Hidden Assumptions behind the Train Gedanken Science Fiction

[[e-mail]]

The train experiment, which is correctly attributed to science fiction, contains certain assumptions that are unstated. This might explain the difficulties
that are encountered in understanding how it could be real.

Let us go line by line:
RELATIVITY
THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY
BY
ALBERT EINSTEIN, Ph.D.
FBOFSasOB 07 FBTSICS IH THS tTHITIlBBITT OF BEBLIH
####
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B
are simultaneous with respect to the embankment,
we mean:
the rays of light emitted at the places
A and B, where the Ughtning occurs, meet each
other at the mid-point M of the length A
B
But the events A and B
of the embankment.
also correspond to positions A and B on the
Let M' be the mid-point of the distance
traia.
A
flashes
B on the travelling train.
^
Just when the
of lightning occur, this point M' naturally
coincides with the point M, but it moves towards
the right in the diagram with the velocity v of
the train.
If
an observer sitting in the position
M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then
he would remain permanently at M, and the light
rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and
B
would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would
meet just where he is situated. Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A.

####

[Sylvia Else]

Post by ***@gmail.com
The train experiment, which is correctly attributed to science fiction, contains certain assumptions that are unstated. This might explain the difficulties
that are encountered in understanding how it could be real.
RELATIVITY
THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY
BY
ALBERT EINSTEIN, Ph.D.
FBOFSasOB 07 FBTSICS IH THS tTHITIlBBITT OF BEBLIH
####
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B
are simultaneous with respect to the embankment,
the rays of light emitted at the places
A and B, where the Ughtning occurs, meet each
other at the mid-point M of the length A
B
But the events A and B
of the embankment.
also correspond to positions A and B on the
Let M' be the mid-point of the distance
traia.
A
flashes
B on the travelling train.
^
Just when the
of lightning occur, this point M' naturally
coincides with the point M, but it moves towards
the right in the diagram with the velocity v of
the train.
If
an observer sitting in the position
M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then
he would remain permanently at M, and the light
rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and
B
would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would
meet just where he is situated. Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A.
####

...

For that observer, the beams were not emitted simultaneously, with the
beam from B being emitted before that from A. So the observer expects to
to see the beam from B before the beam from A.

Sylvia.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Sylvia Else

The train experiment, which is correctly attributed to science fiction, contains certain assumptions that are unstated. This might explain the difficulties
that are encountered in understanding how it could be real.
RELATIVITY
THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY
BY
ALBERT EINSTEIN, Ph.D.
FBOFSasOB 07 FBTSICS IH THS tTHITIlBBITT OF BEBLIH
####
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B
are simultaneous with respect to the embankment,
the rays of light emitted at the places
A and B, where the Ughtning occurs, meet each
other at the mid-point M of the length A
B
But the events A and B
of the embankment.
also correspond to positions A and B on the
Let M' be the mid-point of the distance
traia.
A
flashes
B on the travelling train.
^
Just when the
of lightning occur, this point M' naturally
coincides with the point M, but it moves towards
the right in the diagram with the velocity v of
the train.
If
an observer sitting in the position
M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then
he would remain permanently at M, and the light
rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and
B
would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would
meet just where he is situated. Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A.
####

For that observer, the beams were not emitted simultaneously, with the
beam from B being emitted before that from A. So the observer expects to
to see the beam from B before the beam from A.
Sylvia.

...

###
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment,
we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the Ughtning occurs, meet each
other at the mid-point M of the length A B
###

Newtonian laws are assumed. No problems here.

###
But the events A and B of the embankment also correspond to positions A and B on the train.
Let M' be the mid-point of the distance A > B on the travelling train.

Just when the of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards
the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train.
###

M' moves to the right as specified.

###
If an observer sitting in the position M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then
he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and
B would reach him simultaneously
##

What are the assumptions made here? The velocity here is the velocity of M' towards the source.
This is equivalent to the the source have a velocity towards M' since there is no 'absolute velocity': one cannot
say that M' is at rest any more than one can say the source is at rest and M' is moving.

If it is stated that the velocity of light is c regardless of the 'state of motion of the source' then what is the state
of motion of the source here and what effect does it have?

The situation is equivalent to having an Aether at rest in the frame of the track. Is there assumed to be an Aether at rest
with respect to the track?

[Paparios]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Sylvia Else

The train experiment, which is correctly attributed to science fiction, contains certain assumptions that are unstated. This might explain the difficulties
that are encountered in understanding how it could be real.
RELATIVITY
THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY
BY
ALBERT EINSTEIN, Ph.D.
FBOFSasOB 07 FBTSICS IH THS tTHITIlBBITT OF BEBLIH
####
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B
are simultaneous with respect to the embankment,
the rays of light emitted at the places
A and B, where the Ughtning occurs, meet each
other at the mid-point M of the length A
B
But the events A and B
of the embankment.
also correspond to positions A and B on the
Let M' be the mid-point of the distance
traia.
A
flashes
B on the travelling train.
^
Just when the
of lightning occur, this point M' naturally
coincides with the point M, but it moves towards
the right in the diagram with the velocity v of
the train.
If
an observer sitting in the position
M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then
he would remain permanently at M, and the light
rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and
B
would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would
meet just where he is situated. Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A.
####

For that observer, the beams were not emitted simultaneously, with the
beam from B being emitted before that from A. So the observer expects to
to see the beam from B before the beam from A.
Sylvia.

###
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment,
we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the Ughtning occurs, meet each
other at the mid-point M of the length A B
###
Newtonian laws are assumed. No problems here.
###
But the events A and B of the embankment also correspond to positions A and B on the train.
Let M' be the mid-point of the distance A > B on the travelling train.
Just when the of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards
the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train.
###
M' moves to the right as specified.
###
If an observer sitting in the position M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then
he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and
B would reach him simultaneously
##
What are the assumptions made here? The velocity here is the velocity of M' towards the source.
This is equivalent to the the source have a velocity towards M' since there is no 'absolute velocity': one cannot
say that M' is at rest any more than one can say the source is at rest and M' is moving.
If it is stated that the velocity of light is c regardless of the 'state of motion of the source' then what is the state
of motion of the source here and what effect does it have?
The situation is equivalent to having an Aether at rest in the frame of the track. Is there assumed to be an Aether at rest
with respect to the track?

...

You, like all the other trolls around here, can read 1000 times the clear Einstein's text and still will not understand anything about it. Change you hobby, as elementary geometry and algebra is too much for your very limited abilities.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Sylvia Else

The train experiment, which is correctly attributed to science fiction, contains certain assumptions that are unstated. This might explain the difficulties
that are encountered in understanding how it could be real.
RELATIVITY
THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY
BY
ALBERT EINSTEIN, Ph.D.
FBOFSasOB 07 FBTSICS IH THS tTHITIlBBITT OF BEBLIH
####
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B
are simultaneous with respect to the embankment,
the rays of light emitted at the places
A and B, where the Ughtning occurs, meet each
other at the mid-point M of the length A
B
But the events A and B
of the embankment.
also correspond to positions A and B on the
Let M' be the mid-point of the distance
traia.
A
flashes
B on the travelling train.
^
Just when the
of lightning occur, this point M' naturally
coincides with the point M, but it moves towards
the right in the diagram with the velocity v of
the train.
If
an observer sitting in the position
M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then
he would remain permanently at M, and the light
rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and
B
would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would
meet just where he is situated. Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A.
####

For that observer, the beams were not emitted simultaneously, with the
beam from B being emitted before that from A. So the observer expects to
to see the beam from B before the beam from A.
Sylvia.

###
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment,
we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the Ughtning occurs, meet each
other at the mid-point M of the length A B
###
Newtonian laws are assumed. No problems here.
###
But the events A and B of the embankment also correspond to positions A and B on the train.
Let M' be the mid-point of the distance A > B on the travelling train.
Just when the of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards
the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train.
###
M' moves to the right as specified.
###
If an observer sitting in the position M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then
he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and
B would reach him simultaneously
##
What are the assumptions made here? The velocity here is the velocity of M' towards the source.
This is equivalent to the the source have a velocity towards M' since there is no 'absolute velocity': one cannot
say that M' is at rest any more than one can say the source is at rest and M' is moving.
If it is stated that the velocity of light is c regardless of the 'state of motion of the source' then what is the state
of motion of the source here and what effect does it have?
The situation is equivalent to having an Aether at rest in the frame of the track. Is there assumed to be an Aether at rest
with respect to the track?

You, like all the other trolls around here, can read 1000 times the clear Einstein's text and still will not understand anything about it. Change you hobby, as elementary geometry and algebra is too much for your very limited abilities.

...

Maybe I understand too much. Why do I not get a proper answer to my questions?

Maybe that is the proof we need.

I have passed exams in geometry and algebra so maybe you can ask them to revoke my results or accept it.

There is no point in asking question just to be given evasive answers. I can tell an evasive answer when I see it or are you putting that beyond me as well?

A few more questions and that is it.

[Paparios]

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
The situation is equivalent to having an Aether at rest in the frame of the track. Is there assumed to be an Aether at rest
with respect to the track?

You, like all the other trolls around here, can read 1000 times the clear Einstein's text and still will not understand anything about it. Change you hobby, as elementary geometry and algebra is too much for your very limited abilities.

Maybe I understand too much. Why do I not get a proper answer to my questions?
Maybe that is the proof we need.
I have passed exams in geometry and algebra so maybe you can ask them to revoke my results or accept it.
There is no point in asking question just to be given evasive answers. I can tell an evasive answer when I see it or are you putting that beyond me as well?
A few more questions and that is it.

...

You have a lot of threads asking the same nonsensical questions. It appears that the answers you are given do not enter or are processed by your brain, which is typical of trolls around here.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
You, like all the other trolls around here, can read 1000 times the clear Einstein's text and still will not understand anything about it. Change you hobby, as elementary geometry and algebra is too much for your very limited abilities.

Maybe I understand too much. Why do I not get a proper answer to my questions?
Maybe that is the proof we need.
I have passed exams in geometry and algebra so maybe you can ask them to revoke my results or accept it.
There is no point in asking question just to be given evasive answers. I can tell an evasive answer when I see it or are you putting that beyond me as well?
A few more questions and that is it.
......the strikes happened simultaneously at the
ends of the train when Manny and Mary are coincide with each other.
That means that both of them are at different equal distances from the
strikes when they happened simultaneously. In order to preserve the
isotropy of the speed of light in both frames both Manny and Mary will
see the strikes to be simultaneous. However they will see the
simultaneity at different times. Why? Because they were at different
equal distance from the strikes.

...

Could it be more clear? :-D

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
You, like all the other trolls around here, can read 1000 times the clear
Einstein's text and still will not understand anything about it. Change you hobby,
as elementary geometry and algebra is too much for your very limited abilities.

Maybe I understand too much. Why do I not get a proper answer to my questions?
Maybe that is the proof we need.
I have passed exams in geometry and algebra so maybe you can ask them to revoke
my results or accept it.
There is no point in asking question just to be given evasive answers. I can
tell an evasive answer when I see it or are you putting that beyond me as well?
A few more questions and that is it.
......the strikes happened simultaneously at the
ends of the train when Manny and Mary are coincide with each other.
That means that both of them are at different equal distances from the
strikes when they happened simultaneously. In order to preserve the
isotropy of the speed of light in both frames both Manny and Mary will
see the strikes to be simultaneous. However they will see the
simultaneity at different times. Why? Because they were at different
equal distance from the strikes.

Could it be more clear? :-D

...

I am amazed that people are still thinking about these stories of
lightning and trains.

Forty years ago, I asked myself many questions about the main problems of
our time, especially theological and scientific.

I think I have solved all the big questions I had (except one).

As for the theory of relativity, I explained all that a long time ago.

What I don't understand is why it doesn't interest anyone, and why we
constantly ask the same questions when I've given the clearest, simplest
and truest answers on this.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paparios
You, like all the other trolls around here, can read 1000 times the clear
Einstein's text and still will not understand anything about it. Change you hobby,
as elementary geometry and algebra is too much for your very limited abilities.

Maybe I understand too much. Why do I not get a proper answer to my questions?
Maybe that is the proof we need.
I have passed exams in geometry and algebra so maybe you can ask them to revoke
my results or accept it.
There is no point in asking question just to be given evasive answers. I can
tell an evasive answer when I see it or are you putting that beyond me as well?
A few more questions and that is it.
......the strikes happened simultaneously at the
ends of the train when Manny and Mary are coincide with each other.
That means that both of them are at different equal distances from the
strikes when they happened simultaneously. In order to preserve the
isotropy of the speed of light in both frames both Manny and Mary will
see the strikes to be simultaneous. However they will see the
simultaneity at different times. Why? Because they were at different
equal distance from the strikes.

Could it be more clear? :-D

I am amazed that people are still thinking about these stories of
lightning and trains.
Forty years ago, I asked myself many questions about the main problems of
our time, especially theological and scientific.
I think I have solved all the big questions I had (except one).
As for the theory of relativity, I explained all that a long time ago.

...

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

[Paparios]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Sylvia Else
For that observer, the beams were not emitted simultaneously, with the
beam from B being emitted before that from A. So the observer expects to
to see the beam from B before the beam from A.
Sylvia.

###
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment,
we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the Ughtning occurs, meet each
other at the mid-point M of the length A B
###

You should realize that A and B (see figure 1) are not points inside the train. They are points on the track!!!

Post by ***@gmail.com
###
But the events A and B of the embankment also correspond to positions A and B on the train.
Let M' be the mid-point of the distance A > B on the travelling train.
Just when the of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards
the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train.
###
M' moves to the right as specified.
###
If an observer sitting in the position M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then
he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and
B would reach him simultaneously
##
What are the assumptions made here? The velocity here is the velocity of M' towards the source.
This is equivalent to the the source have a velocity towards M' since there is no 'absolute velocity': one cannot
say that M' is at rest any more than one can say the source is at rest and M' is moving.

...

Everyone is at rest with respect to themselves. When you ride inside an airplane your seat is at rest with respect to the body of the plane.

Post by ***@gmail.com
If it is stated that the velocity of light is c regardless of the 'state of motion of the source' then what is the state
of motion of the source here and what effect does it have?

The photons emitted at points A and B are spreading in all directions at speed c. The second principle reads:

"Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body".

Post by ***@gmail.com
The situation is equivalent to having an Aether at rest in the frame of the track. Is there assumed to be an Aether at rest
with respect to the track?

No such thing is needed. M is not moving relative to A or B. M' is moving away from A and towards B. Therefore, those are not similar situations.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Sylvia Else
For that observer, the beams were not emitted simultaneously, with the
beam from B being emitted before that from A. So the observer expects to
to see the beam from B before the beam from A.
Sylvia.

###
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment,
we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the Ughtning occurs, meet each
other at the mid-point M of the length A B
###

You should realize that A and B (see figure 1) are not points inside the train. They are points on the track!!!

Post by ***@gmail.com
###
But the events A and B of the embankment also correspond to positions A and B on the train.
Let M' be the mid-point of the distance A > B on the travelling train.
Just when the of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards
the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train.
###
M' moves to the right as specified.
###
If an observer sitting in the position M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then
he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and
B would reach him simultaneously
##
What are the assumptions made here? The velocity here is the velocity of M' towards the source.
This is equivalent to the the source have a velocity towards M' since there is no 'absolute velocity': one cannot
say that M' is at rest any more than one can say the source is at rest and M' is moving.

Everyone is at rest with respect to themselves. When you ride inside an airplane your seat is at rest with respect to the body of the plane.

Post by ***@gmail.com
If it is stated that the velocity of light is c regardless of the 'state of motion of the source' then what is the state
of motion of the source here and what effect does it have?

"Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body".

...

What are the light sources for M' and what is their velocities in the frame of reference in which M' is at rest?
Can we say at what distance from M' the light sources are when the lightning strikes?

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
The situation is equivalent to having an Aether at rest in the frame of the track. Is there assumed to be an Aether at rest
with respect to the track?

