Re: A Flawed SR Concept

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:37:43 -0700, Brian Kennelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>HenriWilson wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:13:54 -0500, "kenseto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> Ken, I would like to help you. I have always believed that you are not the
>> complete idiot that every SRian likes to make out. 
>> 
>> The fact is, Einstein's train experiment is flawed. There is no guarantee that
>> the light inside the train is the same as that outside. Your conclusions
>> actually support the notion of source dependency. The flash which enters the
>> train through the front window moves at (c-v)  and through the back, at (c+v).
>> Thus both flashes reach the centre of the moving train at the same instant.
>> 
>This is equivalent to a "full ether drag" model of light propagation, 
>which was disproved by theory and experiment in the 19th century.

no. It is actually based on the ballistic theory of light.

>
>> That argument does not however support your view that the train observer sees
>> the flash at a later time than the track observer.
>> 
>> If we use a long, open-ended train, or if the train observer is situated on the
>> roof, then simulataneity will indeed appear to be observer dependent, as the
>> SRians claim.
>> 
>> However this experiment is still flawed. For one thing, simultaneity can be
>> made absolute, as shown by my 'moving  rod' method. For another, the idea of
>> using lightning flashes is inadequate.
>> 
>Your "moving rod" method assumes without proof that length contraction
>does not occur.  It is true that if there is no length contraction,
>simultaneity is absolute, but you must first prove the premise.
>
>> The ideal way to perform the train expt is to place two light sources on the
>> track and two light sources in the ends of trhe train. The ones on the track
>> must be separated by exactly the length of the train.
>> 
>> A______train___________B-->v
>>         C________track_________D
>> 
>> When the train ends are adjacent to the track sources, the four of them send a
>> light pulse towards the centre.
>> 
>This again assumes that there is no length contraction.
>
>> I will leave it to you to work out what happens.
>Whether or not length contraction exists, or light is dragged along with
>the train, or light has a changing velocity, only one observer can see
>the flashes at the same time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


Henri Wilson. 
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm