On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 9:42:28 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 10:50:16 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 11:01:49 AM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
>
> > This is curious, because in the experiment with the lightning strikes, the source
> is anything but stationary in the frame of reference of the observer on the train.
> I have tried to point this out many time before.
> Lightning strikes and other tokens used to represent events in thought
> experiments are not true events because they are of finite extent and
> duration.
>
> An event is an idealized single x,y,z,t point in spacetime without extent
> and without duration. Although an observer can be in motion with
> respect to a lightning strike, it is neither possible for an event to be in
> motion, nor is it possible for an observer to be moving with respect to
> an event.

Exactly. An event will take place at distance x,y,z from the detector. If the distance to the detector is the same, the time that the detector will receive the light will be the same.

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 4:25:03 AM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 3:02:38 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > This is curious, because in the experiment with the lightning strikes, the source
> > > > is anything but stationary in the frame of reference of the observer on the train.
> > >
> > > Again, light propagates at the speed c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the speed of the source, so there is nothing "curious" about this. It is perfectly logically consistent, and in agreement with the explicit explanations, and with the train and lightning example, and every other example and situation. If there is something unclear about this, just ask.
> >
> > Gehan is thinking "I can EASILY tell by measuring Doppler shift ..."
>
> This was explained previously. Again, the speed of the source is irrelevant, as is the fact that the frequency and wavelength of the pulses in terms of a given system of coordinates may be different. The discussion in the booklet relies on nothing but the fact that light propagates at the speed c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the speed of the source. Thus there is nothing "curious" about this. If gehan thinks there is something curious about it, he needs to articulate what that is. So far, he has failed to state what he thinks is curious (let alone logically inconsistent) about it. And he never will [prediction].

What is curious is that the thought experiment quoted above simply ignores the concept of the irrelevance of the relative motion between the source and observer.

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 8:45:25 AM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 6:25:03 PM UTC-5, Trevor Lange wrote:
>
> > If gehan thinks there is something curious about it, he needs to articulate what that is. So far, he has failed to state what he thinks is curious (let alone logically inconsistent) about it. And he never will [prediction].
> But he already has, repeatedly. You and I *both* know how the train
> and embankment thought experiment needs to be interpreted, so
> we tend not to think about the experiment in the way that gehan does.
> But to argue with a crank, you need to understand his misconceptions.
>
> To gehan, it must be perfectly obvious to the train observer
> that he is moving with respect to the lightning bolts, just as it must
> be perfectly obvious to the embankment observer that she is
> stationary with respect to the lightning bolts. To gehan, therefore,
> the entire argument leading to relativity of simultaneity is based
> on false premises.

I think Poincare expressed it this way; M' does not know he is moving. In that case anything is possible.
#####
In 1900 Poincaré interpreted local time as the result of a synchronization procedure based on light signals. He assumed that two observers, A and B, who are moving in the aether, synchronize their clocks by optical signals. Since they treat themselves as being at rest, they must consider only the transmission time of the signals and then crossing their observations to examine whether their clocks are synchronous. However, from the point of view of an observer at rest in the aether the clocks are not synchronous and indicate the local time t'=t-vx/c^{2}. But because the moving observers don't know anything about their movement, they don't recognize this.[A 6] In 1904, he illustrated the same procedure in the following way: A sends a signal at time 0 to B, which arrives at time t. B also sends a signal at time 0 to A, which arrives at time t. If in both cases t has the same value, the clocks are synchronous, but only in the system in which the clocks are at rest in the aether
######
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 10:02:58 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > This is curious, because in the experiment with the lightning strikes, the source
> > > > > is anything but stationary in the frame of reference of the observer on the train.
> > > >
> > > > Again, light propagates at the speed c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the speed of the source, so there is nothing "curious" about this. It is perfectly logically consistent, and in agreement with the explicit explanations, and with the train and lightning example, and every other example and situation. If there is something unclear about this, just ask.
> > >
> > This was explained previously. Again, the speed of the source is irrelevant, as is the fact that the frequency and wavelength of the pulses in terms of a given system of coordinates may be different. The discussion in the booklet relies on nothing but the fact that light propagates at the speed c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the speed of the source. Thus there is nothing "curious" about this. If gehan thinks there is something curious about it, he needs to articulate what that is. So far, he has failed to state what he thinks is curious (let alone logically inconsistent) about it. And he never will [prediction].
>
> What is curious is that the thought experiment quoted above simply ignores the concept of the irrelevance of the relative motion between the source and observer.

Not at all, the entire book, in which that example is found is based (cover to cover) on the carefully explained fact that light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates. Also, the example specifically invokes this fact. For you to say that this fact is ignored in that book is utterly insane. Agreed?