No such thing is needed. M is not moving relative to A or B. M' is moving away from A and towards B. Therefore, those are not similar situations.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by ***@gmail.com
The train experiment, which is correctly attributed to science fiction, contains certain assumptions that are unstated. This might explain the difficulties
that are encountered in understanding how it could be real.
RELATIVITY
THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY
BY
ALBERT EINSTEIN, Ph.D.
FBOFSasOB 07 FBTSICS IH THS tTHITIlBBITT OF BEBLIH
####
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B
are simultaneous with respect to the embankment,
the rays of light emitted at the places
A and B, where the Ughtning occurs, meet each
other at the mid-point M of the length A
B
But the events A and B
of the embankment.
also correspond to positions A and B on the
Let M' be the mid-point of the distance
traia.
A
flashes
B on the travelling train.
^
Just when the
of lightning occur, this point M' naturally
coincides with the point M, but it moves towards
the right in the diagram with the velocity v of
the train.
If
an observer sitting in the position
M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then
he would remain permanently at M, and the light
rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and
B
would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would
meet just where he is situated. Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A.

...

The train example uses light-rays to define simultaneity.

But Einstein made an error, because light has a finite speed, hence the
time needed for light to travel a certain distance needs to be excluded
from considerations about time and simultaneity.

If he had done that, then the rays observed at different times were
assumed to be emitted at the same time, even if the observer moves while
the ray is on its way and sees them at different times.

To see this problem is much easier, if a much slower velocity is used.

So, lets take sound and hearing (instead of light and seeing):

Now we should take into consideration, that sound is rather slow and a
certain noise needs some time to reach us.

If we would move within this time, the signals from synchronous events
would not reach us at the same time.


But this wouldn't render these events as out of synch, because
synchronicity of observation does not mean synchronicity of the
observations of these events. And non-synchronicity of observations
would not mean, the events happend at different times.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Thomas Heger
The train example uses light-rays to define simultaneity.
But Einstein made an error, because light has a finite speed, hence the
time needed for light to travel a certain distance needs to be excluded
from considerations about time and simultaneity.

I would use a different definition of simultaneity:

I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point without
any delay.

This does not exist in reality, but can be, nevertheless, used in a
definition.

The difference between infinetely fast signals (which we don't have) and
real world signals is the delay, which needs to be measured and added to
the hypothetical signal with infinite velocity.

This would give a much more convincing concept about simultaneity, but
differs greatly from Einstein's definition.



..


TH

[[e-mail]]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
The train example uses light-rays to define simultaneity.
But Einstein made an error, because light has a finite speed, hence the
time needed for light to travel a certain distance needs to be excluded
from considerations about time and simultaneity.

I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point without
any delay.
This does not exist in reality, but can be, nevertheless, used in a
definition.
The difference between infinetely fast signals (which we don't have) and
real world signals is the delay, which needs to be measured and added to
the hypothetical signal with infinite velocity.
This would give a much more convincing concept about simultaneity, but
differs greatly from Einstein's definition.
..
TH

...

I quote from my other thread with corrections: (a) or (b)?

"Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A."

Light is travelling at speed c relative to M', yet he is 'hastening towards' the beam of light coming from B. Ah yes, for M', light is
travelling at speed c nevertheless.

In the embankment, the 'closing speed' towards the light beam is some velocity
c + v. Right, so an object M' is moving towards a light front.

We can only say that the observer in the track frame will see the M' getting hit by one light beam before the other, is that correct?

What will the observer M' see? Again, since this is a work of fiction, we can write the story so that M' also gets hit by one light beam after the other, as M sees him do so, the both 'agree'. So M' will assume:

(a) The lightning strike at B happened after the strike at A (reasonable, since if we are in a classroom and paper ball hits us one before the other we will assume one was thrown before the other)

OR

(b) The lightning strike B was closer to M' than A

Again we imagine M' does not know he is moving, and does not know how far the lightning struck.

[Paparios]

Post by ***@gmail.com
I quote from my other thread with corrections: (a) or (b)?
"Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A."

Yes. The light sources are points A and B on the track. Observer M is in the middle of AB and, if the strikes are simultaneous in A and B, then M will receive the light signals at the same time.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Light is travelling at speed c relative to M', yet he is 'hastening towards' the beam of light coming from B. Ah yes, for M', light is
travelling at speed c nevertheless.

Wrong, light signals are traveling at speed c from points A and B. Remember principle 2: "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be EMITTED by a stationary or by a moving body".

Post by ***@gmail.com
In the embankment, the 'closing speed' towards the light beam is some velocity
c + v. Right, so an object M' is moving towards a light front.

Nonsense. M is not moving relative to points A and B, so there is no c + v closing speed!!!
M', on the other hand, as viewed from M, has a c-v closing speed relative to the signal from point A and a c+v closing speed relative to point B.

Post by ***@gmail.com
We can only say that the observer in the track frame will see the M' getting hit by one light beam before the other, is that correct?

Wrong again. Observer M will see both light signals to arrive at the same time. Observer M' will see the light signal from point B to arrive before the light signal from point A.

Observer M is not able to see what happens to observer M'.
What is quite clear is that you do not understand any of this. Observer M' will see what it sees (totally independent of what observer M sees). M' is moving at speed v, relative to observer M. That speed is assumed to be quite large (v=0.6c).

Post by ***@gmail.com
(a) The lightning strike at B happened after the strike at A (reasonable, since if we are in a classroom and paper ball hits us one before the other we will assume one was thrown before the other)

The thought experiment assumes the lightning strikes were simultaneously at points A and B (which are on the tracks). Then it is explored how those events are received both by observe4rs M and M'.

Post by ***@gmail.com
OR
(b) The lightning strike B was closer to M' than A
Again we imagine M' does not know he is moving, and does not know how far the lightning struck.

Nonsense. Observer M' is inside a moving train and, clearly, M' entered the train at some point (not shown in figure 1) and was accelerated to reach the speed v of the train. For sure, both M and M' do not know where the lightning strikes occurred. They just receive the light signals and record the timing of the strikes.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I quote from my other thread with corrections: (a) or (b)?
"Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A."

Yes. The light sources are points A and B on the track. Observer M is in the middle of AB and, if the strikes are simultaneous in A and B, then M will receive the light signals at the same time.

...

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

[[e-mail]]

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I quote from my other thread with corrections: (a) or (b)?
"Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A."

Yes. The light sources are points A and B on the track. Observer M is in the middle of AB and, if the strikes are simultaneous in A and B, then M will receive the light signals at the same time.

...

Agreed.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
Light is travelling at speed c relative to M', yet he is 'hastening towards' the beam of light coming from B. Ah yes, for M', light is
travelling at speed c nevertheless.

Wrong, light signals are traveling at speed c from points A and B. Remember principle 2: "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be EMITTED by a stationary or by a moving body".

Post by ***@gmail.com
In the embankment, the 'closing speed' towards the light beam is some velocity
c + v. Right, so an object M' is moving towards a light front.

Nonsense. M is not moving relative to points A and B, so there is no c + v closing speed!!!

...

Right. I never said M is moving.

Post by Paparios
M', on the other hand, as viewed from M, has a c-v closing speed relative to the signal from point A and a c+v closing speed relative to [ the signal from ] point B.

Agreed.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
We can only say that the observer in the track frame will see the M' getting hit by one light beam before the other, is that correct?

Wrong again. Observer M will see both light signals to arrive at the same time. Observer M' will see the light signal from point B to arrive before the light signal from point A.
Observer M is not able to see what happens to observer M'.

Hidden assumption (1)

Post by Paparios
What is quite clear is that you do not understand any of this. Observer M' will see what it sees (totally independent of what observer M sees). M' is moving at speed v, relative to observer M. That speed is assumed to be quite large (v=0.6c).

Post by ***@gmail.com
(a) The lightning strike at B happened after the strike at A (reasonable, since if we are in a classroom and paper ball hits us one before the other we will assume one was thrown before the other)

The thought experiment assumes the lightning strikes were simultaneously at points A and B (which are on the tracks). Then it is explored how those events are received both by observe4rs M and M'.

Post by ***@gmail.com
OR
(b) The lightning strike B was closer to M' than A
Again we imagine M' does not know he is moving, and does not know how far the lightning struck.

Nonsense. Observer M' is inside a moving train and, clearly, M' entered the train at some point (not shown in figure 1) and was accelerated to reach the speed v of the train. For sure, both M and M' do not know where the lightning strikes occurred.

...

Hidden assumption (2)

Post by Paparios
They just receive the light signals and record the timing of the strikes.

Hidden assumption (3)

I hope we all agree on the hidden assumptions. Wouldn't it have been nice if Einstein mentioned these in his book, for those who do not blindly accept concepts without thinking?

Post by Paparios
Observer M is not able to see what happens to observer M'.

Hidden assumption (1)

Post by Paparios
For sure, both M and M' do not know where the lightning strikes occurred. They just receive the light signals and record the timing of >the strikes.

Hidden assumption (2) and (3)

Basically you cannot use a light-speed meter to measure how fast you are moving relative to any light source.

[Paparios]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I quote from my other thread with corrections: (a) or (b)?
"Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A."

Yes. The light sources are points A and B on the track. Observer M is in the middle of AB and, if the strikes are simultaneous in A and B, then M will receive the light signals at the same time.

Agreed.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
Light is travelling at speed c relative to M', yet he is 'hastening towards' the beam of light coming from B. Ah yes, for M', light is
travelling at speed c nevertheless.

Wrong, light signals are traveling at speed c from points A and B. Remember principle 2: "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be EMITTED by a stationary or by a moving body".

Post by ***@gmail.com
In the embankment, the 'closing speed' towards the light beam is some velocity
c + v. Right, so an object M' is moving towards a light front.

Nonsense. M is not moving relative to points A and B, so there is no c + v closing speed!!!

Right. I never said M is moving.

Post by Paparios
M', on the other hand, as viewed from M, has a c-v closing speed relative to the signal from point A and a c+v closing speed relative to [ the signal from ] point B.

Agreed.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
We can only say that the observer in the track frame will see the M' getting hit by one light beam before the other, is that correct?

Wrong again. Observer M will see both light signals to arrive at the same time. Observer M' will see the light signal from point B to arrive before the light signal from point A.
Observer M is not able to see what happens to observer M'.

Hidden assumption (1)

...

Why do you consider that a hidden assumption? The objective of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that if observer M' is moving at speed v (relative to observer M) the simultaneity of events will differ for them. Nowhere in the setup the actions of observer M' are relevant to observer M.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
What is quite clear is that you do not understand any of this. Observer M' will see what it sees (totally independent of what observer M sees). M' is moving at speed v, relative to observer M. That speed is assumed to be quite large (v=0.6c).

Post by ***@gmail.com
(a) The lightning strike at B happened after the strike at A (reasonable, since if we are in a classroom and paper ball hits us one before the other we will assume one was thrown before the other)

The thought experiment assumes the lightning strikes were simultaneously at points A and B (which are on the tracks). Then it is explored how those events are received both by observe4rs M and M'.

Post by ***@gmail.com
OR
(b) The lightning strike B was closer to M' than A
Again we imagine M' does not know he is moving, and does not know how far the lightning struck.

Nonsense. Observer M' is inside a moving train and, clearly, M' entered the train at some point (not shown in figure 1) and was accelerated to reach the speed v of the train. For sure, both M and M' do not know where the lightning strikes occurred.

Hidden assumption (2)

...

Again, the relevance of where A or B are located is not that important for the thought experiment. Actually, you could set points A and B in such a way that observer M' sees them to be simultaneous. In that case, obviously, observer M will see them to be non-simultaneous.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
They just receive the light signals and record the timing of the strikes.

Hidden assumption (3)

Again, there is nothing hiding about measuring events.

Post by ***@gmail.com
I hope we all agree on the hidden assumptions. Wouldn't it have been nice if Einstein mentioned these in his book, for those who do not blindly accept concepts without thinking?

There is nothing to agree here. Einstein is quite clear in the setup and the explanation of the results.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
Observer M is not able to see what happens to observer M'.

Hidden assumption (1)

Post by Paparios
For sure, both M and M' do not know where the lightning strikes occurred. They just receive the light signals and record the timing of >the strikes.

Hidden assumption (2) and (3)
Basically you cannot use a light-speed meter to measure how fast you are moving relative to any light source.

Basically you are wrong. There are multiples ways of measuring the speed of space vehicles. We know with high precision where the spacecraft Voyager 1 is: "in 2022-07-14, Voyager 1 has reached a distance of 23.381 billion km from Earth and 23.483 billion km from the Sun".

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I quote from my other thread with corrections: (a) or (b)?
"Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A."

Yes. The light sources are points A and B on the track. Observer M is in the middle of AB and, if the strikes are simultaneous in A and B, then M will receive the light signals at the same time.

Agreed.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
Light is travelling at speed c relative to M', yet he is 'hastening towards' the beam of light coming from B. Ah yes, for M', light is
travelling at speed c nevertheless.

Wrong, light signals are traveling at speed c from points A and B. Remember principle 2: "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be EMITTED by a stationary or by a moving body".

Post by ***@gmail.com
In the embankment, the 'closing speed' towards the light beam is some velocity
c + v. Right, so an object M' is moving towards a light front.

Nonsense. M is not moving relative to points A and B, so there is no c + v closing speed!!!

Right. I never said M is moving.

Post by Paparios
M', on the other hand, as viewed from M, has a c-v closing speed relative to the signal from point A and a c+v closing speed relative to [ the signal from ] point B.

Agreed.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
We can only say that the observer in the track frame will see the M' getting hit by one light beam before the other, is that correct?

Wrong again. Observer M will see both light signals to arrive at the same time. Observer M' will see the light signal from point B to arrive before the light signal from point A.
Observer M is not able to see what happens to observer M'.

Hidden assumption (1)

Why do you consider that a hidden assumption? The objective of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that if observer M' is moving at speed v (relative to observer M) the simultaneity of events will differ for them. Nowhere in the setup the actions of observer M' are relevant to observer M.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
What is quite clear is that you do not understand any of this. Observer M' will see what it sees (totally independent of what observer M sees). M' is moving at speed v, relative to observer M. That speed is assumed to be quite large (v=0.6c).

Post by ***@gmail.com
(a) The lightning strike at B happened after the strike at A (reasonable, since if we are in a classroom and paper ball hits us one before the other we will assume one was thrown before the other)

The thought experiment assumes the lightning strikes were simultaneously at points A and B (which are on the tracks). Then it is explored how those events are received both by observe4rs M and M'.

Post by ***@gmail.com
OR
(b) The lightning strike B was closer to M' than A
Again we imagine M' does not know he is moving, and does not know how far the lightning struck.

Nonsense. Observer M' is inside a moving train and, clearly, M' entered the train at some point (not shown in figure 1) and was accelerated to reach the speed v of the train. For sure, both M and M' do not know where the lightning strikes occurred.

Hidden assumption (2)

Again, the relevance of where A or B are located is not that important for the thought experiment. Actually, you could set points A and B in such a way that observer M' sees them to be simultaneous. In that case, obviously, observer M will see them to be non-simultaneous.

...

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

[[e-mail]]

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I quote from my other thread with corrections: (a) or (b)?
"Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A."

Yes. The light sources are points A and B on the track. Observer M is in the middle of AB and, if the strikes are simultaneous in A and B, then M will receive the light signals at the same time.

Agreed.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
Light is travelling at speed c relative to M', yet he is 'hastening towards' the beam of light coming from B. Ah yes, for M', light is
travelling at speed c nevertheless.

Wrong, light signals are traveling at speed c from points A and B. Remember principle 2: "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be EMITTED by a stationary or by a moving body".

Post by ***@gmail.com
In the embankment, the 'closing speed' towards the light beam is some velocity
c + v. Right, so an object M' is moving towards a light front.

Nonsense. M is not moving relative to points A and B, so there is no c + v closing speed!!!

Right. I never said M is moving.

Post by Paparios
M', on the other hand, as viewed from M, has a c-v closing speed relative to the signal from point A and a c+v closing speed relative to [ the signal from ] point B.

Agreed.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
We can only say that the observer in the track frame will see the M' getting hit by one light beam before the other, is that correct?

Wrong again. Observer M will see both light signals to arrive at the same time. Observer M' will see the light signal from point B to arrive before the light signal from point A.
Observer M is not able to see what happens to observer M'.

Hidden assumption (1)

Why do you consider that a hidden assumption? The objective of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that if observer M' is moving at speed v (relative to observer M) the simultaneity of events will differ for them. Nowhere in the setup the actions of observer M' are relevant to observer M.

...

The experiment also demonstrates that light from closer objects reaches us sooner than light from objects far away.
Is this considered the relativity of simultaneity?

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
What is quite clear is that you do not understand any of this. Observer M' will see what it sees (totally independent of what observer M sees).

