• Einstein Paradox: Relativity of Simultaneity

    From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 25 14:23:06 2023
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two
    observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 25 17:53:12 2023
    You can get free version of the book from : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Tue Apr 25 17:57:09 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two
    observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    "SR is local".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Fri Apr 28 07:36:41 2023
    On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:23:06 -0700, Jack Liu wrote:

    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I
    would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that
    two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the
    rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two observers located at
    that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent.
    His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise
    must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity"
    in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    I have explained elsewhere the logical impossibility that his RoS
    generates. Paragraph2: Just locate the light sources on the moving clocks
    and the whole thing falls apart

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Fri Apr 28 00:43:17 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
    both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Apr 28 00:58:03 2023
    On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 09:43:19 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
    both derivation and use.

    Nonononononono! Not important at all!
    We would derive none of our idiocies
    without it, but importance? Phew.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 01:11:51 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:37:03 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:23:06 -0700, Jack Liu wrote:

    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I
    would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the
    rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two observers located at
    that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity"
    in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!
    I have explained elsewhere the logical impossibility that his RoS
    generates. Paragraph2: Just locate the light sources on the moving clocks and the whole thing falls apart


    Hi Jane

    I found it independently and wrote it in my book <absolute time 2022 > Chapter 9 . However I would love to quote yours in my book if you can tell me where did you publish your argument. Thanks.

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Apr 28 01:17:49 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:43:19 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
    both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.

    --
    Jan



    To Jan

    1. thank you first, since you finally agree with me that is paradox, although you think it is not important. Thank though.

    2. Like Maciej Wozniak has just said: it is very important!
    That meant Einstein was supporting Absolute time in the his PREMISE.

    3. That means time dilation effect is just light transmission lag.


    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Fri Apr 28 09:12:33 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:11:51 -0700 (PDT), Jack Liu wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:37:03 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:23:06 -0700, Jack Liu wrote:

    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I
    would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox
    in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed
    that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway
    "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the
    rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two observers located at
    that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different
    "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was
    inconsistent.
    His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the
    "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his
    premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the
    "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!
    I have explained elsewhere the logical impossibility that his RoS
    generates. Paragraph2: Just locate the light sources on the moving
    clocks and the whole thing falls apart


    Hi Jane

    I found it independently and wrote it in my book <absolute time 2022 > Chapter 9 . However I would love to quote yours in my book if you can
    tell me where did you publish your argument. Thanks.

    I too am writing a very comprehensive thesis on the history of Einstein's
    SR and the reasons why so many people do not accept it. It contains a lot
    of new and important ideas that will surely shatter the whole physics estblishment. It is almost finished but I keep adding new ideas.
    Can I ask how and where you published your book.

    Jack





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 02:52:27 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:12:36 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:

    I found it independently and wrote it in my book <absolute time 2022 > Chapter 9 . However I would love to quote yours in my book if you can
    tell me where did you publish your argument. Thanks.
    I too am writing a very comprehensive thesis on the history of Einstein's
    SR and the reasons why so many people do not accept it. It contains a lot
    of new and important ideas that will surely shatter the whole physics estblishment. It is almost finished but I keep adding new ideas.
    Can I ask how and where you published your book.




    To Jane

    self publish at amazon is easy and quick : https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/ https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    looking forward to your work and let's quote each other.

    for more info, just contact me by twitter : @songwaimai

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Apr 28 11:42:18 2023
    On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
    both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.

    Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
    contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

    Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
    Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
    is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
    embankment at the rear.

    Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
    the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
    reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
    actually happen.

    What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the rear.

    What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the front.

    No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
    finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
    simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 09:14:25 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:12:36 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    I too am writing a very comprehensive thesis on the history of Einstein's
    SR and the reasons why so many people do not accept it. It contains a lot
    of new and important ideas that will surely shatter the whole physics estblishment. It is almost finished but I keep adding new ideas.
    Can I ask how and where you published your book.

    Looking forward to the Sunday comics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Apr 28 09:15:09 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:42:18 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
    both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
    Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
    contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

    Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
    Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
    is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the embankment at the rear.

    Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
    the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they actually happen.

    What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the rear.

    What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the front.

    No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
    finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

    To Volney

    You are right A, B, C has different about the timing of lightning, about the simultaneity of two event. However Einstein just believes in absolute time by claiming two lightning strike the two end of train SAME TIME at his premise.