El martes, 9 de mayo de 2023 a las 0:58:36 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 9:36:55 PM UTC+5, Paparios wrote:

> >
> > > According to the constancy of the speed of light postulate, yes, it does look like there is a medium at rest in our frame of reference and light moves in it like a wave. I said as if.
> > >
> > > This is curious, because in the experiment with the lightning strikes, the source is anything but stationary in the frame of reference of the observer on the train. I have tried to point this out many time before.
> > >
> > This is clearly wrong (see https://www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/relativity-the-special-and-general-theory/ix-the-relativity-of-simultaneity/).
> > In figure 1, Einstein clearly sets the experiment: "Are two events (e.g.. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment".
> > Therefore the light source is not moving at all.
> > >
> > > Distance between observer on train and lightning strikes remains the same (source taken as stationary in observers frame so he will see lightning strikes at the same time, just like the person on the track)
> > >
> > Nonsense!!. In figure 1, at time t=0, A and B are fixed points on the embankment. Furthermore observers M (on the embankment) and M' inside the train coincide at t=0. Of course, for t>0, observer M' moves to the right of observer M, with speed v.
> Agreed so far.
> >
> > The light, coming from the A strike, takes a finite time to arrive to observer M (say ta seconds with ta>0). It is obvious that M' is not longer at the middle of AB, but it has moved to the right of observer M. Therefore, the light from A arrives first to M and later to M'.

> A strike is a light source. B strike is a light source.

Sure and they both do not move, relative to observer M.

> M' is moving relative to A also relative to B

Sure, but M' is going away from point A and M' is approaching to point B.

> This also means that the light source A and B are moving relative to M'

That is irrelevant as the question relates to what M and M' observe.

>
> But we have seen that the light is emitted at c regardless of the 'state of motion of the light source'
>
> So an equivalent experiment is where A and B are not moving relative to M'
>
> Therefore M' will see the lightning strikes simultaneously.

This is also irrelevant to what M and M' observe in the set of figure 1. For sure, you can set points A and B at given distances from M and M', so that the light signals arrive simultaneously to M'. But, in that case, light signals will not arrive simultaneously to M.

>
> Further proof: Suppose the light source (the superheated luminous air from the lightning path) was moving at the same velocity of M' subsequent to the strikes? Suppose the light source was moving at the speed of sound?
>
> Irrespective of the motion of the source.

Totally irrelevant.
Note that in figure 1, the length of the train is not given, as it is not necessary. The problem is just a geometric problem with the only consideration of light signals moving at c.

On May 8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> But to argue with a crank, you need to understand his misconceptions.
> To gehan, it must be perfectly obvious to the train observer
> that he is moving with respect to the lightning bolts, just as it must
> be perfectly obvious to the embankment observer that she is
> stationary with respect to the lightning bolts. To gehan, therefore,
> the entire argument leading to relativity of simultaneity is based
> on false premises.

The physicist in the train hypothesizes a luminiferous ether, which
transmits light at speed independent of the source. Doppler
reasoning depends on this.

He knows the spectrum of the lightning strikes. His spectrometer
indicates his speed relative to the east and west strike points. They
arrive at different times. He therefore infers that they struck
simultaneously, in the ether frame, and the differing arrival times are
explained by his movement through the ether.

This is perfectly rational, and empirically indistinguishable from
Einstein's model. Maxwell and Michelson believed likewise (in
the ether). Were they cranky?

However, if he builds a particle accelerator, and tries to push ions
faster than light, his model runs onto problems -

--
Rich

On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 1:30:44 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> On May 8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > But to argue with a crank, you need to understand his misconceptions.
> > To gehan, it must be perfectly obvious to the train observer
> > that he is moving with respect to the lightning bolts, just as it must
> > be perfectly obvious to the embankment observer that she is
> > stationary with respect to the lightning bolts. To gehan, therefore,
> > the entire argument leading to relativity of simultaneity is based
> > on false premises.
> The physicist in the train hypothesizes a luminiferous ether, which
> transmits light at speed independent of the source. Doppler
> reasoning depends on this.
>
> He knows the spectrum of the lightning strikes. His spectrometer
> indicates his speed relative to the east and west strike points. They
> arrive at different times. He therefore infers that they struck
> simultaneously, in the ether frame, and the differing arrival times are
> explained by his movement through the ether.

However, this is a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, not a real experiment.
The "lightning strikes" are imperfect proxies for events, which
are single x, y, z, t points in spacetime.
The "light" emitted by the "lightning strikes" are proxies for abstract
signals that transmit only a single yes/no bit of information. They
have no spectrum.