Observer M' will see what he sees, let us ignore that, then.

M' is moving at speed v, relative to observer M. That speed is assumed to be quite large (v=0.6c).

OK

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
(a) The lightning strike at B happened after the strike at A (reasonable, since if we are in a classroom and paper ball hits us one before the other we will assume one was thrown before the other)

The thought experiment assumes the lightning strikes were simultaneously at points A and B (which are on the tracks). Then it is explored how those events are received both by observe4rs M and M'.

Post by ***@gmail.com
OR
(b) The lightning strike B was closer to M' than A
Again we imagine M' does not know he is moving, and does not know how far the lightning struck.

Nonsense. Observer M' is inside a moving train and, clearly, M' entered the train at some point (not shown in figure 1) and was

...

accelerated to reach the speed v of the train.

M' is inside a moving train, suppose I accept that.

Post by Paparios
For sure, both M and M' do not know where the lightning strikes occurred.

From a normal reading of the English statements here, the lightning strikes occurred at places A and B on the track. In the real world, lightning strikes have a definite location, and if we are not talking about reality here, or going to ignore certain aspects
of reality, then that should be stated. Right?

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hidden assumption (2)

Again, the relevance of where A or B are located is not that important for the thought experiment. Actually, you could set points A and B in such a way that observer M' sees them to be simultaneous. In that case, obviously, observer M will see them to be non-simultaneous.

A and B are located equidistant from M. So it matters where A and B are located. They are also depicted as being outside the ends of the train, on the track. I cannot see why you say where A and B are located is irrelevant.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
They just receive the light signals and record the timing of the strikes.

Hidden assumption (3)

Again, there is nothing hiding about measuring events.

Good. This only means that, in conjunction with earlier assumptions, they do not record or ascertain any distances to A and B.
That is what needs to be stated.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I hope we all agree on the hidden assumptions. Wouldn't it have been nice if Einstein mentioned these in his book, for those who do not blindly accept concepts without thinking?

There is nothing to agree here. Einstein is quite clear in the setup and the explanation of the results.

Really? I have read the text, and what you have elaborated is nowhere in the text. Is that to be assumed? Or how exactly
are we to get the idea, from the text that "the relevance of where A or B are located is not that important for the thought experiment."

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
Observer M is not able to see what happens to observer M'.

Hidden assumption (1)

Post by Paparios
For sure, both M and M' do not know where the lightning strikes occurred. They just receive the light signals and record the timing of >the strikes.

Hidden assumption (2) and (3)
Basically you cannot use a light-speed meter to measure how fast you are moving relative to any light source.

Basically you are wrong. There are multiples ways of measuring the speed of space vehicles. We know with high precision where the spacecraft Voyager 1 is: "in 2022-07-14, Voyager 1 has reached a distance of 23.381 billion km from Earth and 23.483 billion km from the Sun".

...

Right, so we are moving towards Alpha Centauri, and the light from that star passes through two points on our spaceshipt at c+v.
Knowing c, we can calculate v. This is exactly what I said you could not do, when I said "you cannot use a light-speed meter to measure how fast you are moving relative to any light source."

[Paparios]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
Observer M is not able to see what happens to observer M'.

Hidden assumption (1)

Why do you consider that a hidden assumption? The objective of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that if observer M' is moving at speed v (relative to observer M) the simultaneity of events will differ for them. Nowhere in the setup the actions of observer M' are relevant to observer M.

The experiment also demonstrates that light from closer objects reaches us sooner than light from objects far away.
Is this considered the relativity of simultaneity?

...

Are you kidding? It is considered basic logic.
If light has a given speed c, obviously objects closer to the light source will receive th light signal before far objects.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
(a) The lightning strike at B happened after the strike at A (reasonable, since if we are in a classroom and paper ball hits us one before the other we will assume one was thrown before the other)

The thought experiment assumes the lightning strikes were simultaneously at points A and B (which are on the tracks). Then it is explored how those events are received both by observers M and M'.

Post by ***@gmail.com
OR
(b) The lightning strike B was closer to M' than A
Again we imagine M' does not know he is moving, and does not know how far the lightning struck.

Nonsense. Observer M' is inside a moving train and, clearly, M' entered the train at some point (not shown in figure 1) and was

accelerated to reach the speed v of the train.
M' is inside a moving train, suppose I accept that.

Post by Paparios
For sure, both M and M' do not know where the lightning strikes occurred.

From a normal reading of the English statements here, the lightning strikes occurred at places A and B on the track. In the real world, lightning strikes have a definite location, and if we are not talking about reality here, or going to ignore certain aspects
of reality, then that should be stated. Right?

...

Einstein's normal English words: "Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative".

Figure 1 is then shown to clarify the setting. Nothing hidden there!!!

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hidden assumption (2)

Again, the relevance of where A or B are located is not that important for the thought experiment. Actually, you could set points A and B in such a way that observer M' sees them to be simultaneous. In that case, obviously, observer M will see them to be non-simultaneous.

A and B are located equidistant from M. So it matters where A and B are located. They are also depicted as being outside the ends of the train, on the track. I cannot see why you say where A and B are located is irrelevant.

...

The relativity of simultaneity is a more general concept and Einstein thought experiment is just a very clear example of it. See the figures in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
They just receive the light signals and record the timing of the strikes.

Hidden assumption (3)

Again, there is nothing hiding about measuring events.

Good. This only means that, in conjunction with earlier assumptions, they do not record or ascertain any distances to A and B.
That is what needs to be stated.

It is described in the setting. Again, "Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative".
Figure 1 is then shown to clarify the setting.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I hope we all agree on the hidden assumptions. Wouldn't it have been nice if Einstein mentioned these in his book, for those who do not blindly accept concepts without thinking?

There is nothing to agree here. Einstein is quite clear in the setup and the explanation of the results.

Really? I have read the text, and what you have elaborated is nowhere in the text. Is that to be assumed? Or how exactly
are we to get the idea, from the text that "the relevance of where A or B are located is not that important for the thought experiment."

...

You just need to understand plain English, which in your case appears to be very complicated.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
Observer M is not able to see what happens to observer M'.

Hidden assumption (1)

Post by Paparios
For sure, both M and M' do not know where the lightning strikes occurred. They just receive the light signals and record the timing of >the strikes.

Hidden assumption (2) and (3)
Basically you cannot use a light-speed meter to measure how fast you are moving relative to any light source.

Which has nothing to do with Einstein's setting.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
Observer M is not able to see what happens to observer M'.

Hidden assumption (1)

Why do you consider that a hidden assumption? The objective of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that if observer M' is moving at speed v (relative to observer M) the simultaneity of events will differ for them. Nowhere in the setup the actions of observer M' are relevant to observer M.

The experiment also demonstrates that light from closer objects reaches us sooner than light from objects far away.
Is this considered the relativity of simultaneity?

Are you kidding? It is considered basic logic.
If light has a given speed c, obviously objects closer to the light source will receive th light signal before far objects.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
(a) The lightning strike at B happened after the strike at A (reasonable, since if we are in a classroom and paper ball hits us one before the other we will assume one was thrown before the other)

The thought experiment assumes the lightning strikes were simultaneously at points A and B (which are on the tracks). Then it is explored how those events are received both by observers M and M'.

Post by ***@gmail.com
OR
(b) The lightning strike B was closer to M' than A
Again we imagine M' does not know he is moving, and does not know how far the lightning struck.

Nonsense. Observer M' is inside a moving train and, clearly, M' entered the train at some point (not shown in figure 1) and was

accelerated to reach the speed v of the train.
M' is inside a moving train, suppose I accept that.

Post by Paparios
For sure, both M and M' do not know where the lightning strikes occurred.

From a normal reading of the English statements here, the lightning strikes occurred at places A and B on the track. In the real world, lightning strikes have a definite location, and if we are not talking about reality here, or going to ignore certain aspects
of reality, then that should be stated. Right?

Einstein's normal English words: "Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative".
Figure 1 is then shown to clarify the setting. Nothing hidden there!!!

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hidden assumption (2)

Again, the relevance of where A or B are located is not that important for the thought experiment. Actually, you could set points A and B in such a way that observer M' sees them to be simultaneous. In that case, obviously, observer M will see them to be non-simultaneous.

A and B are located equidistant from M. So it matters where A and B are located. They are also depicted as being outside the ends of the train, on the track. I cannot see why you say where A and B are located is irrelevant.

The relativity of simultaneity is a more general concept and Einstein thought experiment is just a very clear example of it. See the figures in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
They just receive the light signals and record the timing of the strikes.

Hidden assumption (3)

Again, there is nothing hiding about measuring events.

Good. This only means that, in conjunction with earlier assumptions, they do not record or ascertain any distances to A and B.
That is what needs to be stated.

It is described in the setting. Again, "Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative".
Figure 1 is then shown to clarify the setting.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I hope we all agree on the hidden assumptions. Wouldn't it have been nice if Einstein mentioned these in his book, for those who do not blindly accept concepts without thinking?

There is nothing to agree here. Einstein is quite clear in the setup and the explanation of the results.

Really? I have read the text, and what you have elaborated is nowhere in the text. Is that to be assumed? Or how exactly
are we to get the idea, from the text that "the relevance of where A or B are located is not that important for the thought experiment."

You just need to understand plain English, which in your case appears to be very complicated.

...

I will let the reader judge for themselves, if an explanation is give, and a diagram drawn with A and B, that we who understand English are supposed to translate this into "The relevance of where A and B are located does not matter".

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
Observer M is not able to see what happens to observer M'.

Hidden assumption (1)

Post by Paparios
For sure, both M and M' do not know where the lightning strikes occurred. They just receive the light signals and record the timing of >the strikes.

Hidden assumption (2) and (3)
Basically you cannot use a light-speed meter to measure how fast you are moving relative to any light source.

Which has nothing to do with Einstein's setting.

...

This refers to the constancy of the speed of light.

I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Post by ***@gmail.com
I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

Most renderings of the thought experiment are misleading.

A and B are NOT associated with EITHER the track or the train.
Nor should you think of them as associated with the superheated,
ionized, glowing air from the lightning's passage. Rather, you
should think of A and B as single x, y, z, t events in spacetime
with neither Δx, Δy, Δz extent nor Δt duration. Since they have
no duration, it is not possible to be in motion relative to events.

You should NOT think of the "light" that M and M' see as being
literally "light" as having a frequency, wavelength, and intensity.
Rather, you should think of the "light" as being single bit yes/no
signals traveling at light speed from the events to the observers.
It is possible to extract relative speed information from EM
radiation from Doppler shift. It is not possible to extract relative
speed information from abstract single bit yes/no signals.

Everything takes place in a vacuum so there is no wind, and the
surrounding universe is empty of other objects. No trees, no
Earth, no Sun or stars.

Thought experiments provide analogies that serve as "intuition
pumps" intended to aid understanding. However, their usefulness
is dependent on the reader being able to distinguish between the
relevant and the non-relevant features of the thought experiment.

Most ordinary readers seem to be able to focus on the relevant
features of the train/track gedanken, the light clock gedanken,
and so forth. "Most" is not "all", unfortunately. Over the years,
I have consistently seen crackpots focus on all the wrong things.

More on Einstein's thought experiments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments

[[e-mail]]

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com
I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

Most renderings of the thought experiment are misleading.

That is not my fault.

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
A and B are NOT associated with EITHER the track or the train.
Nor should you think of them as associated with the superheated,
ionized, glowing air from the lightning's passage. Rather, you
should think of A and B as single x, y, z, t events in spacetime
with neither Δx, Δy, Δz extent nor Δt duration. Since they have
no duration, it is not possible to be in motion relative to events.

All hidden assumptions that are not obvious to the reader. The thought experiment preceded Special Relativity, so Special
Relativity cannot be used to explain it, though the second postulate does come into play. I do not think readers would have
expected 'events in spacetime without a position or duration'.

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
You should NOT think of the "light" that M and M' see as being
literally "light" as having a frequency, wavelength, and intensity.
Rather, you should think of the "light" as being single bit yes/no
signals traveling at light speed from the events to the observers.

If that is what is meant, then more hidden assumptions.

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
It is possible to extract relative speed information from EM
radiation from Doppler shift. It is not possible to extract relative
speed information from abstract single bit yes/no signals.
Everything takes place in a vacuum so there is no wind, and the
surrounding universe is empty of other objects. No trees, no
Earth, no Sun or stars.

Oh yes. Which is why it is difficult to imagine which observer is 'moving'.

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Thought experiments provide analogies that serve as "intuition
pumps" intended to aid understanding. However, their usefulness
is dependent on the reader being able to distinguish between the
relevant and the non-relevant features of the thought experiment.

Since these are just words on screens, and my opinion has already been discounted, let me give you my opinion:
thought experiments are useful, but may contain hidden assumptions that ultimately mislead the reader, misrepresent reality and may even result in incorrect conclusions. Luckily, we have experiments to confirm that Special Relativity works, but it did not have to be that way. There was no reason to expect Special Relativity to be accepted without testing. The thought experiments prove nothing.

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Most ordinary readers seem to be able to focus on the relevant
features of the train/track gedanken, the light clock gedanken,
and so forth. "Most" is not "all", unfortunately. Over the years,
I have consistently seen crackpots focus on all the wrong things.

Most ordinary readers accept wholesale without thinking, analyzing, asking the right questions and simply
parrot out dubious explanations like some prophet from on high. I have come across such prophetic pronouncements
on YouTube. See the Twin Paradox explanations.

I will neither accept nor teach or regurgitate such things without understanding.

It is a wonder that it cannot be said that any fool can see that this thoughtless experiment which is science fiction that this thing is hopelessly trivial.

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments

From the above site:
########
"The combination of Einstein's first and second postulates implies that, despite the rapid motion of the train relative to the embankment, M' measures exactly the same speed of light as does M. Since M' was equidistant from A and B when lightning struck, the fact that M' receives light from B before light from A means that to M', the bolts were not synchronous. Instead, the bolt at B struck first."
######

"Since M' was equidistant from A and B " what does that mean?

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments

#######
"However, all of the above is supposition. In later recollections, when Einstein was asked about what inspired him to develop special relativity, he would mention his riding a light beam and his magnet and conductor thought experiments. He would also mention the importance of the Fizeau experiment and the observation of stellar aberration. "They were enough", he said.[18] He never mentioned thought experiments about clocks and their synchronization.[16]

The routine analyses of the Fizeau experiment and of stellar aberration, that treat light as Newtonian corpuscles, do not require relativity. But problems arise if one considers light as waves traveling through an aether, which are resolved by applying the relativity of simultaneity. It is entirely possible, therefore, that Einstein arrived at special relativity through a different path than that commonly assumed, through Einstein's examination of Fizeau's experiment and stellar aberration.[16]"
#######

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com
I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

Most renderings of the thought experiment are misleading.

That is not my fault.

MOST people have little problem understanding important detail from
minor glosses that need to be taken in describing this experiment.

YOU, however, have great difficulty in distinguishing the important
from the unimportant.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
A and B are NOT associated with EITHER the track or the train.
Nor should you think of them as associated with the superheated,
ionized, glowing air from the lightning's passage. Rather, you
should think of A and B as single x, y, z, t events in spacetime
with neither Δx, Δy, Δz extent nor Δt duration. Since they have
no duration, it is not possible to be in motion relative to events.

All hidden assumptions that are not obvious to the reader. The thought experiment preceded Special Relativity, so Special
Relativity cannot be used to explain it, though the second postulate does come into play. I do not think readers would have
expected 'events in spacetime without a position or duration'.

...

You can't even read correctly what I wrote. I wrote that events have
neither Δx, Δy, Δz extent nor Δt duration. I ***never*** wrote that
events do not have position.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
You should NOT think of the "light" that M and M' see as being
literally "light" as having a frequency, wavelength, and intensity.
Rather, you should think of the "light" as being single bit yes/no
signals traveling at light speed from the events to the observers.

If that is what is meant, then more hidden assumptions.

MOST people reading the thought experiment understand immediately
that the property of light that is of interest *within the context
of this thought experiment* is that light travels at constant c
independent of the motions of source and observer. CRACKPOTS,
however, scrutinize EVERY aspect of the thought experiment to
find ANYTHING AT ALL that is unrealistic about it. Of course, being
a thought experiment rather than a real experiment, crackpots are
guaranteed to find something unrealistic.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
It is possible to extract relative speed information from EM
radiation from Doppler shift. It is not possible to extract relative
speed information from abstract single bit yes/no signals.
Everything takes place in a vacuum so there is no wind, and the
surrounding universe is empty of other objects. No trees, no
Earth, no Sun or stars.

