't even
get Einstein's postulates right - but I digress).

--
Jan

On Monday, 1 May 2023 at 20:21:55 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:07:31 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> > You obviously don't "get it". These are subtle points that are
> > glossed over in the usual presentation of the gedanken, which
> > focus only on first order effects.
> Let's go over things one at a time.
>
> The measured length of the train, which is moving in the
> track frame, is precisely equal to the measured distance
> between the lightning strikes as measured in the track
> frame.

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

On May 1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> The measured length of the train, which is moving in the
> track frame, is precisely equal to the measured distance
> between the lightning strikes as measured in the track
> frame.
> What does that tell you about the proper length of the
> train compared with the proper distance between the
> lightning strikes.

Tom Traveler rides the train. As seen by Stationary Sam, he
arrives at the midpoint between the lightning strikes simultaneously
with those strikes. They occur 100 m apart, in Sam's frame.

i) The train is 200 m long, Tom sits 50 m from the rear.
ii) The train is 200 m long, Tom sits 20 m from the front.
iii) The train is 50 m long, Tom sits 10 m from the rear.
iv) The train is 50 m long, Tom sits 20 m from the front.

All lengths measured in Tom's frame.

Tell me if ANY of the above parameters have ANY effect
on the essential question of simultaneity.

v) Tom rides a unicycle, which has length zero.

--
Rich

On 5/1/23 12:01 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of
> Aether!

That's what was originally thought. Then people started doing
experiments on earth that agreed with the predictions of Maxwell's
equations. That led to attempts to measure the speed of the earth
relative to the aether. When all those attempts failed, a whole new
theory was required. Einstein laid the foundation, thousands of
experimenters explored various aspects of the problem, joined by many
theorists, and today we have GR and the standard model. The wave
equation for electrodynamics is now known to be just an approximation to
QED, which is vastly different and more subtle.

So today we know better, and that the (vacuum) wave equation for E&M
radiation actually works in any (locally) inertial frame. This is
directly related to the symmetry known as local Lorentz invariance.

Note that your approach is hopeless -- just sitting around and thinking
about physics leads nowhere but to posting nonsense around here. To
learn about physics you must STUDY, using real textbooks, not random
websites on the internet and USENET.

Tom Roberts

On 5/1/23 8:13 AM, Volney wrote:
> 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.

Not true. Maxwell's original equations had a G field, which serves as an
absolute reference. Need I point out that the version of Maxwell's
equations in modern textbooks omit it?

Tom Roberts

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:43:18 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> 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.

S1==============[_______O1________]==============S2

S3======================O2=======================S4

O1, O2 are the observers. S1, S2, S3, S4 are lightning strikes, Simulantaneous in the frame of reference of O2.

Now, where are these lightning strikes located in the frame of reference of O1?

Where are these lightning strikes located in the frame of reference of O2?

If the S1, S2 lightning strikes hit the ends of the train and is visible through the end windows to O1,
and other two strikes S3 and S4 strikes the tracks directly opposite the place where the ends of
the train occupy then how will your answer be different?

On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 10:53:58 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:43:18 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > 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.
> S1==============[_______O1________]==============S2
>
> S3======================O2=======================S4
>
> O1, O2 are the observers. S1, S2, S3, S4 are lightning strikes, Simulantaneous in the frame of reference of O2.
>
> Now, where are these lightning strikes located in the frame of reference of O1?

"Frame of reference" is a human made abstract construct
with the purpose of (mostly) - enabling communication
between observers.
If they're going to come to understanding - they have
to use THE SAME frame of reference. If they don't,
if they both insist on having own - they simply can't
refer to them. The concept of every observer
having a frame of his own is - simply - MAD.
Yeah, I know it was Galileo's.

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7:49:33 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/1/23 12:01 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of
> > Aether!
> That's what was originally thought. Then people started doing
> experiments on earth that agreed with the predictions of Maxwell's
> equations. That led to attempts to measure the speed of the earth
> relative to the aether. When all those attempts failed, a whole new
> theory was required. Einstein laid the foundation, thousands of
> experimenters explored various aspects of the problem, joined by many
> theorists, and today we have GR and the standard model. The wave
> equation for electrodynamics is now known to be just an approximation to
> QED, which is vastly different and more subtle.
>
> So today we know better, and that the (vacuum) wave equation for E&M
> radiation actually works in any (locally) inertial frame. This is
> directly related to the symmetry known as local Lorentz invariance.
>
> Note that your approach is hopeless -- just sitting around and thinking
> about physics leads nowhere but to posting nonsense around here. To
> learn about physics you must STUDY, using real textbooks, not random
> websites on the internet and USENET.
>
> Tom Roberts

The textbooks do not make any sense to me.

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 3:43:58 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> The textbooks do not make any sense to me.

Because you are a crank. Live with it.

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 2:21:49 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 10:53:58 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:43:18 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > 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.
> > S1==============[_______O1________]==============S2
> >
> > S3======================O2=======================S4
> >
> > O1, O2 are the observers. S1, S2, S3, S4 are lightning strikes, Simulantaneous in the frame of reference of O2.
> >
> > Now, where are these lightning strikes located in the frame of reference of O1?
> "Frame of reference" is a human made abstract construct
> with the purpose of (mostly) - enabling communication
> between observers.
> If they're going to come to understanding - they have
> to use THE SAME frame of reference. If they don't,
> if they both insist on having own - they simply can't
> refer to them. The concept of every observer
> having a frame of his own is - simply - MAD.
> Yeah, I know it was Galileo's.