Special relativity is NOT a theory of electromagnetic radiation and
popping sparks. In the modern view of SR, it is a theory of the
geometric properties of spacetime.
> This is perfectly rational, and empirically indistinguishable from
> Einstein's model. Maxwell and Michelson believed likewise (in
> the ether). Were they cranky?
>
> However, if he builds a particle accelerator, and tries to push ions
> faster than light, his model runs onto problems -
>
> --
> Rich

On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 2:34:40 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 5/8/2023 11:38 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 11:25:52 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
> >> On 5/8/2023 12:36 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 8:38:15 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 06 May 2023 19:22:04 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> What errors? Be precise...
> >>>> Paul Andersen made a thorough mess of transforming an event from an
> >>>> inertial to a rotating frame and Michelson used travel time differences
> >>>> rather than wave number.....both terribly obvious mistakes. Since you are
> >>>> convinced you are a genius you should have no trouble discovering why.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Michelson actually refutes Einstein...just as most interferometry
> >>>> based on travel times does. Sagnac does not refute Einstein because, like
> >>>> the MMX, it secretly reverts to the Newtonian explanation.
> >>>> --
> >>>> -- lover of truth
> >>>
> >>> Sagnac? Is rotation in the Sagnac some sort of absolute rotation?
> >> All rotation is absolute.
> >
> > Can a gyroscope or 'inertial navigation device' detect absolute motion?
> No, gyroscopes detect rotation. There is no absolute motion.

What you do is get an atomic clock lattice and surround it with a gyroscope
with an array of atomic clock lattices, then coordinate the unknown linear
and known rotational, and end up, a sort of dead-reckoning device.
(Though, there are "local" and "global" or "near field" and "far field", things.)

The Sagnac effect is employed in the ring laser gyro, sort of a solid-state gyro.

It's sort of so that the GPS satellites' clocks according to GR make for
a, ..., "Global Positioning System", but the satellites are fed timing from
the ground and what they send back is used to detect changes in the ephemeris.

Or, according to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Parameterized Post-Newtonian
is in effect.

According to space contraction, an atomic clock lattice can detect hand-waving.

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:10:13 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> You are all familiar with the DeSitter double star experiment.
>
> "In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this was true, a star orbiting in a double-star system would usually, with regard to us, alternate between moving towards us and away from us. Light emitted from different parts of the orbital path would travel towards us at different speeds. For a nearby star with a small orbital velocity (or whose orbital plane was almost perpendicular to our line of view) this might merely make the star's orbit seem erratic, but for a sufficient combination of orbital speed and distance (and inclination), the "fast" light given off during approach would be able to catch up with and even overtake "slow" light emitted earlier during a recessional part of the star's orbit, and the star would present an image that was scrambled and out of sequence. That is, Kepler's laws of motion would apparently be violated for a distant observer."
>
> Question: If light travels from the star at velocity c relative to the Earth, at what relative velocity does it have relative to the surface of the star, when viewed from the reference frame in which the Earth?

There's a paper from the '70's about "self-propelling dual neutron stars".

It's some where in "adsabs", the astronomy library.

About de Sitter space and anti-de Sitter space, this here is de Sitter space.

Also it's Euclidean, while though, it's a gauge theory, and, according to space contraction,
that the gauge reflects changes in velocity, and location, about frames, where GR has
a sort of blocky gauge in asymmetric gravity wells the Riemannian metric, it actually
sort of extends everywhere, in terms of, its boundaries.

Light always travels in c: in whatever space it's in.

(... According to space contraction, and we should all look at Fitzgerald, who preceded
Einstein with some Lorentzians.)

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 10:10:50 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/4/23 7:00 PM, Jane wrote:
> > Now here is NOW everywhere even if there is no way to actually prove
> > that.
> Once again you display your personal ignorance. That claim takes you out
> of the realm of science and into theology -- your wishes and dreams are
> no constraint on the world we inhabit, or on the theories we construct
> to describe that world. They do, however, seem to be a constraint on how
> you "think"....
>
> Tom Roberts
Lorentz understood that now here is now everywhere because he understood t=t' and that t' is ad hoc. It was Einstein who asserted now elsewhere is different. That claim is ontological nonsense. Relativity is pure pseudoscience or in Robert Parks' classification "voodoo science' {Voodoo Science c. 2000 Robert Park]. It is the relativists' view that is ignorant. It is the relativists' view on this that is theology.

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 10:10:50?PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 5/4/23 7:00 PM, Jane wrote:
> > > Now here is NOW everywhere even if there is no way to actually prove
> > > that.
> > Once again you display your personal ignorance. That claim takes you out
> > of the realm of science and into theology -- your wishes and dreams are
> > no constraint on the world we inhabit, or on the theories we construct
> > to describe that world. They do, however, seem to be a constraint on how
> > you "think"....
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> Lorentz understood that now here is now everywhere because he understood
> t=t' and that t' is ad hoc. It was Einstein who asserted now elsewhere is
> different. That claim is ontological nonsense. Relativity is pure
> pseudoscience or in Robert Parks' classification "voodoo science' {Voodoo
> Science c. 2000 Robert Park]. It is the relativists' view that is
> ignorant. It is the relativists' view on this that is theology.