Oh yes. Which is why it is difficult to imagine which observer is 'moving'.

The principle of relativity is a fundamental assumption. There is
NO SUCH THING as being able to tell which observer is "really"
moving and which is not.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Thought experiments provide analogies that serve as "intuition
pumps" intended to aid understanding. However, their usefulness
is dependent on the reader being able to distinguish between the
relevant and the non-relevant features of the thought experiment.

thought experiments are useful, but may contain hidden assumptions that ultimately mislead the reader, misrepresent reality and may even result in incorrect conclusions.

Mostly if the reader is DETERMINED to obtain the incorrect conclusion.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Luckily, we have experiments to confirm that Special Relativity works, but it did not have to be that way. There was no reason to expect Special Relativity to be accepted without testing. The thought experiments prove nothing.

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Most ordinary readers seem to be able to focus on the relevant
features of the train/track gedanken, the light clock gedanken,
and so forth. "Most" is not "all", unfortunately. Over the years,
I have consistently seen crackpots focus on all the wrong things.

Most ordinary readers accept wholesale without thinking, analyzing, asking the right questions and simply
parrot out dubious explanations like some prophet from on high. I have come across such prophetic pronouncements
on YouTube. See the Twin Paradox explanations.
I will neither accept nor teach or regurgitate such things without understanding.

...

You appear to be focused on NOT understanding.

Post by ***@gmail.com
It is a wonder that it cannot be said that any fool can see that this thoughtless experiment which is science fiction that this thing is hopelessly trivial.

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments

########
"The combination of Einstein's first and second postulates implies that, despite the rapid motion of the train relative to the embankment, M' measures exactly the same speed of light as does M. Since M' was equidistant from A and B when lightning struck, the fact that M' receives light from B before light from A means that to M', the bolts were not synchronous. Instead, the bolt at B struck first."
######
"Since M' was equidistant from A and B " what does that mean?

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments

#######
"However, all of the above is supposition. In later recollections, when Einstein was asked about what inspired him to develop special relativity, he would mention his riding a light beam and his magnet and conductor thought experiments. He would also mention the importance of the Fizeau experiment and the observation of stellar aberration. "They were enough", he said.[18] He never mentioned thought experiments about clocks and their synchronization.[16]
The routine analyses of the Fizeau experiment and of stellar aberration, that treat light as Newtonian corpuscles, do not require relativity. But problems arise if one considers light as waves traveling through an aether, which are resolved by applying the relativity of simultaneity. It is entirely possible, therefore, that Einstein arrived at special relativity through a different path than that commonly assumed, through Einstein's examination of Fizeau's experiment and stellar aberration.[16]"
#######

...

I note that you did not comment at all on the second half of the
article, which is the *main* reason that I wrote it (currently 95.5%
authorship). Most lay people do not realize that Einstein was
arguably the greatest single contributor to the "old" quantum theory.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com
I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

Most renderings of the thought experiment are misleading.

That is not my fault.

MOST people have little problem understanding important detail from
minor glosses that need to be taken in describing this experiment.

...

Fools! They don't understand that we're FORCED!!
To THE BEST WAY!!!

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
The principle of relativity is a fundamental assumption. There is
NO SUCH THING as being able to tell which observer is "really"
moving and which is not.

An assumption, right. Do you know what the word
means, poor halfbrain?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com
I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

Most renderings of the thought experiment are misleading.
A and B are NOT associated with EITHER the track or the train.
Nor should you think of them as associated with the superheated,
ionized, glowing air from the lightning's passage. Rather, you
should think of A and B as single x, y, z, t events in spacetime
with neither Δx, Δy, Δz extent nor Δt duration. Since they have
no duration, it is not possible to be in motion relative to events.
You should NOT think of the "light" that M and M' see as being
literally "light" as having a frequency, wavelength, and intensity.
Rather, you should think of the "light" as being single bit yes/no
signals traveling at light speed from the events to the observers.
It is possible to extract relative speed information from EM
radiation from Doppler shift. It is not possible to extract relative
speed information from abstract single bit yes/no signals.
Everything takes place in a vacuum so there is no wind, and the
surrounding universe is empty of other objects. No trees, no
Earth, no Sun or stars.
Thought experiments provide analogies that serve as "intuition
pumps" intended to aid understanding.

...

Though experiments are pure fantasy that serve as
brainwashing examples.

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com
I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

Most renderings of the thought experiment are misleading.
A and B are NOT associated with EITHER the track or the train.
Nor should you think of them as associated with the superheated,
ionized, glowing air from the lightning's passage. Rather, you
should think of A and B as single x, y, z, t events in spacetime
with neither Δx, Δy, Δz extent nor Δt duration. Since they have
no duration, it is not possible to be in motion relative to events.
You should NOT think of the "light" that M and M' see as being
literally "light" as having a frequency, wavelength, and intensity.
Rather, you should think of the "light" as being single bit yes/no
signals traveling at light speed from the events to the observers.
It is possible to extract relative speed information from EM
radiation from Doppler shift. It is not possible to extract relative
speed information from abstract single bit yes/no signals.
Everything takes place in a vacuum so there is no wind, and the
surrounding universe is empty of other objects. No trees, no
Earth, no Sun or stars.
Thought experiments provide analogies that serve as "intuition
pumps" intended to aid understanding.

Though experiments are pure fantasy that serve as
brainwashing examples.

...

You're immune to brainwashing, Maciej, you know why?


Because you have no functional brain...

[Volney]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Thought experiments provide analogies that serve as "intuition
pumps" intended to aid understanding.

Though experiments are pure fantasy that serve as
brainwashing examples.

You're immune to brainwashing, Maciej, you know why?
Because you have no functional brain...

I thought he has a halfbrain? He keeps pitying himself as being a "poor
halfbrain".

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Volney

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Thought experiments provide analogies that serve as "intuition
pumps" intended to aid understanding.

Though experiments are pure fantasy that serve as
brainwashing examples.

You're immune to brainwashing, Maciej, you know why?
Because you have no functional brain...

I thought he has a halfbrain? He keeps pitying himself as being a "poor
halfbrain".

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.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com
I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

Most renderings of the thought experiment are misleading.
A and B are NOT associated with EITHER the track or the train.
Nor should you think of them as associated with the superheated,
ionized, glowing air from the lightning's passage. Rather, you
should think of A and B as single x, y, z, t events in spacetime
with neither Δx, Δy, Δz extent nor Δt duration. Since they have
no duration, it is not possible to be in motion relative to events.
You should NOT think of the "light" that M and M' see as being
literally "light" as having a frequency, wavelength, and intensity.
Rather, you should think of the "light" as being single bit yes/no
signals traveling at light speed from the events to the observers.
It is possible to extract relative speed information from EM
radiation from Doppler shift. It is not possible to extract relative
speed information from abstract single bit yes/no signals.
Everything takes place in a vacuum so there is no wind, and the
surrounding universe is empty of other objects. No trees, no
Earth, no Sun or stars.
Thought experiments provide analogies that serve as "intuition
pumps" intended to aid understanding.

Though experiments are pure fantasy that serve as
brainwashing examples.

You're immune to brainwashing, Maciej, you know why?

...

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read
definition 9 and learnt what a function is?
No, I'm not, BTW.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com
I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

Most renderings of the thought experiment are misleading.
A and B are NOT associated with EITHER the track or the train.
Nor should you think of them as associated with the superheated,
ionized, glowing air from the lightning's passage. Rather, you
should think of A and B as single x, y, z, t events in spacetime
with neither Δx, Δy, Δz extent nor Δt duration. Since they have
no duration, it is not possible to be in motion relative to events.
You should NOT think of the "light" that M and M' see as being
literally "light" as having a frequency, wavelength, and intensity.
Rather, you should think of the "light" as being single bit yes/no
signals traveling at light speed from the events to the observers.
It is possible to extract relative speed information from EM
radiation from Doppler shift. It is not possible to extract relative
speed information from abstract single bit yes/no signals.
Everything takes place in a vacuum so there is no wind, and the
surrounding universe is empty of other objects. No trees, no
Earth, no Sun or stars.
Thought experiments provide analogies that serve as "intuition
pumps" intended to aid understanding.

Though experiments are pure fantasy that serve as
brainwashing examples.

...

So, what is your interpretation of the thought experiment?

[Paparios]

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
Really? I have read the text, and what you have elaborated is nowhere in the text. Is that to be assumed? Or how exactly
are we to get the idea, from the text that "the relevance of where A or B are located is not that important for the thought experiment."

You just need to understand plain English, which in your case appears to be very complicated.

I will let the reader judge for themselves, if an explanation is give, and a diagram drawn with A and B, that we who understand English are supposed to translate this into "The relevance of where A and B are located does not matter".

...

Einstein's English words: "Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative".

Figure 1 clearly shows:
a) the train is larger than AB and it is moving to the right at speed v.
b) the setting and figure clearly indicate that M is located in the middle of AB.
c) nowhere in the text the precise locations of points A and B are given (besides what is indicated in b).

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by ***@gmail.com
Basically you cannot use a light-speed meter to measure how fast you are moving relative to any light source.

Which has nothing to do with Einstein's setting.

This refers to the constancy of the speed of light.
I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

That is clearly explained in Einstein text:

"When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train".

No need to use A' or B'.

Einstein clearly explains:

"Let M’ be the mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M’ naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train".

"Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he (M') is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer (M') will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A".

Notice that, up to this point, there is nothing about relativity used but the fact that the speed of propagation of signals on the embankment and on the train is c.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
Really? I have read the text, and what you have elaborated is nowhere in the text. Is that to be assumed? Or how exactly
are we to get the idea, from the text that "the relevance of where A or B are located is not that important for the thought experiment."

You just need to understand plain English, which in your case appears to be very complicated.

I will let the reader judge for themselves, if an explanation is give, and a diagram drawn with A and B, that we who understand English are supposed to translate this into "The relevance of where A and B are located does not matter".

Einstein's English words: "Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative".
a) the train is larger than AB and it is moving to the right at speed v.
b) the setting and figure clearly indicate that M is located in the middle of AB.
c) nowhere in the text the precise locations of points A and B are given (besides what is indicated in b).

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by ***@gmail.com
Basically you cannot use a light-speed meter to measure how fast you are moving relative to any light source.

Which has nothing to do with Einstein's setting.

This refers to the constancy of the speed of light.
I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

"When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train".

...

Yes, this is at the point the light is emitted. Where are A and B relative to the train when the light is received?
Maybe a diagram will help.

No need to use A' or B'.

We need to know the location of A and B on the moving frame, throughout the experiment.

"Let M’ be the mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M’ naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train".
"Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he (M') is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer (M') will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A".
Notice that, up to this point, there is nothing about relativity used but the fact that the speed of propagation of signals on the embankment and on the train is c.

...

I will have to describe the three or four 'wrong' interpretations and their assumptions, and take a guess as to what most people interpret this to be, including Einstein.

[Paparios]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

"When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train".

Yes, this is at the point the light is emitted. Where are A and B relative to the train when the light is received?

...

A and B do nor change location. Those are the points where the light signals were emitted (have you not ever seen a lightning strike?).

Post by ***@gmail.com
Maybe a diagram will help.

Post by Paparios
No need to use A' or B'.

We need to know the location of A and B on the moving frame, throughout the experiment.

They do not move. Strikes happen and they just disappear (they do not move nor they last in time).

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
"Let M’ be the mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M’ naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train".
"Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he (M') is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer (M') will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A".
Notice that, up to this point, there is nothing about relativity used but the fact that the speed of propagation of signals on the embankment and on the train is c.

I will have to describe the three or four 'wrong' interpretations and their assumptions, and take a guess as to what most people interpret this to be, including Einstein.

...

There is nothing in this thought experiment subject to a wrong interpretation.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

"When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train".

Yes, this is at the point the light is emitted. Where are A and B relative to the train when the light is received?

A and B do nor change location. Those are the points where the light signals were emitted (have you not ever seen a lightning strike?).

...

That is not an answer. I asked where are A and B relative to the train when the light is received (by M')?
Your refusal to answer the question is noted.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
Maybe a diagram will help.

Post by Paparios
No need to use A' or B'.

We need to know the location of A and B on the moving frame, throughout the experiment.

They do not move. Strikes happen and they just disappear (they do not move nor they last in time).

Where are A and B? Cal them A' and B'?

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
"Let M’ be the mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M’ naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train".

The midpoint moves right.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
"Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he (M') is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer (M') will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A".
Notice that, up to this point, there is nothing about relativity used but the fact that the speed of propagation of signals on the embankment and on the train is c.

...

The speed of the light propagation of signals as you call it, is c relative to the embankment. Nowhere is it stated that speed of light relative to the train is c. Are we to assume this?

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I will have to describe the three or four 'wrong' interpretations and their assumptions, and take a guess as to what most people interpret this to be, including Einstein.

There is nothing in this thought experiment subject to a wrong interpretation.

That surely is an absurd statement. Wrong interpretations happen all the time. Don't you that cranks and crackpots and people who do not know physics exist?

[Paparios]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

"When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train".

Yes, this is at the point the light is emitted. Where are A and B relative to the train when the light is received?

A and B do nor change location. Those are the points where the light signals were emitted (have you not ever seen a lightning strike?).

That is not an answer. I asked where are A and B relative to the train when the light is received (by M')?
Your refusal to answer the question is noted.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
Maybe a diagram will help.

Post by Paparios
No need to use A' or B'.

We need to know the location of A and B on the moving frame, throughout the experiment.

They do not move. Strikes happen and they just disappear (they do not move nor they last in time).

Where are A and B? Cal them A' and B'?

...

See figure 1 at https://www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/relativity-the-special-and-general-theory/ix-the-relativity-of-simultaneity/.
It is clearly seen that A and B are points where the lightning strikes occurred. The strokes occurred at a given time (as measured on the embankment).
There is no A' or B' in that figure. The light signal is moving away at speed c (in all directions) from points A and B. Therefore, points A and B do not move (say two marks were left on the ground at point A and B on the embankment).

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
"Let M’ be the mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M’ naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train".

The midpoint moves right.

It is already clear that in the text: "Let M’ be the mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M’ naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train".

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
"Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he (M') is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer (M') will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A".
Notice that, up to this point, there is nothing about relativity used but the fact that the speed of propagation of signals on the embankment and on the train is c.

The speed of the light propagation of signals as you call it, is c relative to the embankment. Nowhere is it stated that speed of light relative to the train is c. Are we to assume this?

...

You should read the rest of the book, which is called "Relativity The Special and General Theory". Besides that, the second principle in Einstein's 1905 paper affirms: "2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I will have to describe the three or four 'wrong' interpretations and their assumptions, and take a guess as to what most people interpret this to be, including Einstein.

There is nothing in this thought experiment subject to a wrong interpretation.

That surely is an absurd statement. Wrong interpretations happen all the time. Don't you that cranks and crackpots and people who do not know physics exist?

Sure, ignorant people always wrongly interprets most of what they read.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I suppose it does not matter on the train where A and B are located in the inertial frame of reference in which the train is stationary?
Where are A and B are located on the train, call it A' and B'?

"When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train".

Yes, this is at the point the light is emitted. Where are A and B relative to the train when the light is received?

A and B do nor change location. Those are the points where the light signals were emitted (have you not ever seen a lightning strike?).

That is not an answer. I asked where are A and B relative to the train when the light is received (by M')?
Your refusal to answer the question is noted.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
Maybe a diagram will help.

Post by Paparios
No need to use A' or B'.

We need to know the location of A and B on the moving frame, throughout the experiment.

They do not move. Strikes happen and they just disappear (they do not move nor they last in time).

Where are A and B? Cal them A' and B'?

See figure 1 at https://www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/relativity-the-special-and-general-theory/ix-the-relativity-of-simultaneity/.
It is clearly seen that A and B are points where the lightning strikes occurred. The strokes occurred at a given time (as measured on the embankment).
There is no A' or B' in that figure. The light signal is moving away at speed c (in all directions) from points A and B. Therefore, points A and B do not move (say two marks were left on the ground at point A and B on the embankment).

...

Yes, so the light moves from A and B.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
"Let M’ be the mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M’ naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train".

Agreed.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
The midpoint moves right.

It is already clear that in the text: "Let M’ be the mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M’ naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train".

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios
"Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he (M') is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer (M') will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A".
Notice that, up to this point, there is nothing about relativity used but the fact that the speed of propagation of signals on the embankment and on the train is c.

...

Propagation of signals relative to he embankment.

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
The speed of the light propagation of signals as you call it, is c relative to the embankment. Nowhere is it stated that speed of light relative to the train is c. Are we to assume this?

As pointed out in the other the thread the speed of light relative to the train is c.

Post by Paparios
You should read the rest of the book, which is called "Relativity The Special and General Theory". Besides that, the second principle in Einstein's 1905 paper affirms: "2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
I will have to describe the three or four 'wrong' interpretations and their assumptions, and take a guess as to what most people interpret this to be, including Einstein.

There is nothing in this thought experiment subject to a wrong interpretation.

That surely is an absurd statement. Wrong interpretations happen all the time. Don't you that cranks and crackpots and people who do not know physics exist?

Sure, ignorant people always wrongly interprets most of what they read.

...

Yes, so I think we have made progress here. This is your interpretation, by the way.

There is no dispute about the light reaching M.

Light is emitted from A and B, and travels along the railway carriage from A and B to M'

So light travels a lesser distance B to M' and a greater distance from A to M' ? Is this correct?

Quote:

"Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body"."


Is there a coordinate system in which the train is at rest? In the train coordinate system, where is the origin, where is A and B and where is M'? Answer these and we can settle the discussion.

[Trevor Lange]

Post by ***@gmail.com
Is there a coordinate system in which the train is at rest? In the train coordinate
system, where is the origin, where is A and B and where is M'? Answer these and
we can settle the discussion.

But these questions were all answered in the other thread, and you were even given the explicit coordinates of each event in terms of each coordinate system. You said in the other thread that you keep lying because of irrationality, not dishonesty, but I don't think irrationality alone can explain your lies. It seems clear that you are behaving in a very dishonest way. Agreed?

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Post by ***@gmail.com
There is no dispute about the light reaching M.
Light is emitted from A and B, and travels along the railway carriage from A and B to M'
So light travels a lesser distance B to M' and a greater distance from A to M' ? Is this correct?

Depends on the coordinate system. You *continue* to be
imprecise in your descriptions.

In S, light travels a lesser distance B to M' than from A to M'
In S', the distances are precisely equal.

In the thread, "Crackpot Misinterpretation of the Train and
Embankment Gedanken", Trevor gave you precise coordinates
for each of six significant events in the gedanken, and I provided
you with an online exercise sheet to fill in to demonstrate your
understanding:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/iV2S35he5zY/m/6wHguwhMAwAJ

You should not be asking, over and over, the same questions.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Post by ***@gmail.com
There is no dispute about the light reaching M.
Light is emitted from A and B, and travels along the railway carriage from A and B to M'
So light travels a lesser distance B to M' and a greater distance from A to M' ? Is this correct?

Depends on the coordinate system. You *continue* to be
imprecise in your descriptions.

In S, light travels a lesser distance B to M' than from A to M'
In S', the distances are precisely equal.

In the thread, "Crackpot Misinterpretation of the Train and
Embankment Gedanken", Trevor gave you precise coordinates
for each of the significant events in the gedanken, and I provided
you with an online exercise sheet to fill in to demonstrate your
understanding:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/iV2S35he5zY/m/6wHguwhMAwAJ

You should not be asking, over and over, the same questions.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com
There is no dispute about the light reaching M.
Light is emitted from A and B, and travels along the railway carriage from A and B to M'
So light travels a lesser distance B to M' and a greater distance from A to M' ? Is this correct?

Depends on the coordinate system. You *continue* to be
imprecise in your descriptions.
In S, light travels a lesser distance B to M' than from A to M'
In S', the distances are precisely equal.

I do not recall getting the above answer at any time, I would be grateful for any correction. The answer yes, was in algebric form, but that is not what we are using here.

So, M and M' disagree about the distances that light travels in each case?
This is not a hidden assumption? What is it then?

That is an answer worth all my questions.

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
In the thread, "Crackpot Misinterpretation of the Train and
Embankment Gedanken", Trevor gave you precise coordinates
for each of the significant events in the gedanken, and I provided
you with an online exercise sheet to fill in to demonstrate your
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/iV2S35he5zY/m/6wHguwhMAwAJ
You should not be asking, over and over, the same questions.

Answer my questions, and I will not ask them again.

[Trevor Lange]

Post by ***@gmail.com

In terms of S the pulse from B to M' travels a lesser distance than the pulse
from A to M', but in terms of S' those pulses travel equal distances from the
emission events to M' . Likewise in terms of S' the pulse from A to M travels
a lesser distance than the pulse from B to M, but in terms of S those pulses
travel equal distances from the emission events to M.

I do not recall getting the above answer at any time

The above is part of the basic specification of the scenario, and this has been explicitly explained to you more than a dozen times, both verbally and (when that didn't work) algebraically, and you've been urged to view it pictorially as well. You have willfully disregarded all of this.

Post by ***@gmail.com
So, M and M' disagree about the distances that light travels in each case?

No, the correct statement is as given above. You must not anthropomorphize things. Relativity is not a subjectivist theory, i.e., it is not about people disagreeing about things. There is a single set of objective facts. These facts can be described in terms of various systems of coordinates.

Post by ***@gmail.com
This is not a hidden assumption?

Of course not. This is all part of the basic description of the situation. None of this is hidden, and none of it is an assumption. You see, the facts at the top of this post , to which you are stupidly objecting, are not even unique to special relativity. They apply just as well to Galilean relativity. Every sentient being is well aware of these facts. By pretending you don't understand these things, and haven't had them explained to you a dozen times before, you are just being irrational and dishonest.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Answer my questions, and I will not ask them again.

That's a lie, and you know it.

Post by ***@gmail.com
If you say that the speed of light is stipulated to be c in terms of S', then what
is S' exactly?

As you have been explicitly told a dozen times before, S' is the standard inertial coordinate system in terms of which M' is at rest. And you already agreed numerous times that light is stipoulated to propagate at speed c in terms of S' (as well as in terms of S). Remember?

Post by ***@gmail.com
Where is the origin of S' and is it the same as that of S?

As you have been told a dozen times, for convenience we can place the origins of both S and S' at the intersection of M and M'. Remember? (Have you recently suffered a severe head injury?)

Post by ***@gmail.com
At the end of this...

But we reached the end of the explanation weeks ago, about 2 minutes after the start. This is a trivial illustration that takes even the most slow-witted person no more than 2 minutes to understand.

Post by ***@gmail.com
I have drawn a picture...

You have not drawn the relevant picture. If you had drawn the picture, you would not still be asking the clueless questions you are asking (even setting aside the fact that all your questions have been answered a dozen times before). Are you saying you drew the space-time diagram, showing the coordinate axes of both S and S' superimposed onto the events? And after seeing this with your own eyes, you STILL do not understand what you are seeing?

Post by ***@gmail.com
, the best way to settle this is to... ask simple Yes/No questions.

Someone of your limited intellect (and your struggles with rationality, and your dishonesty) will never learn this subject by asking yes/no questions. You're only hope of understanding is to pay attention to the explanation, which has been given to you a dozen times. If something about the explanation is unclear, go ahead and ask questions about the explanation.

Post by ***@gmail.com
I see it now, you are projecting the path of light from S onto the moving train
and S', then insisting that S' experiences this non simultaneity while preserving
the speed of light and distances.

No, the illustration is simply describing the spatio-temporal relations between a specified set of events in terms of two different systems S and S' of standard inertial coordinates, showing that if the speed of light is c in terms of each of those systems, then two events that occur at the same value of t cannot (in general) occur at the same value of t'. The reasoning is trivial, and shouldn't take a rational adult more than 2 minutes to understand. Now do you finally understand?

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com
There is no dispute about the light reaching M.
Light is emitted from A and B, and travels along the railway carriage from A and B to M'
So light travels a lesser distance B to M' and a greater distance from A to M' ? Is this correct?

Depends on the coordinate system. You *continue* to be
imprecise in your descriptions.
In S, light travels a lesser distance B to M' than from A to M'
In S', the distances are precisely equal.

I do not recall getting the above answer at any time, I would be grateful for any correction. The answer yes, was in algebric form, but that is not what we are using here.

...

Trevor supplied a general solution in algebraic form.

I provided an illustrative animation for a specific case where v = 0.1
and L = 200 pixels.

What in hell do you want?

So, M and M' disagree about the distances that light travels in each case?
This is not a hidden assumption? What is it then?
That is an answer worth all my questions.

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
In the thread, "Crackpot Misinterpretation of the Train and
Embankment Gedanken", Trevor gave you precise coordinates
for each of the significant events in the gedanken, and I provided
you with an online exercise sheet to fill in to demonstrate your
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/iV2S35he5zY/m/6wHguwhMAwAJ
You should not be asking, over and over, the same questions.

Answer my questions, and I will not ask them again.

...

You reject all correct answers that everybody has given you.

You refuse to show the illustration that you claim to have created.

You refuse to fill in the simple online exercise sheet that I created
for you by extracting individual frames from my animation, where
all of the answers can be looked up in Trevor's posts.

What in hell do you want?

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Paparios

Post by ***@gmail.com
Yes, this is at the point the light is emitted. Where are A and B relative to the train when the light is received?

A and B do nor change location. Those are the points where the light signals were emitted (have you not ever seen a lightning strike?).

That is not an answer. I asked where are A and B relative to the train when the light is received (by M')?
Your refusal to answer the question is noted.

You are getting the *events* A and B mixed up with
the scorch marks on the train that were left when
the bolts struck. To clarify, how about we give these
scorch marks the Greek letter names alpha and beta,
i.e. α and β.

At the time that light from the two events reach M',
events A and B are in the past, and it doesn't make
sense to ask where A and B are relative to the train,
because they no longer exist. Scorch marks α and β,
however, travel along with the train. Their distances
from M' remain exactly the same throughout the
thought experiment. On a spacetime diagram, their
world lines are parallel with the world line of M'

I must remind you that in this thought experiment,
we must take a minimalistic view of what sort of
information M' can extract from the light signals.
Basically, M' can record only the *time of receipt*.
There is no relative motion information extractable
by Doppler analysis of the received signals.

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
The train example uses light-rays to define simultaneity.
But Einstein made an error, because light has a finite speed, hence the
time needed for light to travel a certain distance needs to be excluded
from considerations about time and simultaneity.

I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.
This does not exist in reality, but can be, nevertheless, used in a
definition.

As an infinitely fast signal does not exist it cannot be used to check or
achieve simultaneity nor to construct a time coordinate. Therefore the
concept of simultaneity defined that way is unphysical and not useful.

Mikko

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
The train example uses light-rays to define simultaneity.
But Einstein made an error, because light has a finite speed, hence the
time needed for light to travel a certain distance needs to be excluded
from considerations about time and simultaneity.

I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.
This does not exist in reality, but can be, nevertheless, used in a
definition.

As an infinitely fast signal does not exist it cannot be used to check or
achieve simultaneity nor to construct a time coordinate. Therefore the
concept of simultaneity defined that way is unphysical and not useful.

...

Wrong!!!

The concept of simultaneity and its measurement are not the same thing.

To illustrate this I use sound as only available signal.

Now sound moves rather slow with about 300m/s through the air.

But we would not use 'simultaneity of sound' as definition of
'simultaneity per se', because we know, that sound is rather slow.

But we could measure the delay of a sound signal and add that to the
hypothetical signal with no delay.

Then the delayed sound signal would arrive at the expected time at the
remote location, even if the transit is very slow.

But we would need to take the (hypothetical) signal without delay as
foundation of the definition of simultaneity, because only in that case
simultaneity would be symmetric (this means: t(A)=tau(B) <=>
t(B)=tau(A), where A and B are events).


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko
As an infinitely fast signal does not exist it cannot be used to check or
achieve simultaneity nor to construct a time coordinate. Therefore the
concept of simultaneity defined that way is unphysical and not useful.

Wrong!!!
The concept of simultaneity and its measurement are not the same thing.
To illustrate this I use sound as only available signal.

Sound is not a valid example to illustrate an infinitely fast or otherwise
non-existent signal. Therefore, there is no counter-argument and the
"Wrong" is fully unjustified.

Mikko

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko
As an infinitely fast signal does not exist it cannot be used to check or
achieve simultaneity nor to construct a time coordinate. Therefore the
concept of simultaneity defined that way is unphysical and not useful.

Wrong!!!
The concept of simultaneity and its measurement are not the same thing.
To illustrate this I use sound as only available signal.

Sound is not a valid example to illustrate an infinitely fast or otherwise
non-existent signal. Therefore, there is no counter-argument and the
"Wrong" is fully unjustified.

...

Sure, but I didn't want to use sound as an example for an infinetely
fast signal.

I wanted to use sound as an example for a singal with finite velocity,
like e.g. light.

In case of finite velocity of a signal, we need to take care of the
delay caused by the finite speed of e.g. light (or sound).

I wanted to use sound as an example, that we cannot ignore the delay in
the definition of simultaneity, because if we would ignore it, then
simultaneity would not be symmetric.


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger
I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.
I wanted to use sound as an example for a singal with finite velocity,
like e.g. light.

How would sound clarify your use of an infinitely fast or otherwise
non-existen signal better than light?

Mikko

[Booker Schoonraad]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
I wanted to use sound as an example for a singal with finite velocity,
like e.g. light.

How would sound clarify your use of an infinitely fast or otherwise
non-existen signal better than light?

yes, agree. This fucking nazi capitalist criminal, subjugating the Russian
people, will suck elephant dicks the rest of his life, if applicable.

Kiev says it’s helped by Russian anti-government figures
https://%72t.com/russia/576519-ukraine-intelligence-russian-opposition/

Ukraine’s top military spy Kirill Budanov says such individuals are being
used as informants

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.
I wanted to use sound as an example for a singal with finite velocity,
like e.g. light.

How would sound clarify your use of an infinitely fast or otherwise
non-existen signal better than light?

Sound has a FINITY velocity and is rather SLOW!!

Sound is so slow, that everyday experience would allow us to imagine the
effect of transit delay of sound signals.

Now the speed of light is far greater then speed of sound, but is still
finite.

Now we could imagine, we make light slow like sound is.

Or we could - on the other hand- make distances larger and regard
distance as expression of light signal delay.

Then simultaneity would be defined by a hypothetical signal, which needs
no time at all to travel.

The difference between the non-existent signal and real light gets then
compensated by adding the calculated delay to the time-value (contained
in the light signal).


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.
I wanted to use sound as an example for a singal with finite velocity,
like e.g. light.

How would sound clarify your use of an infinitely fast or otherwise
non-existen signal better than light?

Sound has a FINITY velocity and is rather SLOW!!

So you refuse to discuss your proposal. Therefore it is OK that everyone
rejects your proposal without discussion.

Mikko

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.
I wanted to use sound as an example for a singal with finite velocity,
like e.g. light.

How would sound clarify your use of an infinitely fast or otherwise
non-existen signal better than light?

Sound has a FINITY velocity and is rather SLOW!!

So you refuse to discuss your proposal. Therefore it is OK that everyone
rejects your proposal without discussion.

You twisted my statement around and now ask me to prove, what I have not
said.

I wrote, that sound would be a good example or a signal with FINITY
velocity, because sound is so slow.

Now you ask me to clearify, how sound could be an example for a signal
with infinite velocity.

But I have not made such a statement!

Therefore I have no intention to clearify what I have not written.

Sound is slow, even in our everyday life.

Light is also slow, but only in cosmolgical scale.

Therefore:

sound behaves on small distances like light does on large scales!!!

Now: since we would not use sound signals for clock synchronisation on
Earth, we would NOT (!!!) use light signals in cosmology for
synchronisation on very large scales.

Instead we would measure the delay and add that to the signal, which
contains the timing information.

TH

[Johnny Schneijder]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko
So you refuse to discuss your proposal. Therefore it is OK that
everyone rejects your proposal without discussion.