On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 17:05:02 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 2:21:49 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 10:53:58 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:43:18 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > S1==============[_______O1________]==============S2
> > >
> > > S3======================O2=======================S4
> > >
> > > O1, O2 are the observers. S1, S2, S3, S4 are lightning strikes, Simulantaneous in the frame of reference of O2.
> > >
> > > Now, where are these lightning strikes located in the frame of reference of O1?
> > "Frame of reference" is a human made abstract construct
> > with the purpose of (mostly) - enabling communication
> > between observers.
> > If they're going to come to understanding - they have
> > to use THE SAME frame of reference. If they don't,
> > if they both insist on having own - they simply can't
> > refer to them. The concept of every observer
> > having a frame of his own is - simply - MAD.
> > Yeah, I know it was Galileo's.
> So, the addition of velocities does not require more than one frame of reference?

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:52:27 -0700, Jack Liu wrote:

> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:12:36 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
>
>> > I found it independently and wrote it in my book <absolute time 2022
>> > >
>> > Chapter 9 . However I would love to quote yours in my book if you can
>> > tell me where did you publish your argument. Thanks.
>> I too am writing a very comprehensive thesis on the history of
>> Einstein's SR and the reasons why so many people do not accept it. It
>> contains a lot of new and important ideas that will surely shatter the
>> whole physics estblishment. It is almost finished but I keep adding new
>> ideas.
>> Can I ask how and where you published your book.
>>
>>
>
>
> To Jane
>
> self publish at amazon is easy and quick :
> https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/
> https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

Who did your hard cover and paper backs? I only want .pdf and ebook
format.

> looking forward to your work and let's quote each other.

Mine has a lot of original discovery, for instance a surprise explanation
of the cosmic redshift...It annihilates the BB theory.

> for more info, just contact me by twitter : @songwaimai
>
> Jack

--
-- lover of truth

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 5:10:43 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:52:27 -0700, Jack Liu wrote:
>
> > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:12:36 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
> >
> >> > I found it independently and wrote it in my book <absolute time 2022
> >> > >
> >> > Chapter 9 . However I would love to quote yours in my book if you can
> >> > tell me where did you publish your argument. Thanks.
> >> I too am writing a very comprehensive thesis on the history of
> >> Einstein's SR and the reasons why so many people do not accept it. It
> >> contains a lot of new and important ideas that will surely shatter the
> >> whole physics estblishment. It is almost finished but I keep adding new
> >> ideas.
> >> Can I ask how and where you published your book.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > To Jane
> >
> > self publish at amazon is easy and quick :
> > https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/
> > https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
>
> Who did your hard cover and paper backs? I only want .pdf and ebook
> format.
>
> > looking forward to your work and let's quote each other.
>
> Mine has a lot of original discovery, for instance a surprise explanation
> of the cosmic redshift...It annihilates the BB theory.
>
> > for more info, just contact me by twitter : @songwaimai
> >
> > Jack
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -- lover of truth
Give us a shout-out when you publish so we can buy one.

On 5/2/23 5:43 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7:49:33 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> [...]Note that your approach is hopeless -- just sitting around
>> and thinking about physics leads nowhere but to posting nonsense
>> around here. To learn about physics you must STUDY, using real
>> textbooks, not random websites on the internet and USENET.
>
> The textbooks do not make any sense to me.

Yes. Because as I have said before, you CLEARLY do not have the
requisite knowledge to understand basic physics. There is a reason that
every university course on physics lists a number of prerequisites.

Find a course at a university you can take; you need to have discussions
with a professor/instructor who actually understands basic physics.

Or more likely: realize that you are unsuited for physics and find
another hobby.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 3:53:58 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:43:18 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > 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:

> > > > 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.
> S1==============[_______O1________]==============S2
>
> S3======================O2=======================S4
>
> O1, O2 are the observers. S1, S2, S3, S4 are lightning strikes, Simulantaneous in the frame of reference of O2.
>
> Now, where are these lightning strikes located in the frame of reference of O1?

In the frame of reference of O1, at the moment that O1 is
face to face with O2, S2 has already happened and S1 hasn't
happened yet. O1 deems himself to be exactly equidistant
between the two strikes.
> Where are these lightning strikes located in the frame of reference of O2?

When O2 is face to face with O1, S3 and S4 happen at exactly
the same time according to O2's clock. O2 deems herself to
be exactly equidistant between the two strikes.
> If the S1, S2 lightning strikes hit the ends of the train and is visible through the end windows to O1,
> and other two strikes S3 and S4 strikes the tracks directly opposite the place where the ends of
> the train occupy then how will your answer be different?

The length of the train makes no difference, except that it
takes significantly fewer words for me to explain the
following point:

In your second scenario, since the train is in motion
relative to the embankment, the proper length of the train,
the length that O1 measures, is gamma times the proper
distance between the two strikes, which is the distance that
O2 measures.

The difference in length of the train that O1 measures (its
proper length) and the distance between lightning strikes
that O1 measures (gamma times *less* than the proper distance
between the strikes) means that it is *impossible* for the
front of the train to experience the lightning strike at
the same time that the rear of the train experiences the
lightning strike.

As observed by O1, the front of the train matches up with
the right lightning strike, then the rear of the train
matches up with the left lightning strike.

As I said, there is no difference between your two scenarios,
except that in your second scenario, the train provides a
convenient measuring rod that reduces the number of words
that I need to express the concept that I am trying to
get you to understand.

On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 06:32:48 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/2/23 5:43 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7:49:33 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> [...]Note that your approach is hopeless -- just sitting around
> >> and thinking about physics leads nowhere but to posting nonsense
> >> around here. To learn about physics you must STUDY, using real
> >> textbooks, not random websites on the internet and USENET.
> >
> > The textbooks do not make any sense to me.
> Yes. Because as I have said before, you CLEARLY do not have the
> requisite knowledge to understand basic physics.

You don't understand that you're FORCED!!!
To THE BEST WAY!!!