Eh, did you notice that Robert Parks doesn't agree with you?
So, why are you abusing his name and book title?

FYI, This is worse than quote mining,

Jan

On 6/10/23 7:47 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 10:10:50 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 5/4/23 7:00 PM, Jane wrote:
>>> Now here is NOW everywhere even if there is no way to actually
>>> prove that.
>> Once again you display your personal ignorance. That claim takes
>> you out of the realm of science and into theology -- your wishes
>> and dreams are no constraint on the world we inhabit, or on the
>> theories we construct to describe that world. They do, however,
>> seem to be a constraint on how you "think"....
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> Lorentz understood that now here is now everywhere because he
> understood t=t' and that t' is ad hoc. It was Einstein who asserted
> now elsewhere is different. That claim is ontological nonsense.
> Relativity is pure pseudoscience or in Robert Parks' classification
> "voodoo science' {Voodoo Science c. 2000 Robert Park]. It is the
> relativists' view that is ignorant. It is the relativists' view on
> this that is theology.

You don't know what you are talking about. This is pure nonsense.

Special Relativity is among the best-tested theories we have. The
ignorance is YOURS.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, 12 June 2023 at 16:56:17 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/10/23 7:47 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 10:10:50 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 5/4/23 7:00 PM, Jane wrote:
> >>> Now here is NOW everywhere even if there is no way to actually
> >>> prove that.
> >> Once again you display your personal ignorance. That claim takes
> >> you out of the realm of science and into theology -- your wishes
> >> and dreams are no constraint on the world we inhabit, or on the
> >> theories we construct to describe that world. They do, however,
> >> seem to be a constraint on how you "think"....
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> > Lorentz understood that now here is now everywhere because he
> > understood t=t' and that t' is ad hoc. It was Einstein who asserted
> > now elsewhere is different. That claim is ontological nonsense.
> > Relativity is pure pseudoscience or in Robert Parks' classification
> > "voodoo science' {Voodoo Science c. 2000 Robert Park]. It is the
> > relativists' view that is ignorant. It is the relativists' view on
> > this that is theology.
> You don't know what you are talking about. This is pure nonsense.
>
> Special Relativity is among the best-tested theories we have.

Sure, and forbidden by your bunch of idiots "improper"
clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 09:56:05 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 6/10/23 7:47 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 10:10:50 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:

>>>
>>> Tom Roberts
>> Lorentz understood that now here is now everywhere because he
>> understood t=t' and that t' is ad hoc. It was Einstein who asserted now
>> elsewhere is different. That claim is ontological nonsense. Relativity
>> is pure pseudoscience or in Robert Parks' classification "voodoo
>> science' {Voodoo Science c. 2000 Robert Park]. It is the relativists'
>> view that is ignorant. It is the relativists' view on this that is
>> theology.
>
> You don't know what you are talking about. This is pure nonsense.
>
> Special Relativity is among the best-tested theories we have. The
> ignorance is YOURS.

It is the best faked theory backed by the best faked experiments, all
approved by the best faked physicists.

> Tom Roberts

--
-- lover of truth

On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:56:17 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/10/23 7:47 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 10:10:50 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 5/4/23 7:00 PM, Jane wrote:
> >>> Now here is NOW everywhere even if there is no way to actually
> >>> prove that.
> >> Once again you display your personal ignorance. That claim takes
> >> you out of the realm of science and into theology -- your wishes
> >> and dreams are no constraint on the world we inhabit, or on the
> >> theories we construct to describe that world. They do, however,
> >> seem to be a constraint on how you "think"....
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> > Lorentz understood that now here is now everywhere because he
> > understood t=t' and that t' is ad hoc. It was Einstein who asserted
> > now elsewhere is different. That claim is ontological nonsense.
> > Relativity is pure pseudoscience or in Robert Parks' classification
> > "voodoo science' {Voodoo Science c. 2000 Robert Park]. It is the
> > relativists' view that is ignorant. It is the relativists' view on
> > this that is theology.
> You don't know what you are talking about. This is pure nonsense.
>
> Special Relativity is among the best-tested theories we have. The
> ignorance is YOURS.
>
> Tom Roberts
Relativity has not been tested because it functions as an ideology preventing scrutiny [see Peter Hayes article]. Relativity is ignorant nonsense. It is impressive because it is impressively stupid, illogical and ignorant. A child can refute it and the experiments haven't proven anything but your confirmation bias.