You twisted my statement around and now ask me to prove, what I have not
said.

absolutely. Where was Zelesnkshit when the US bombed Yugoslavia, Syria,
Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Arab nations? You better STFU you
lousy liar and hypocrite.

what can be possibly be more shame and despicable than a gay actor puppet
"president" who sold his own folks and country, many times, as canon
fodder for a proxy war to serve the geopolitical interests
*_of_a_foreign_country_*?

the so-called Satan's disciple khazar wannabe Zionist Zelenskshit, attempt
to shame the Saudi Royals into dumping their Islamic acceptance of Iran,
Syria, Iraq, Yemen seems to have failed as a corrupt outsider trying to
meddle in Islamic affairs.

the saudis are motherfuckers. Why would let *_a_foul_odour_* into your
house and let it insult you? A stinking gay actor khazar on cocaine, in a
Arab summit, is like a hyena in a lion's den.

*_the_Zelenskshit_shames_Arab_leaders__*
https://%72t.com/r%75%73%73ia/576605-zelensky-arab-countries-blind/

[Johnny Schneijder]

Post by Mikko
So you refuse to discuss your proposal. Therefore it is OK that
everyone rejects your proposal without discussion.

I̶ w̶r̶o̶t̶e̶, t̶h̶a̶t̶ s̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ b̶e̶ a̶ g̶o̶o̶d̶ e̶x̶a̶m̶p̶l̶e̶ o̶r̶ a̶ s̶i̶g̶n̶a̶l̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶ F̶I̶N̶I̶T̶Y̶
v̶e̶l̶o̶c̶i̶t̶y̶, b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ s̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ i̶s̶ s̶o̶ s̶l̶o̶w̶.
Now you ask me to clearify, how sound could be an example for a signal
with infinite velocity.

sounds and light are of different domains, you fucking retard. You can't
compare them in any way. You khazars of the collective west are evil and
liars like hell. You stinking liars. There is *_a_price_to_pay_* for your
lying satanic *_money_making_machine_*.

*_Moscow_names_German_chancellor’s_‘biggest_mistake’_*
The downplaying of the genocide and civilian deaths in Donbass by Olaf
Scholz was unacceptable, the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman has said
https://%72t.com/r%75%73%73ia/576603-russia-scholz-biggest-mistake/

She was referring to comments from February 2022, when Scholz said
Russia’s claim that Kiev has been committing genocide in Donbass is
“ridiculous.”

“It was the biggest mistake of his life,” Zakharova said in an interview
with German author and war correspondent Thomas Roeper. She added that the
remark will stain Scholz’s legacy more than any of his “political
blunders.”

for me Scholz biggest mistake when *_US_UK_norwegen_mazafaka_* blew up the
*_pipe_line_*, then he knowingly, smile and say nothing. Just like when
your daughter rape infornt of you and you ask him do need a tissue after
and Can I wash your D!C|< for you to Biden

these liars mazafaka, calling themself "christians", thinks their god
Satan will bring them to the garden of eden. They lie for satan.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Post by Thomas Heger
I wrote, that sound would be a good example or a signal with FINITY
velocity, because sound is so slow.
Now you ask me to clearify, how sound could be an example for a signal
with infinite velocity.
But I have not made such a statement!

You made up a nonsense neologism (FINITY), how do you expect
readers to grok what you JORGERD using that EXPERDING?

You might as well go GEHORED yourself.

JAPERSGET!

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by Thomas Heger
I wrote, that sound would be a good example or a signal with FINITY
velocity, because sound is so slow.
Now you ask me to clearify, how sound could be an example for a signal
with infinite velocity.
But I have not made such a statement!

You made up a nonsense neologism (FINITY), how do you expect
readers to grok what you JORGERD using that EXPERDING?

Actually I meant FINITE (of course).

Sorry for a spelling error. but ocasionally such errors occur, because I
usually cannot use a spell checker for this version of thunderbird.


TH

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by Thomas Heger
I wrote, that sound would be a good example or a signal with FINITY
velocity, because sound is so slow.
Now you ask me to clearify, how sound could be an example for a signal
with infinite velocity.
But I have not made such a statement!

You made up a nonsense neologism (FINITY), how do you expect
readers to grok what you JORGERD using that EXPERDING?

Actually I meant FINITE (of course).

Obviously, Mikko thought you meant "INFINITY", which
doesn't make sense. But then, since so much else that you
write doesn't make sense, it seemed to fit naturally into
your general pattern of writing.

Post by Thomas Heger
Sorry for a spelling error. but ocasionally such errors occur, because I
usually cannot use a spell checker for this version of thunderbird.
TH

[Mikko]

You twisted my statement around and now ask me to prove, what I have not said.
I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.

I didn't as anything abuout them. I just said that such definition is
not useful. Nothing you have responded but none of your responses have
disagreed with my comment nor asked anything about it.

Mikko

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

You twisted my statement around and now ask me to prove, what I have not said.
I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.

I didn't as anything abuout them. I just said that such definition is
not useful. Nothing you have responded but none of your responses have
disagreed with my comment nor asked anything about it.

What do understand as 'useful'?

I would usually regard utility concepts and usefullness as not usefull
in theoretical physics.


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

You twisted my statement around and now ask me to prove, what I have not said.
I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.

I didn't as anything abuout them. I just said that such definition is
not useful. Nothing you have responded but none of your responses have
disagreed with my comment nor asked anything about it.

What do understand as 'useful'?
I would usually regard utility concepts and usefullness as not usefull
in theoretical physics.

...

A definition of simultaneity is not unseful if there is no method to
determine whether two events are (approximately) simultaneous or which
one was earlier.

Mikko

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

You twisted my statement around and now ask me to prove, what I have not said.
I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.

I didn't as anything abuout them. I just said that such definition is
not useful. Nothing you have responded but none of your responses have
disagreed with my comment nor asked anything about it.

What do understand as 'useful'?
I would usually regard utility concepts and usefullness as not usefull
in theoretical physics.

A definition of simultaneity is not unseful if there is no method to
determine whether two events are (approximately) simultaneous or which
one was earlier.

...

We would like to have simultaneity symmetric.

That means: if place A has time 12:00 a.m., then a remote place B should
use the same time 12:00 a.m.

And: if place B uses time 12:00 a.m., then a remote place A should use
the same time 12:00 a.m.

This type of simultaneity would require a synchronisation procedure,
which compensates the transit delay of the timing signal.

Then simultaneity would be defined by a real signal, which compensates
the delay. This is equivalent to a hypothetical signal, which travels
without delay (is infinetely fast).

This hypothetical signal does not exist and cannot be used in reality.
But we could use it for the definition of simultaneity, even if it does
not exist.

TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

You twisted my statement around and now ask me to prove, what I have not said.
I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.

I didn't as anything abuout them. I just said that such definition is
not useful. Nothing you have responded but none of your responses have
disagreed with my comment nor asked anything about it.

What do understand as 'useful'?
I would usually regard utility concepts and usefullness as not usefull
in theoretical physics.

A definition of simultaneity is not unseful if there is no method to
determine whether two events are (approximately) simultaneous or which
one was earlier.

We would like to have simultaneity symmetric.
That means: if place A has time 12:00 a.m., then a remote place B
should use the same time 12:00 a.m.
And: if place B uses time 12:00 a.m., then a remote place A should use
the same time 12:00 a.m.
This type of simultaneity would require a synchronisation procedure,
which compensates the transit delay of the timing signal.
Then simultaneity would be defined by a real signal, which compensates
the delay. This is equivalent to a hypothetical signal, which travels
without delay (is infinetely fast).
This hypothetical signal does not exist and cannot be used in reality.
But we could use it for the definition of simultaneity, even if it does
not exist.

...

If you can't prove that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneusly according to your definition then your
definition is not useful. Instead, simultaneity defined with your method
might be useful.

Mikko

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

You twisted my statement around and now ask me to prove, what I have not said.
I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.

I didn't as anything abuout them. I just said that such definition is
not useful. Nothing you have responded but none of your responses have
disagreed with my comment nor asked anything about it.

What do understand as 'useful'?
I would usually regard utility concepts and usefullness as not usefull
in theoretical physics.

A definition of simultaneity is not unseful if there is no method to
determine whether two events are (approximately) simultaneous or which
one was earlier.

We would like to have simultaneity symmetric.
That means: if place A has time 12:00 a.m., then a remote place B
should use the same time 12:00 a.m.
And: if place B uses time 12:00 a.m., then a remote place A should
use the same time 12:00 a.m.
This type of simultaneity would require a synchronisation procedure,
which compensates the transit delay of the timing signal.
Then simultaneity would be defined by a real signal, which compensates
the delay. This is equivalent to a hypothetical signal, which travels
without delay (is infinetely fast).
This hypothetical signal does not exist and cannot be used in reality.
But we could use it for the definition of simultaneity, even if it
does not exist.

If you can't prove that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneusly according to your definition then your
definition is not useful. Instead, simultaneity defined with your method
might be useful.

...

It is important to realize, that what we see at the same time in the
night sky didn't happen at the same time.

The night-sky shows actually picture, which is 'layered in time'.


So, things seen further away did happen longer ago.

But unfortunately depth in space is hard to measure.

Therefore we see a picture, which lacks internal consistency and is
somehow wrong.

To make a valid representation of something real, we would need to find
ways to compensate different delays. But, unfortunately, this is difficult.

Now we could imagine, that something we cannot see might exist, where
the elements of the picture represent events happening at the same time.

To actually create such a picuture would be rather difficult.

But we would naturally use my method and compensate different delays by
adjusting the present position of a distant celestial object in an
artificial picture by some sort of 'computer magic'.

Eg. the Moon is roughly one light second away from Earh, hence we see
the Moon, where it was one second ago.

Then we could figure out the Moons trajectory and use the Moon's
postition at t=t_now + 1 second.

And for Alpha Centaury we need its position for t~=t_now + 3 y

(and so forth...)


That is not a particulary easy task, but should be possible.


TH

TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

You twisted my statement around and now ask me to prove, what I have not said.
I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.

I didn't as anything abuout them. I just said that such definition is
not useful. Nothing you have responded but none of your responses have
disagreed with my comment nor asked anything about it.

What do understand as 'useful'?
I would usually regard utility concepts and usefullness as not usefull
in theoretical physics.

A definition of simultaneity is not unseful if there is no method to
determine whether two events are (approximately) simultaneous or which
one was earlier.

We would like to have simultaneity symmetric.
That means: if place A has time 12:00 a.m., then a remote place B
should use the same time 12:00 a.m.
And: if place B uses time 12:00 a.m., then a remote place A should
use the same time 12:00 a.m.
This type of simultaneity would require a synchronisation procedure,
which compensates the transit delay of the timing signal.
Then simultaneity would be defined by a real signal, which compensates
the delay. This is equivalent to a hypothetical signal, which travels
without delay (is infinetely fast).
This hypothetical signal does not exist and cannot be used in reality.
But we could use it for the definition of simultaneity, even if it
does not exist.

If you can't prove that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneusly according to your definition then your
definition is not useful. Instead, simultaneity defined with your method
might be useful.

It is important to realize, that what we see at the same time in the
night sky didn't happen at the same time.
The night-sky shows actually picture, which is 'layered in time'.
So, things seen further away did happen longer ago.
But unfortunately depth in space is hard to measure.
Therefore we see a picture, which lacks internal consistency and is
somehow wrong.
To make a valid representation of something real, we would need to find
ways to compensate different delays. But, unfortunately, this is difficult.
Now we could imagine, that something we cannot see might exist, where
the elements of the picture represent events happening at the same time.
To actually create such a picuture would be rather difficult.
But we would naturally use my method and compensate different delays by
adjusting the present position of a distant celestial object in an
artificial picture by some sort of 'computer magic'.
Eg. the Moon is roughly one light second away from Earh, hence we see
the Moon, where it was one second ago.
Then we could figure out the Moons trajectory and use the Moon's
postition at t=t_now + 1 second.
And for Alpha Centaury we need its position for t~=t_now + 3 y
(and so forth...)
That is not a particulary easy task, but should be possible.

...

You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Mikko

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
You twisted my statement around and now ask me to prove, what I
have
not said.
I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.

I didn't as anything abuout them. I just said that such
definition is
not useful. Nothing you have responded but none of your responses have
disagreed with my comment nor asked anything about it.

What do understand as 'useful'?
I would usually regard utility concepts and usefullness as not usefull
in theoretical physics.

A definition of simultaneity is not unseful if there is no method to
determine whether two events are (approximately) simultaneous or which
one was earlier.

We would like to have simultaneity symmetric.
That means: if place A has time 12:00 a.m., then a remote place B
should use the same time 12:00 a.m.
And: if place B uses time 12:00 a.m., then a remote place A should
use the same time 12:00 a.m.
This type of simultaneity would require a synchronisation procedure,
which compensates the transit delay of the timing signal.
Then simultaneity would be defined by a real signal, which compensates
the delay. This is equivalent to a hypothetical signal, which travels
without delay (is infinetely fast).
This hypothetical signal does not exist and cannot be used in reality.
But we could use it for the definition of simultaneity, even if it
does not exist.

If you can't prove that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneusly according to your definition then your
definition is not useful. Instead, simultaneity defined with your method
might be useful.

It is important to realize, that what we see at the same time in the
night sky didn't happen at the same time.
The night-sky shows actually picture, which is 'layered in time'.
So, things seen further away did happen longer ago.
But unfortunately depth in space is hard to measure.
Therefore we see a picture, which lacks internal consistency and is
somehow wrong.
To make a valid representation of something real, we would need to
find ways to compensate different delays. But, unfortunately, this is
difficult.
Now we could imagine, that something we cannot see might exist, where
the elements of the picture represent events happening at the same time.
To actually create such a picuture would be rather difficult.
But we would naturally use my method and compensate different delays
by adjusting the present position of a distant celestial object in an
artificial picture by some sort of 'computer magic'.
Eg. the Moon is roughly one light second away from Earh, hence we see
the Moon, where it was one second ago.
Then we could figure out the Moons trajectory and use the Moon's
postition at t=t_now + 1 second.
And for Alpha Centaury we need its position for t~=t_now + 3 y
(and so forth...)
That is not a particulary easy task, but should be possible.

You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

...

'the same time simultaneously' requires a definition of 'simultaneity'!

It also require a definition of 'time'.

So let's start with time first:

time is defined as numerical value of a counting process, where a local
observer counts events, which occur locally at the same rate.

(E.g. we usually base Earth time of the rotation of planet Earth, which
is a local measure based on a local phenomenon, which we assume to be
occuring at the same rate).


The distant planets rotate at different rates, hence we would need to
negotiate time units prior to synchronisation, because we could start to
synchonize clocks only after we know what to count.

Once done, we could figure out singal delay and transmit that to the
remote station, too.

Then we synchronize clocks by sending time informations to the remote
station.

Since the other end knows the delay already, the observers at the remote
location could add that value to the received timing signals.

Now we could assume, that the signals produce the same delay in both
directions, we could use the method described by me and would expect the
same result, if we start synchronisation from the other location.


In this case synchronisation would become symmetric (otherwise not).


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
You twisted my statement around and now ask me to prove, what I
have
not said.
I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.

I didn't as anything abuout them. I just said that such
definition is
not useful. Nothing you have responded but none of your responses have
disagreed with my comment nor asked anything about it.

What do understand as 'useful'?
I would usually regard utility concepts and usefullness as not usefull
in theoretical physics.

A definition of simultaneity is not unseful if there is no method to
determine whether two events are (approximately) simultaneous or which
one was earlier.

We would like to have simultaneity symmetric.
That means: if place A has time 12:00 a.m., then a remote place B
should use the same time 12:00 a.m.
And: if place B uses time 12:00 a.m., then a remote place A should
use the same time 12:00 a.m.
This type of simultaneity would require a synchronisation procedure,
which compensates the transit delay of the timing signal.
Then simultaneity would be defined by a real signal, which compensates
the delay. This is equivalent to a hypothetical signal, which travels
without delay (is infinetely fast).
This hypothetical signal does not exist and cannot be used in reality.
But we could use it for the definition of simultaneity, even if it
does not exist.

If you can't prove that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneusly according to your definition then your
definition is not useful. Instead, simultaneity defined with your method
might be useful.

It is important to realize, that what we see at the same time in the
night sky didn't happen at the same time.
The night-sky shows actually picture, which is 'layered in time'.
So, things seen further away did happen longer ago.
But unfortunately depth in space is hard to measure.
Therefore we see a picture, which lacks internal consistency and is
somehow wrong.
To make a valid representation of something real, we would need to
find ways to compensate different delays. But, unfortunately, this is
difficult.
Now we could imagine, that something we cannot see might exist, where
the elements of the picture represent events happening at the same time.
To actually create such a picuture would be rather difficult.
But we would naturally use my method and compensate different delays
by adjusting the present position of a distant celestial object in an
artificial picture by some sort of 'computer magic'.
Eg. the Moon is roughly one light second away from Earh, hence we see
the Moon, where it was one second ago.
Then we could figure out the Moons trajectory and use the Moon's
postition at t=t_now + 1 second.
And for Alpha Centaury we need its position for t~=t_now + 3 y
(and so forth...)
That is not a particulary easy task, but should be possible.

