"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140191797.828846.301690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140108478.345976.112990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

No it does not *stem from* the isotropy of the speed of light in
the

train.

RoS is "stem from" Einstein used the track observer's point of
view

to

reach

the conclusion that the lightning strikes are not simultaneous in

the

train

due to the train's relative velocity wrt him. In order to reach
the

the

proper conclusion whether the flashes are simulteneous in the
train

the

train observer must reach his own conclusion. Since it was

stipulated

that

the flashes occur simutlaneously while the train observer is at

equal

distance from the flashes then the train observer must conclude
that

the

flashes are simultaneous because the speed of light is isotropic
in

his

frame.

No trick. If I have two clocks immediately adjacent to two things
that happen, and those clocks say they happened at the same time,
then they're simultaneous. If they say they happened at different
times, then they're not simultaneous. Notice there is *no*
propagation of light required because the clocks are immediately
adjacent to the events that happen. How else would *you* define
simultaneous?

The clock in the train will say that the time of the simultaneous
events occur at L/c and the clock at the track will say that the
simultaneous events occur at L/c. So what is your problem? So the
events are

simultaneous

in the train and the track.

Not the picture I have in mind. Using your example, let's take a train
and lightning strikes at both ends of the train. There are *two* clocks
on the train, at each end of the train, so that there is a clock *right
next to* where the lightning strikes. The two clocks are synchronized
according to the procedure agreed upon (you do know what that procedure
is, don't you?). Since the clock is *right next to* the lightning
strike, there is no L for light to have to propagate before registering
the event on the clock. There is no propagation delay.

If you stipulates that the strikes are simultanteous at both end of the
train then the clocks at the ends of the train will record the same time
when the lightning strikes. This is what any body with any common sense
will say. But of course you don't have any common sense. What you have is
SR religion belief.

Likewise, since the lightning bolts also hit the track at the ends of
the train, there are two clocks on the track, each one right next to
where the lightning strikes. Each of these clocks is also synchronized
by the *same* procedure that the clocks on the train were synchronized.
Since the clocks are right next to where the lightning strikes, there is
no propagation delay L/c.

If you stipulates that the strikes are simultaneous at the locations of
the clocks on the track then these clcoks will record the same time when
the lightning strikes occur. This is what any body with any common sense
will say. But of course you don't have any common sense. What you have is
SR religion belief.

Nevertheless, if the track clocks say the strikes are simultaneous, the
train clocks will say they are not. If the train clocks say the strikes
are simultaneous, the track clocks will say they are not.

It appears that you don't know what simultaneous means. Both the train
clocks and the track clocks will say that the strikes are simultaneous.

ROTFLOL.....so there is no physical length?

That's right! Now you're getting it. There is *no such thing* as
physical length. There is only the length that we can measure and
that length is observer-dependent. There *is no* physical length
that can

be

measured and is observer-independent.

This is so stupid....We use the physical length of a ruler to measure

length

everyday.

No we don't. We use the *rest length* of the ruler. The rest length of
the ruler is that length the ruler has when it is at rest in the frame
of the observer. We use the rest length because the instruction manual
for the ruler says it has to be used that way, or the length warranty is
void.

Hey idiot rest length is physical length. Furthermore there is no such
thing as rest length. There is the physical length of a rest at rest wrt
you.

There is no such thing as the "physical length" of a ruler. I have no
idea where you got the notion there was.

Are you doing physics by assertion??

No, I'm trying to explain to you what we know about nature. I'm not
going to win you over by argument. Physical theories don't win by
"argument". They win by agreeing with, and accurately predicting,
experiment.

You don't know anything about nature. All you ever do is making
assertions.

Ken Seto

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140191797.828846.301690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140108478.345976.112990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

No it does not *stem from* the isotropy of the speed of light in the

train.

RoS is "stem from" Einstein used the track observer's point of view

to

reach

the conclusion that the lightning strikes are not simultaneous in

the

train

due to the train's relative velocity wrt him. In order to reach the

the

proper conclusion whether the flashes are simulteneous in the train

the

train observer must reach his own conclusion. Since it was

stipulated

that

the flashes occur simutlaneously while the train observer is at

equal

distance from the flashes then the train observer must conclude that

the

flashes are simultaneous because the speed of light is isotropic in

his

frame.

No trick. If I have two clocks immediately adjacent to two things that
happen, and those clocks say they happened at the same time, then
they're simultaneous. If they say they happened at different times,
then they're not simultaneous. Notice there is *no* propagation of
light required because the clocks are immediately adjacent to the
events that happen. How else would *you* define simultaneous?

The clock in the train will say that the time of the simultaneous events
occur at L/c and the clock at the track will say that the simultaneous
events occur at L/c. So what is your problem? So the events are

simultaneous

in the train and the track.

Not the picture I have in mind. Using your example, let's take a train
and lightning strikes at both ends of the train. There are *two* clocks
on the train, at each end of the train, so that there is a clock *right
next to* where the lightning strikes. The two clocks are synchronized
according to the procedure agreed upon (you do know what that procedure
is, don't you?). Since the clock is *right next to* the lightning
strike, there is no L for light to have to propagate before registering
the event on the clock. There is no propagation delay.

If you stipulates that the strikes are simultanteous at both end of the
train then the clocks at the ends of the train will record the same time
when the lightning strikes. This is what any body with any common sense will
say. But of course you don't have any common sense. What you have is SR
religion belief.

Likewise, since the lightning bolts also hit the track at the ends of
the train, there are two clocks on the track, each one right next to
where the lightning strikes. Each of these clocks is also synchronized
by the *same* procedure that the clocks on the train were synchronized.
Since the clocks are right next to where the lightning strikes, there
is no propagation delay L/c.

If you stipulates that the strikes are simultaneous at the locations of the
clocks on the track then these clcoks will record the same time when the
lightning strikes occur. This is what any body with any common sense will
say. But of course you don't have any common sense. What you have is SR
religion belief.

Nevertheless, if the track clocks say the strikes are simultaneous, the
train clocks will say they are not. If the train clocks say the strikes
are simultaneous, the track clocks will say they are not.

It appears that you don't know what simultaneous means. Both the train
clocks and the track clocks will say that the strikes are simultaneous.

ROTFLOL.....so there is no physical length?

That's right! Now you're getting it. There is *no such thing* as
physical length. There is only the length that we can measure and that
length is observer-dependent. There *is no* physical length that can

be

measured and is observer-independent.

This is so stupid....We use the physical length of a ruler to measure

length

everyday.

No we don't. We use the *rest length* of the ruler. The rest length of
the ruler is that length the ruler has when it is at rest in the frame
of the observer. We use the rest length because the instruction manual
for the ruler says it has to be used that way, or the length warranty
is void.

Hey idiot rest length is physical length. Furthermore there is no such
thing as rest length. There is the physical length of a rest at rest wrt
you.

There is no such thing as the "physical length" of a ruler. I have no
idea where you got the notion there was.

Are you doing physics by assertion??

No, I'm trying to explain to you what we know about nature. I'm not
going to win you over by argument. Physical theories don't win by
"argument". They win by agreeing with, and accurately predicting,
experiment.

You don't know anything about nature. All you ever do is making assertions.