www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
So the "state of absolute motion" is the speed of light for that observer?"Brian Kennelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
kenseto wrote:
"Brian Kennelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
kenseto wrote:
"Brian Kennelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You have it backward. The RoS is deduced from the transit times, not the other way around.
Since the unequal transit time is erroneous assumed, RoS is also erroneously assumed. IOW, RoS has no experimental basis.
It is the *equal* transit times that lead to the RoS.
NO....It is your erroneous assumption that the train observer rush toward the light from the front and move away from the light from the rear that lead to the RoS. In real life the train observer measure the same transit time for both light fronts. Since Einstein stipulated that the lightning flashes occur simultaneously then the only conclusion is that the train observer sees both flashes simultaneously.
train
is different in different directions.
What they say is not important to the basic point of the example:
you are wrong. It is very important.
My point is that only one observer sees the flashes at the same time. The transit times do not enter into the argument.
You are wrong. The transit time is the key to the argument. Einstein stipulated that the flashes occur simultaneously when both observer are at equal distance from the flashes. This means that each observer must measure the same transit time for the flashes to arrive. The track observer is in a lower state of absolute motion than the train observer and thus the light path length in his frame is shorter and thus he sees the flashes to be simultaneous at an earlier time than the train observer.
The flashes are seen at the same time for one observer, at different times for the other.
This is an erroneous assumption and it is conflicting with what the
train
observer's measurements. The train observer will see the flashes simultaneously at a later time than the track observer. The track observer using the LT also determines that the train observer will see the flashes
simultaneously
but at a later time.
You have not offered any explanation of this assertion, which conflicts with logic and common sense. The LT cannot help you, as they describe exactly what I described in the experiment.
NO...the LT contradicts what you said.
Any theory that predicts that both observers will see the flashes simultaneously, when they are not adjacent, is ruled out before it starts.
Only if you are naive enough to think that the observers are not moving wrt to the light fronts at different absolute speed..
That is the basic data. It does not depend on equal or unequal transit times, it does not depend on isotropy, the light postulate or RoS. It does not even depend on a constant light velocity, as long as the light does not reverse direction*.
Who said light have to reverse direction? The higher state of absolute motion (motion wrt light rays) of the train observer compared to the track
observer
is making him missed a longer length of the leading edge of the light
fronts
and thus the train observer sees the light fronts arriving simultaneously at
a
later time.
It might help if you explained what you mean by "state of absolute motion", but I doubt it.
Each observer is moving wrt the light fronts. The state of absolute motion
of an
object is that motion of the object wrt to a light front.
The direction of motion for both observers and the light rays is in the direction of the track. You are saying that the train moves perpendicular to the track. If it were, then your statements could be made sensible. Try to understand the experiment as stated, do not change it to fit your theory.The light front is moving at a constant speed in the ether. The track observer is moving slower wrt the light fronts than the train observer and that's why the light fronts are arriving at the track observer's location at an earlier time.
The point of my clarification is that the flashes, once the meet at the location of one observer, move apart and cannot meet again at the location of the other.
If the direction of absolute motion of the observer is in the vertical direction wrt the horizontal light rays then the light rays can meet at different locations dependent on the absolute motion of the observer wrt the light rays.
How is that erroneous?
No...The train observer measures equal transit time for both directions.
That is one possibility, and the one I support, but it does not contradict the unequal arrival times.
Yes it does contradict the unequal arrival time. Why? Because Einstein stipulated that the flashes occur simultaneously and at the time of the flashes the train observer is at equal distance from the flashes. This means that the flashes cannot have unequal arrival time.
Again simple math based on erroneous assumptions.
Which erroneous assumption is that?
The erroneous assumption that the train observer is rushing toward the flash from the front and receding away from the flash from the rear.
No, he left the simultaneity for the train observer unknown.Yes there is. You assume that the starting times are equal for both observers. Without that assumption, there is no reason to expect the transit times to be equal.
That what Einstein's gedanken stipulated. The lightning flashes strikes the ends of the train simultaneously when the train observer and the track observer are adjacent to each other.
Simultaneously for the track observer. We do not yet know if they are simultaneous for the train observer.
He didn't say simultaneously only for the track observer. In fact if that what he meant then the gedanken is meaningless. Why because you already assumed RoS.
What do you mean by "the motion wrt light is not detectable?"That means that at the time of lightning flashes the train observer is at equal distance from the flashes and therefore the train observer must measure the same transit time for both flashes.
That is an application of light speed invariance, not dependent on the starting times of the flashes. If the flashes occurred days or months apart at the ends of the train, the transit times would be the same.
That also mean that the train observer must see the flashes simultaneously.
No, that depends on the starting times. Only if the start times are simultaneous will he see them simultaneously. Because of the motion, he does not see them simultaneously, so they did not start simultaneously.
Sigh...Einstein stipulated that the flashes are simultaneous. His reason why the train observer do not see the flashes to be simultaneous is because of the motion of the trin observ moved wrt to the flashes. But in real life motion wrt to light is not detectable. That means his assumption is erroneous.
-----= 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! =-----
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