You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

'the same time simultaneously' requires a definition of 'simultaneity'!

...

Use the definition we are talking about.

Post by Thomas Heger
It also require a definition of 'time'.

No, it doesn't. We just call "time" whatever those clocks show.

You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Mikko

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
You twisted my statement around and now ask me to prove, what I
have
not said.
I assume a (non-existing!) signal, which reaches the other point
without any delay.

I didn't as anything abuout them. I just said that such definition is
not useful. Nothing you have responded but none of your responses have
disagreed with my comment nor asked anything about it.

What do understand as 'useful'?
I would usually regard utility concepts and usefullness as not usefull
in theoretical physics.

A definition of simultaneity is not unseful if there is no method to
determine whether two events are (approximately) simultaneous or which
one was earlier.

We would like to have simultaneity symmetric.
That means: if place A has time 12:00 a.m., then a remote place B
should use the same time 12:00 a.m.
And: if place B uses time 12:00 a.m., then a remote place A should
use the same time 12:00 a.m.
This type of simultaneity would require a synchronisation procedure,
which compensates the transit delay of the timing signal.
Then simultaneity would be defined by a real signal, which compensates
the delay. This is equivalent to a hypothetical signal, which travels
without delay (is infinetely fast).
This hypothetical signal does not exist and cannot be used in reality.
But we could use it for the definition of simultaneity, even if it
does not exist.

If you can't prove that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneusly according to your definition then your
definition is not useful. Instead, simultaneity defined with your method
might be useful.

It is important to realize, that what we see at the same time in the
night sky didn't happen at the same time.
The night-sky shows actually picture, which is 'layered in time'.
So, things seen further away did happen longer ago.
But unfortunately depth in space is hard to measure.
Therefore we see a picture, which lacks internal consistency and is
somehow wrong.
To make a valid representation of something real, we would need to
find ways to compensate different delays. But, unfortunately, this is
difficult.
Now we could imagine, that something we cannot see might exist, where
the elements of the picture represent events happening at the same time.
To actually create such a picuture would be rather difficult.
But we would naturally use my method and compensate different delays
by adjusting the present position of a distant celestial object in an
artificial picture by some sort of 'computer magic'.
Eg. the Moon is roughly one light second away from Earh, hence we see
the Moon, where it was one second ago.
Then we could figure out the Moons trajectory and use the Moon's
postition at t=t_now + 1 second.
And for Alpha Centaury we need its position for t~=t_now + 3 y
(and so forth...)
That is not a particulary easy task, but should be possible.

You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

'the same time simultaneously' requires a definition of 'simultaneity'!

Use the definition we are talking about.

Post by Thomas Heger
It also require a definition of 'time'.

No, it doesn't. We just call "time" whatever those clocks show.

...

No!

Time ist NOT 'what clocks show'.

The concept of time is based on certain frequencies, which occur
naturally in our environment and are supposendly constant to a
sufficient degree.

These events are counted by some kind of machine, converted into time
values and the result is what we call 'time'.

Therefore 'time' denotes a numerical value, which is the sum measured in
a counting process. Counted are certain events. And the numerical value
is the number of such events between an intial starting point and a
certain event, which we want to measure.

What is really difficult to prove, that is the requirement 'same
frequency', because that frequency is also the foundation of time itself.



TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko
You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

'the same time simultaneously' requires a definition of 'simultaneity'!

Use the definition we are talking about.

Post by Thomas Heger
It also require a definition of 'time'.

No, it doesn't. We just call "time" whatever those clocks show.

Time ist NOT 'what clocks show'.

We are talking about what clocks show and in particular whether they
show the same. The definition of "time" is not relevant to that.
What the clocks show is often called "time" whether it satisfies your
definition or not.

You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Mikko

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko
You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

'the same time simultaneously' requires a definition of 'simultaneity'!

Use the definition we are talking about.

Post by Thomas Heger
It also require a definition of 'time'.

No, it doesn't. We just call "time" whatever those clocks show.

Time ist NOT 'what clocks show'.

We are talking about what clocks show and in particular whether they
show the same.

...

Nope. You are talking about what you imagine they
show. Anyone can check GPS, what they really show
is t'=t (with the precision of an acceptable error), like
always.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko
You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

'the same time simultaneously' requires a definition of 'simultaneity'!

Use the definition we are talking about.

Post by Thomas Heger
It also require a definition of 'time'.

No, it doesn't. We just call "time" whatever those clocks show.

Time ist NOT 'what clocks show'.

We are talking about what clocks show and in particular whether they
show the same. The definition of "time" is not relevant to that.
What the clocks show is often called "time" whether it satisfies your
definition or not.

...

You wrote, that time would be what clocks show.

I disagreed, because a clock is a measuring device and shows a time
value, but not time itself.

This is similar with all measuring devices of all types:

the result of a measurement and the measured quantity are not the same
thing!

E.g. a Voltmeter shows -for instance- 230 V.

Than this value is not a voltage, but a reading from a measuring device.

The voltage in the wire is the real thing, but carries not display,
which we could read out.

Therefore we have a device (here: a Voltmeter) which translates voltage
into a numerical value, which we interpret as volts.

Same with a clock:

a clocks is actually a fast and precise counter plus a certain part,
that oscillates at a known rate.

This is what we call 'clock' if it is possible to synchronize it with
Earth time.

But a clock is mainly a counter plus an oscilator, hence the concept of
time is based on the idea of counting something with known frequency.

..


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger
You wrote, that time would be what clocks show.

No, I did not. I wrote that 'what clock shows' is called "time".
That does not mean that no other thing can't also be called "time"
and many indeed are.

You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Mikko

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
You wrote, that time would be what clocks show.

No, I did not. I wrote that 'what clock shows' is called "time".
That does not mean that no other thing can't also be called "time"
and many indeed are.
You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Surely I can show, that symmetric synchronisation requires to calculate
the delay.

Einstein use a method of synchronisation, which uses light as means to
transfer timeing information from one place to the other.

We could use (as kind of analog situation) a large telescope, through
which the observer peeps and reads out remote clocks, because telescopes
also operate by means of light.

Now we assume one observer ('A') on Earth (at location 'A') and a large
clock on the Moon.

Now A peeps through his telescope, reads the clock on the Moon and dials
his own clock to the reading.

Now we place another observer 'B' on the Moon, who has also a telescope
and can read the clock of A.

Now he also does the same and dials the own clock to the time, which he
sees through the telescope on Earth.

Now he needs to add a second every time he peeps through his telescope
and a few instants later two.

The observer A had to do the same.

Now both get unhappy with the situation, because they had to turn the
knobs too often and time shown by thier clocks seemingly run out of
synch with other clocks in the local environment.

So A and B communicate and agree to add the delay of roughly one second
to the seen time, or, what is equivalent, dial the own clock to the seen
remote time plus the time of the signal for one way.


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko
You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Surely I can show, that symmetric synchronisation requires to calculate
the delay.

Doesn't matter as long as you don't.

A synchronization that is equivalent to Poincaré's and Einstein's
synchronization can be performed without calculation of the delay:
put a light source in a point that is at the same distance from
both of the clocks, so the light arrives at the same time to both
clocks.

You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Mikko

[Python]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
You wrote, that time would be what clocks show.

No, I did not. I wrote that 'what clock shows' is called "time".
That does not mean that no other thing can't also be called "time"
and many indeed are.
You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Surely I can show, that symmetric synchronisation requires to calculate
the delay.
Einstein use a method of synchronisation, which uses light as means to
transfer timeing information from one place to the other.

...

This is not true. In Einstein-Poicaré procedure there is absolutely
NO encoding of timing information in the involved light signals.

Could you, ONCE, stop making up stuff Thomas ?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
You wrote, that time would be what clocks show.

No, I did not. I wrote that 'what clock shows' is called "time".
That does not mean that no other thing can't also be called "time"
and many indeed are.
You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Surely I can show, that symmetric synchronisation requires to calculate
the delay.
Einstein use a method of synchronisation, which uses light as means to
transfer timeing information from one place to the other.

This is not true. In Einstein-Poicaré procedure there is absolutely
NO encoding of timing information in the involved light signals.

...

:)))))))))
Where did you get this nonsense from, Bourbaki again?

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
You wrote, that time would be what clocks show.

No, I did not. I wrote that 'what clock shows' is called "time".
That does not mean that no other thing can't also be called "time"
and many indeed are.
You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Surely I can show, that symmetric synchronisation requires to calculate
the delay.
Einstein use a method of synchronisation, which uses light as means to
transfer timeing information from one place to the other.

This is not true. In Einstein-Poicaré procedure there is absolutely
NO encoding of timing information in the involved light signals.

:)))))))))

...

So you support Thomas' claim?

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Where did you get this nonsense from, Bourbaki again?

There is two reasons you couldn't understand Bourbaki. Could you
spot them, Maciej?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
You wrote, that time would be what clocks show.

No, I did not. I wrote that 'what clock shows' is called "time".
That does not mean that no other thing can't also be called "time"
and many indeed are.
You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Surely I can show, that symmetric synchronisation requires to calculate
the delay.
Einstein use a method of synchronisation, which uses light as means to
transfer timeing information from one place to the other.

This is not true. In Einstein-Poicaré procedure there is absolutely
NO encoding of timing information in the involved light signals.

:)))))))))

So you support Thomas' claim?

...

So, where did you get this nonsense from, Bourbaki again?

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Where did you get this nonsense from, Bourbaki again?

There is two reasons you couldn't understand Bourbaki. Could you
spot them, Maciej?

There are no reasons why you couldn't, still you couldn't.

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
You wrote, that time would be what clocks show.

No, I did not. I wrote that 'what clock shows' is called "time".
That does not mean that no other thing can't also be called "time"
and many indeed are.
You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Surely I can show, that symmetric synchronisation requires to calculate
the delay.
Einstein use a method of synchronisation, which uses light as means to
transfer timeing information from one place to the other.

This is not true. In Einstein-Poicaré procedure there is absolutely
NO encoding of timing information in the involved light signals.

:)))))))))

So you support Thomas' claim?

So, where did you get this nonsense from, Bourbaki again?

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Where did you get this nonsense from, Bourbaki again?

There is two reasons you couldn't understand Bourbaki. Could you
spot them, Maciej?

There are no reasons why you couldn't, still you couldn't.

...

I could. Could you?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
You wrote, that time would be what clocks show.

No, I did not. I wrote that 'what clock shows' is called "time".
That does not mean that no other thing can't also be called "time"
and many indeed are.
You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Surely I can show, that symmetric synchronisation requires to calculate
the delay.
Einstein use a method of synchronisation, which uses light as means to
transfer timeing information from one place to the other.

This is not true. In Einstein-Poicaré procedure there is absolutely
NO encoding of timing information in the involved light signals.

:)))))))))

So you support Thomas' claim?

So, where did you get this nonsense from, Bourbaki again?

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Where did you get this nonsense from, Bourbaki again?

There is two reasons you couldn't understand Bourbaki. Could you
spot them, Maciej?

There are no reasons why you couldn't, still you couldn't.

I could. Could you?

...

Great. So, where did you get the information
that no time encoding is involved in the
Holy Procedure?

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
You wrote, that time would be what clocks show.

No, I did not. I wrote that 'what clock shows' is called "time".
That does not mean that no other thing can't also be called "time"
and many indeed are.
You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Surely I can show, that symmetric synchronisation requires to calculate
the delay.
Einstein use a method of synchronisation, which uses light as means to
transfer timeing information from one place to the other.

This is not true. In Einstein-Poicaré procedure there is absolutely
NO encoding of timing information in the involved light signals.

:)))))))))

So you support Thomas' claim?

So, where did you get this nonsense from, Bourbaki again?

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Where did you get this nonsense from, Bourbaki again?

There is two reasons you couldn't understand Bourbaki. Could you
spot them, Maciej?

There are no reasons why you couldn't, still you couldn't.

I could. Could you?

Great. So, where did you get the information
that no time encoding is involved in the
Holy Procedure?

...

It's not "holy" but sound.

Simple : only the signal arrival/departure information is
taken into account. Nothing is supposed to be encoded in
the signal. You can encode your penis size in it, if you
wish, but the synchronization procedure won't use it.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
You wrote, that time would be what clocks show.

No, I did not. I wrote that 'what clock shows' is called "time".
That does not mean that no other thing can't also be called "time"
and many indeed are.
You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Surely I can show, that symmetric synchronisation requires to calculate
the delay.
Einstein use a method of synchronisation, which uses light as means to
transfer timeing information from one place to the other.

This is not true. In Einstein-Poicaré procedure there is absolutely
NO encoding of timing information in the involved light signals.

:)))))))))

So you support Thomas' claim?

So, where did you get this nonsense from, Bourbaki again?

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Where did you get this nonsense from, Bourbaki again?

There is two reasons you couldn't understand Bourbaki. Could you
spot them, Maciej?

There are no reasons why you couldn't, still you couldn't.

I could. Could you?

Great. So, where did you get the information
that no time encoding is involved in the
Holy Procedure?

It's not "holy" but sound.
Simple : only the signal arrival/departure information is
taken into account.

...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation

And how does clock 2 know t3?

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Great. So, where did you get the information
that no time encoding is involved in the
Holy Procedure?

It's not "holy" but sound.
Simple : only the signal arrival/departure information is
taken into account.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
And how does clock 2 know t3?

The time of arrival at position 2 is defined by this method and does not
need to be known.

It is defined by means of the local time measure tau of the position
one, hence only tau_1 and tau_2 need to be known.

Whether or not there is a clock at the remote position 2 is irrelevant
here and also which time it shows, because t_3 is *defined* as midpoint
between start and return of the signal, hence is measured by the clocks
of position one.


TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Great. So, where did you get the information
that no time encoding is involved in the
Holy Procedure?

It's not "holy" but sound.
Simple : only the signal arrival/departure information is
taken into account.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
And how does clock 2 know t3?

The time of arrival at position 2 is defined by this method and does not
need to be known.
It is defined by means of the local time measure tau of the position
one, hence only tau_1 and tau_2 need to be known.
Whether or not there is a clock at the remote position 2 is irrelevant
here

...

What? If there is no remote clock - what are you
going to synchronize with the procedure?

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Great. So, where did you get the information
that no time encoding is involved in the
Holy Procedure?

It's not "holy" but sound.
Simple : only the signal arrival/departure information is
taken into account.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
And how does clock 2 know t3?

The time of arrival at position 2 is defined by this method and does not
need to be known.
It is defined by means of the local time measure tau of the position
one, hence only tau_1 and tau_2 need to be known.
Whether or not there is a clock at the remote position 2 is irrelevant
here

What? If there is no remote clock - what are you
going to synchronize with the procedure?

...

Ask Mr. Einstein.

I didn't like his method, anyhow, and think it is faulty.

I use/promote a different scheme and two clocks and two observers at two
positions, each equiped with a clock and a large telescope.

Now we need a procedure, which make clocks at position 1 synchronised
with clocks at position 2, where both observers could agree.

In SRT this is about a non-moving setting, hence we can assume, that 1
and 2 would not move in respect to each other.

I suggest a situation, where an observer on the Moon has a (very) large
clock and a very large telescope and an observer on Earth has the same
devices, too.

These locations are assumed to be stationary in respect to each other,
what is the case to sufficiant degree.

Now we also assume 1 lightsecond distance between 1 and 2, because that
would make the example easy.

Now observer 1 looks at the clock on the Moon and dials his clock
accordingly to the remote time plus 1 second.

The observer 2 does the same but in the other direction.

Then both clocks are synchronized and both observers happy.

If you would NOT add the delay, then both observer have an unlucky
'feed-back-loop' and need to turn the knobs to an earlier time each
time, the other observer does so.

This would be rather silly, hence the delay needs to be added.

But for uncertain reasons Einstein didn't mention this requirement.


TH

[Schaun Oirschot]

Post by Thomas Heger
I suggest a situation, where an observer on the Moon has a (very) large
clock and a very large telescope and an observer on Earth has the same
devices, too.

...BBC is the British state news organization of the extremist country
that can't tell me truth to its own people and is also a State Sponsor of
Terrorism.

Deperate "retaliation" from Kiev.... Shooting and bombing kids and their
grannies, supposedly rises the morale of the strangled UkroNazi
conscripts. They know that if they do real combat, they just... die.

Those nazis are not human, they're insectoids using mimicry to imitate
human form, they're primitive and driven only by mindless hatred and the
need to kill and destroy. Only brute force can stop them, there's no
reasoning with them.

How many civilians need to be targeted by Zelensky and his Brutes before
their Western funders get wise and charge them with War Crimes??? 😳🤔

That'll never happen since the Western khazar media won't report it and
Biden needs to keep his son's laptop from being in the news.

*_UK_backs_Ukrainian_terror_attack_on_Moscow_*
https://%72t.com/r%75%73%73ia/577166-uk-drone-attack-moscow/

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
Einstein use a method of synchronisation, which uses light as means to
transfer timeing information from one place to the other.

This is not true. In Einstein-Poicaré procedure there is absolutely
NO encoding of timing information in the involved light signals.

:)))))))))

So you support Thomas' claim?

So, where did you get this nonsense from, Bourbaki again?

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Where did you get this nonsense from, Bourbaki again?

There is two reasons you couldn't understand Bourbaki. Could you
spot them, Maciej?

There are no reasons why you couldn't, still you couldn't.

I could. Could you?

Great. So, where did you get the information
that no time encoding is involved in the
Holy Procedure?

It's not "holy" but sound.
Simple : only the signal arrival/departure information is
taken into account. Nothing is supposed to be encoded in
the signal.

...

This is actually correct, since Einstein used simple flashes of light.

But that doesn't matter too much and would not alter the functionality
of his thought experiments, if I use slightly more modern devices than
mirrors and flashes.

I used a large (hypothetical) telescope as analogous device, where the
observer peeps through and reads the remote clock.

Now this is a different technical device, but actually the same
principle as Einstein had use in his 'experiment'.

So, the timining information is 'encoded' into the light by the
positions of the hands of the clock, which the observe sees through his
telescope.

Some modern code and a laser would also be a possibility, because a
laser beam is also a form of light.

But a telescope is more intuitive, hence I have chosen that example.


TH

[Cason Koning]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko
You havn't proven that two clocks synchronized with your method show
the same time simultaneously according to your definition, so your
definition is not useful.

Surely I can show, that symmetric synchronisation requires to calculate
the delay.

just think. The Russian people freed the fucking germony from the nazis,
gave them a future and food on their table to their children. Now the
fucking gearmons sends tanks, without shame, to kill Russian people by
proxy.

you can even get in prison long time for supporting Russia, in fucking
gearmony. Next time you'll not have a country, you fucking stinking
unwashed nazi gearmon.

you tell me, no one in the fucking gearmon parliament don't know the
ukronazis are nazis, killing Russian people since before 2014, you
stinking nazis, giving them tanks and heavy ammunition to kill Russian.
You repulsive impertinent sons of the bitches. You can't even talk
gearmon, you talk like fools. You fucking don't know, not even now, who
killed you affordable energy pipelines in the middle of the sea?? You
liars subhuman excrement. Or, who wanted to kill you with mortal serum
called "vaccines"?? You stinking sack of inbreed liars rats.

what are you going to say, "sorry, because we were lying"??

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

The train experiment, which is correctly attributed to science fiction, contains certain assumptions that are unstated. This might explain the difficulties
that are encountered in understanding how it could be real.
RELATIVITY
THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY
BY
ALBERT EINSTEIN, Ph.D.
FBOFSasOB 07 FBTSICS IH THS tTHITIlBBITT OF BEBLIH
####
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B
are simultaneous with respect to the embankment,
the rays of light emitted at the places
A and B, where the Ughtning occurs, meet each
other at the mid-point M of the length A
B
But the events A and B
of the embankment.
also correspond to positions A and B on the
Let M' be the mid-point of the distance
traia.
A
flashes
B on the travelling train.
^
Just when the
of lightning occur, this point M' naturally
coincides with the point M, but it moves towards
the right in the diagram with the velocity v of
the train.
If
an observer sitting in the position
M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then
he would remain permanently at M, and the light
rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and
B
would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would
meet just where he is situated. Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A.
####

...

You wrote: "The train experiment....contains certain assumptions
that are unstated. This might explain the difficulties that are
encountered in understanding how it could be real."

The gedanken was never supposed to be "real", whatever you mean
by that expression. It was an idealization created as an aid to
understanding.

1) Real lightning flashes have extent and duration. They are
proxies for events, single points x, y, z, t in spacetime that
neither have dx, dy, dz extent nor dt duration. It is possible
for an observer to be in motion relative to a lightning bolt.
It is not possible for an observer to be in motion relative to
an event.
2) Light from lightning flashes have properties such as
wavelength and frequency that can be exploited to determine
one's state of motion relative to an emitter. In a "real"
experiment, a moving observer should be able to exploit
Doppler effect to discover that he/she is in "real" motion
relative to the excited air molecules ionized by the
lightning. This is totally against the intent of the gedanken.
3) Instead, one should consider the light flashes as being
proxies for abstract signals containing only a single yes/no
bit of information.
3a) I created two drawings related to the points that I raised
which you have already seen:
"Crackpot Misinterpretation of the Train and Embankment Gedanken"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bkh6B9P7I4qggJy4FRXG8o3sP6d0tIt3/view?usp=share_link
"No Doppler Variant of the Train and Embankment Gedanken"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hDoQYP4LPX7F6BMMktFoO5XxYHaN3eL2/view?usp=share_link
4) For simplicity, only first-order effects are considered. The
train/track gedanken was presented *only* to introduce to the
public the notion of relativity of simultaneity. Second-order
effects were unnecessary for this presentation.
5) Einstein's 1905 paper adopted a much more rigorous approach
to discussing relativity of simultaneity. It can legitimately
be argued that the entire Kinematics section of his paper was
devoted to exploring the consequences of RoS.
6) If we carefully examine the train/track gedanken in the light
of special relativity, we discover interesting facts that are
left out in the standard presentation of the gedanken (since
discussing them would be totally unnecessary for the teaching
goals of the gedanken, as well as "leaping ahead" and utterly
confusing to the lay reader).
6a) In order for the front and rear of the train to coincide in
position with the left and right lightning strikes, the proper
length of the train must be *longer* than the proper distance
between the lightning strikes by a factor of gamma.
6b) In the frame of the train, the measured distance between the
lightning strikes must be *shorter* than the proper distance
between the strikes by another factor of gamma.
6c) In the frame of the train, it is therefore *impossible* for
the front of the train to be coincident with the front
lightning strike at the same time that the rear of the train
is coincident with the rear lightning strike.
6d) First the front of the train is coincident with the front
lightning strike, then the rear of the train is coincident
with the rear lightning strike.
6e) I illustrated these points here, but at the time I first
showed my animation to you, you were not ready to comprehend
anything of what I was trying to say:
"Train and Embankment Thought Experiment And Its Inverse"
Failed to load image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif

[[e-mail]]

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

The train experiment, which is correctly attributed to science fiction, contains certain assumptions that are unstated. This might explain the difficulties
that are encountered in understanding how it could be real.
RELATIVITY
THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY
BY
ALBERT EINSTEIN, Ph.D.
FBOFSasOB 07 FBTSICS IH THS tTHITIlBBITT OF BEBLIH
####
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B
are simultaneous with respect to the embankment,
the rays of light emitted at the places
A and B, where the Ughtning occurs, meet each
other at the mid-point M of the length A
B
But the events A and B
of the embankment.
also correspond to positions A and B on the
Let M' be the mid-point of the distance
traia.
A
flashes
B on the travelling train.
^
Just when the
of lightning occur, this point M' naturally
coincides with the point M, but it moves towards
the right in the diagram with the velocity v of
the train.
If
an observer sitting in the position
M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then
he would remain permanently at M, and the light
rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and
B
would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would
meet just where he is situated. Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embank-
ment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer
will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier
than he will see that emitted from A.
####

You wrote: "The train experiment....contains certain assumptions
that are unstated. This might explain the difficulties that are
encountered in understanding how it could be real."
The gedanken was never supposed to be "real", whatever you mean
by that expression. It was an idealization created as an aid to
understanding.
1) Real lightning flashes have extent and duration. They are
proxies for events, single points x, y, z, t in spacetime that
neither have dx, dy, dz extent nor dt duration. It is possible
for an observer to be in motion relative to a lightning bolt.
It is not possible for an observer to be in motion relative to
an event.

...

"It is possible for an observer to be in motion relative to a lightning bolt" Agree

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2) Light from lightning flashes have properties such as
wavelength and frequency that can be exploited to determine
one's state of motion relative to an emitter. In a "real"
experiment, a moving observer should be able to exploit
Doppler effect to discover that he/she is in "real" motion
relative to the excited air molecules ionized by the
lightning. This is totally against the intent of the gedanken.

So the assumption is that the moving observer does not discover that he / she is in motion.
This has never been clearly stated in any of the accounts that I have read, and is necessary to state.
Poincare's frank comments are somewhat along these lines.

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
3) Instead, one should consider the light flashes as being
proxies for abstract signals containing only a single yes/no
bit of information.

Right

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
3a) I created two drawings related to the points that I raised
"Crackpot Misinterpretation of the Train and Embankment Gedanken"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bkh6B9P7I4qggJy4FRXG8o3sP6d0tIt3/view?usp=share_link
"No Doppler Variant of the Train and Embankment Gedanken"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hDoQYP4LPX7F6BMMktFoO5XxYHaN3eL2/view?usp=share_link
4) For simplicity, only first-order effects are considered. The
train/track gedanken was presented *only* to introduce to the
public the notion of relativity of simultaneity. Second-order
effects were unnecessary for this presentation.

...

Let me refer to your diagrams, the second one, for example, and see if there are any 'assumptions' that need to be stated.
I had a look at your diagram.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hDoQYP4LPX7F6BMMktFoO5XxYHaN3eL2/view

That is your view. All I can say is that the events you describe will happen if there is was an all-encompassing Aether stationary
in the track frame.

My opinion is that B will see the flashes simultaneously. Leave aside seeing the flashes, do the strobe lights light up simultaneously in B's frame?

######

Due to the "principle of relative motion", moving observers within the aether also assume that they are at rest and that the speed of light is constant in all directions (only to first order in v/c). Therefore, if they synchronize their clocks by using light signals, they will only consider the transit time for the signals, but not their motion in respect to the aether. So the moving clocks are not synchronous and do not indicate the "true" time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

######

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
5) Einstein's 1905 paper adopted a much more rigorous approach
to discussing relativity of simultaneity. It can legitimately
be argued that the entire Kinematics section of his paper was
devoted to exploring the consequences of RoS.
6) If we carefully examine the train/track gedanken in the light
of special relativity, we discover interesting facts that are
left out in the standard presentation of the gedanken .....

...

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2) Light from lightning flashes have properties such as
wavelength and frequency that can be exploited to determine
one's state of motion relative to an emitter. In a "real"
experiment, a moving observer should be able to exploit
Doppler effect to discover that he/she is in "real" motion
relative to the excited air molecules ionized by the
lightning. This is totally against the intent of the gedanken.

So the assumption is that the moving observer does not discover that he / she is in motion.

...

That is phrasing things ENTIRELY WRONG.

All inertial frames of reference are EQUIVALENT. There are an
infinity of inertial frames in which the observer is moving, and
a rather more restricted (but still infinite) number of inertial
frames in which he/she is not in motion.

The observer is totally free to use whichever coordinate system
is most convenient for him/her. Other observers will choose to
use different coordinate systems. NO ONE IS ANY RIGHTER OR
WRONGER THAN ANYONE ELSE!

It is usually most convenient for an observer to choose a frame
in which he/she is not moving.

Post by ***@gmail.com
This has never been clearly stated in any of the accounts that I have read, and is necessary to state.
Poincare's frank comments are somewhat along these lines.
Let me refer to your diagrams, the second one, for example, and see if there are any 'assumptions' that need to be stated.
I had a look at your diagram.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hDoQYP4LPX7F6BMMktFoO5XxYHaN3eL2/view
That is your view. All I can say is that the events you describe will happen if there is was an all-encompassing Aether stationary
in the track frame.

...

WRONG. An Aether stationary in the track frame will be moving
in the train frame, and pulses from the strobe lights will
arrive at the middle at different times.

Post by ***@gmail.com
My opinion is that B will see the flashes simultaneously. Leave aside seeing the flashes, do the strobe lights light up simultaneously in B's frame?

Wrong on both counts.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2) Light from lightning flashes have properties such as
wavelength and frequency that can be exploited to determine
one's state of motion relative to an emitter. In a "real"
experiment, a moving observer should be able to exploit
Doppler effect to discover that he/she is in "real" motion
relative to the excited air molecules ionized by the
lightning. This is totally against the intent of the gedanken.

So the assumption is that the moving observer does not discover that he / she is in motion.

That is phrasing things ENTIRELY WRONG.
All inertial frames of reference are EQUIVALENT.

...

All 0 of them.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2) Light from lightning flashes have properties such as
wavelength and frequency that can be exploited to determine
one's state of motion relative to an emitter. In a "real"
experiment, a moving observer should be able to exploit
Doppler effect to discover that he/she is in "real" motion
relative to the excited air molecules ionized by the
lightning. This is totally against the intent of the gedanken.

So the assumption is that the moving observer does not discover that he / she is in motion.

That is phrasing things ENTIRELY WRONG.
All inertial frames of reference are EQUIVALENT.

All 0 of them.

...

So, you can provide a logical proof?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2) Light from lightning flashes have properties such as
wavelength and frequency that can be exploited to determine
one's state of motion relative to an emitter. In a "real"
experiment, a moving observer should be able to exploit
Doppler effect to discover that he/she is in "real" motion
relative to the excited air molecules ionized by the
lightning. This is totally against the intent of the gedanken.

So the assumption is that the moving observer does not discover that he / she is in motion.

That is phrasing things ENTIRELY WRONG.
All inertial frames of reference are EQUIVALENT.

All 0 of them.

So, you can provide a logical proof?

...

No. Don't worry, however - Pythagorean
theorem had more than a hundred, and
was denied by those idiots anyway.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2) Light from lightning flashes have properties such as
wavelength and frequency that can be exploited to determine
one's state of motion relative to an emitter. In a "real"
experiment, a moving observer should be able to exploit
Doppler effect to discover that he/she is in "real" motion
relative to the excited air molecules ionized by the
lightning. This is totally against the intent of the gedanken.

So the assumption is that the moving observer does not discover that he / she is in motion.

That is phrasing things ENTIRELY WRONG.
All inertial frames of reference are EQUIVALENT. There are an
infinity of inertial frames in which the observer is moving, and
a rather more restricted (but still infinite) number of inertial
frames in which he/she is not in motion.

...

I can imagine this concept.

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
The observer is totally free to use whichever coordinate system
is most convenient for him/her. Other observers will choose to
use different coordinate systems. NO ONE IS ANY RIGHTER OR
WRONGER THAN ANYONE ELSE!

OK

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
It is usually most convenient for an observer to choose a frame
in which he/she is not moving.

Post by ***@gmail.com
This has never been clearly stated in any of the accounts that I have read, and is necessary to state.
Poincare's frank comments are somewhat along these lines.
Let me refer to your diagrams, the second one, for example, and see if there are any 'assumptions' that need to be stated.
I had a look at your diagram.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hDoQYP4LPX7F6BMMktFoO5XxYHaN3eL2/view
That is your view. All I can say is that the events you describe will happen if there is was an all-encompassing Aether stationary
in the track frame.

WRONG. An Aether stationary in the track frame will be moving
in the train frame, and pulses from the strobe lights will
arrive at the middle at different times.

...

I was referring to the original concept of Aether, an medium stationary in one frame of reference only, and all other things moving
with respect to this Aether. The Aether will not be at rest in the Earth frame, however the point is that, for the purpose of this arguments, we can assume an Aehter stationary in the track frame.

Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

Post by ***@gmail.com
My opinion is that B will see the flashes simultaneously. Leave aside seeing the flashes, do the strobe lights light up simultaneously in B's frame?

Wrong on both counts.