    It is so ridiculous to think Relativity revolution has overthrow the absolute time while Einstein himself trust absolute time.

    See Introduction of ABSOLUTE TIME https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view

    JACK



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Apr 28 10:12:28 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    All three embankment observers, A, B, and C, know perfectly well how
    to compensate for the finite speed of light in their observations.
    Although they *see* the lightning strikes at different times, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time.



    Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

    I agree with you, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time . I agree. The "same time" you just mentioned is not relative at all, it is absolute.
    Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .

    Se introduction of https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Apr 28 10:02:54 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:42:18 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
    both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
    Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
    contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

    Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
    Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
    is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the embankment at the rear.

    Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
    the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they actually happen.

    What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the rear.

    What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the front.

    No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
    finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

    ????
    All three embankment observers, A, B, and C, know perfectly well how
    to compensate for the finite speed of light in their observations.
    Although they *see* the lightning strikes at different times, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time.

    They do not disagree on the simultaneity of the strikes, despite
    differing in what they see.

    See the Wiki discussion and figure 1-1 illustrating this subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Definitions

    The current version of this section looks like it retains about 90+%
    of my wording from 2017, with little changes like "Her location
    within the lattice is not important" being changed to "Any specific
    location within the lattice is not important" and so forth being
    introduced by other editors. Also, somebody or other didn't like
    where I had written, "The tokens typically used in popular expositions
    of relativity to represent events—sparks, firecrackers, lightning bolts
    and the like—are not events because they have finite durations and
    extents. Unlike the analogies used to explain events, mathematical
    events, since they have no duration, have no speed and cannot be
    in motion," and had deleted these sentences between 2017 and
    the present.

    You can also reference the online version of Taylor and Wheeler

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Fri Apr 28 10:19:49 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:12:31 PM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    All three embankment observers, A, B, and C, know perfectly well how
    to compensate for the finite speed of light in their observations. Although they *see* the lightning strikes at different times, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time.

    Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

    I agree with you, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time . I agree. The "same time" you just mentioned is not relative at all, it is absolute.
    Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .

    No. Simultaneity is a relative concept.
    The strikes *do not* happen simultaneously to people on
    the train, regardless of where in the train they stand.
    They could be standing in the precise spot on the train
    where the light from the flashes arrive at the same moment,
    but since they would not be standing in the middle of the
    train, they would *know* that the strikes did not happen
    simultaneously....so far as *they* are concerned, anyway.

    Se introduction of https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Apr 28 10:30:25 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    You can also reference the online version of Taylor and Wheeler

    See section 4 of the following, "The Coordinates of an Event" https://www.eftaylor.com/pub/stp/STP1stEdThruP20.pdf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Apr 28 10:33:17 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:19:51 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:12:31 PM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    All three embankment observers, A, B, and C, know perfectly well how
    to compensate for the finite speed of light in their observations. Although they *see* the lightning strikes at different times, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time.

    Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

    I agree with you, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time . I agree. The "same time" you just mentioned is not relative at all, it is absolute.
    Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .
    No. Simultaneity is a relative concept.

    Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

    I agree with you, all of A B C can calculate that the strikes happened at the same time. calculated result in valid . This "Same Time" you just mention is not relative.
    if you want to say Simultaneity a relative concept, that is all right, as long as you think "Same Time" is not. That is already what I want.

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Apr 28 10:47:35 2023
    On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 17:42:18 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
    both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
    Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
    contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

    Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
    Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
    is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the embankment at the rear.

    Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
    the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they actually happen.

    What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the rear.

    What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the front.

    No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
    finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

    Or, at least, a poor fanatic idiot has gedanken
    so.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Fri Apr 28 10:49:58 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two
    observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    The universe has a common age after the Big Bang.
    The universe is 13.7 billion years old. The most
    distant galaxies got to where they are in that
    time after the big beginning.

    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Fri Apr 28 11:13:06 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:33:19 PM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:19:51 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:12:31 PM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    All three embankment observers, A, B, and C, know perfectly well how to compensate for the finite speed of light in their observations. Although they *see* the lightning strikes at different times, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time.

    Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

    I agree with you, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time . I agree. The "same time" you just mentioned is not relative at all, it is absolute.
    Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .
    No. Simultaneity is a relative concept.

    Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
    I agree with you, all of A B C can calculate that the strikes happened at the same time. calculated result in valid . This "Same Time" you just mention is not relative.
    if you want to say Simultaneity a relative concept, that is all right, as long as you think "Same Time" is not. That is already what I want.

    "Same time" does not have an absolute meaning.
    Sorry. Newtonian time has been long disproven.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Apr 28 11:16:00 2023
    On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 20:13:08 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:33:19 PM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:19:51 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:12:31 PM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    All three embankment observers, A, B, and C, know perfectly well how to compensate for the finite speed of light in their observations. Although they *see* the lightning strikes at different times, they all
    calculate that the strikes happened at the same time.

    Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

    I agree with you, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time . I agree. The "same time" you just mentioned is not relative at all, it is absolute.
    Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .
    No. Simultaneity is a relative concept.

    Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
    I agree with you, all of A B C can calculate that the strikes happened at the same time. calculated result in valid . This "Same Time" you just mention is not relative.
    if you want to say Simultaneity a relative concept, that is all right, as long as you think "Same Time" is not. That is already what I want.
    "Same time" does not have an absolute meaning.
    Sorry. Newtonian time has been long disproven.

    But - sorry - in the meantime in the real world,
    forbidden by your bunch of idiots "improper"
    GPS and TAI keep measuring improper t'=t
    in improper sedconds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Fri Apr 28 13:06:27 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:33:19 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:19:51 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:12:31 PM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    All three embankment observers, A, B, and C, know perfectly well how to compensate for the finite speed of light in their observations. Although they *see* the lightning strikes at different times, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time.

    Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

    I agree with you, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time . I agree. The "same time" you just mentioned is not relative at all, it is absolute.
    Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .
    No. Simultaneity is a relative concept.

    Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
    I agree with you, all of A B C can calculate that the strikes happened at the same time. calculated result in valid . This "Same Time" you just mention is not relative.
    if you want to say Simultaneity a relative concept, that is all right, as long as you think "Same Time" is not. That is already what I want.

    Jack
    I don't think the audience for a book criticizing relativity is relativists. It functions as an ideology: "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" Peter Hayes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 28 22:10:33 2023
    Le 28/04/2023 à 19:33, Jack Liu a écrit :

    Jack

    I found this in your book.

    What does it mean?

    <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?_5CJAa4qjAloBDuFOEVK0NIA2m0@jntp/Data.Media:1>

    <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=_5CJAa4qjAloBDuFOEVK0NIA2m0@jntp>

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Fri Apr 28 17:38:17 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:10:35 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 28/04/2023 à 19:33, Jack Liu a écrit :

    Jack

    I found this in your book.

    What does it mean?

    <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?_5CJAa4qjAloBDuFOEVK0NIA2m0@jntp/Data.Media:1>

    <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=_5CJAa4qjAloBDuFOEVK0NIA2m0@jntp>

    R.H.


    Dear R. H.

    Thank you for reading my book.

    That is Lorentz Factor I derive for inbound motion Lorentz Transformation.

    Einstein consider only outbound moving body and derive a Lorentz factor > 0, which indicate time dilation. That is only half of the whole picture.
    I apply same logic of Einstein to apply to inbound moving body, and derive to above new Lorentz factor which is <1, which indicate time contraction.

    I try to demonstrate that, once SP continue to develop another half, it will contradict to itself.

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Fri Apr 28 21:29:35 2023
    On 4/28/2023 12:15 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:42:18 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
    both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
    Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
    contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

    Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
    Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
    is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
    embankment at the rear.

    Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
    the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
    reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
    actually happen.

    What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the rear.

    What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the front.

    No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
    finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
    simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

    To Volney

    You are right A, B, C has different about the timing of lightning, about the simultaneity of two event. However Einstein just believes in absolute time by claiming two lightning strike the two end of train SAME TIME at his premise.

    No, Einstein stated Observer M at the midpoint on the embankment SEES
    the flashes at the same time. That simply means the light from the two
    flashes enters his eyes at the same time. Because of this M concludes
    the flashes are simultaneous.

    It is so ridiculous to think Relativity revolution has overthrow the absolute time while Einstein himself trust absolute time.

    No, Einstein never uses absolute time. It's called the Theory of
    RELATIVITY, in part because time is relative, not absolute.

    If you believe the 1905 paper or any of Einstein's gedankens use
    absolute time, you simply don't understand them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Apr 28 19:56:10 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
    both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
    Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
    contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

    Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
    Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
    is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the embankment at the rear.

    Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
    the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they actually happen.

    What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the rear.

    What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the front.

    No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
    finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

    This is because the person closer to the lightning strikes sees it first.

    The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.

    This is why I call it a thoughtless experiment.

    What about another thought experiment?

    What if the lightning strikes strike the train and the tracks at each end respectively?

    Which sources are 'moving'?

    No one will answer this question satisfactorily. Except maybe ChatGPT.

    ######
    Q:There is a long train with a person at the midpoint, and a person on the tracks next to the train. At the time that the person in the middle of the train is opposite the person on the tracks, lightning strikes the ends of the train and the tracks at
    the same time. Now what will the observer on the train see, call him A, and what will the observer on the tracks see, call him B? What is the difference in the velocity of light from each of the four strikes in B's frame of reference, and A's frame of
    reference?

    A:
    According to the principle of relativity, the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference, so the observers on the train and on the tracks will both observe the same events, but they may describe them differently.

    In the reference frame of observer A on the train, they will see the lightning strikes at the ends of the train occur simultaneously since the speed of light is constant for all observers. The light from the lightning strikes will reach observer A at the
    same time, regardless of whether they are at the front or the back of the train.

    In the reference frame of observer B on the tracks, they will also see the lightning strikes at the ends of the train occur simultaneously since the speed of light is constant for all observers. However, because the train is moving, observer B will see
    the person in the middle of the train moving relative to them, and the distance that the light has to travel to reach the observer from each lightning strike is different. As a result, observer B will measure a difference in the time it takes for the
    light to reach them from each of the four strikes.

    Specifically, in observer B's frame of reference, the light from the lightning strike at the back of the train has to travel a shorter distance to reach them since the train is moving towards them. Conversely, the light from the lightning strike at the
    front of the train has to travel a longer distance since the train is moving away from them. Therefore, observer B will measure a time difference between the arrival of the light from the two strikes, which is proportional to the distance traveled by the
    light and the relative velocity between the train and observer B.

    However, since the speed of light is constant for all observers, both A and B will measure the same value for the speed of light in their respective frames of reference, and there will be no difference in the velocity of light from each of the four
    strikes in either A's or B's frame of reference.

    ######

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Apr 28 20:00:01 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:29:33 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 12:15 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:42:18 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
    both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
    Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
    contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

    Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
    Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B >> is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
    embankment at the rear.

    Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of >> the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
    reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
    actually happen.

    What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees >> the strike on the rear.

    What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the front.

    No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
    finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
    simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

    To Volney

    You are right A, B, C has different about the timing of lightning, about the simultaneity of two event. However Einstein just believes in absolute time by claiming two lightning strike the two end of train SAME TIME at his premise.
    No, Einstein stated Observer M at the midpoint on the embankment SEES
    the flashes at the same time. That simply means the light from the two flashes enters his eyes at the same time. Because of this M concludes
    the flashes are simultaneous.

    It is so ridiculous to think Relativity revolution has overthrow the absolute time while Einstein himself trust absolute time.
    No, Einstein never uses absolute time. It's called the Theory of
    RELATIVITY, in part because time is relative, not absolute.

    If you believe the 1905 paper or any of Einstein's gedankens use
    absolute time, you simply don't understand them.
    Einstein did not use relativity in his relativity paper. That would be circular.
    He used Newtonian mechanics plus the second postulate to draw some conclusions.

    Time stands still for the surfer and he can never travel faster than the wave.

    But he can hit a surfboard at 2c

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Sat Apr 29 15:52:57 2023
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two
    observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ


    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
    Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity to the world.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 29 02:54:43 2023
    On 4/28/2023 10:56 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
    both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
    Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
    contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

    Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
    Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
    is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
    embankment at the rear.

    Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
    the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
    reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
    actually happen.

    What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the rear.

    What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the front.

    No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
    finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
    simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

    This is because the person closer to the lightning strikes sees it first.

    The point is the three observers all disagree which strike happened
    first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.

    The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.

    I never mentioned anyone on the train!

    This is why I call it a thoughtless experiment.

    It may be "thoughtless" because you never gave any thought to it.

    What about another thought experiment?

    Maybe if you understood this one first.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sat Apr 29 00:50:48 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of
    two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
    Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity to the world.

    The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work,
    "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book,
    Einstein translated the formal presentation of his paper into
    terms more easily grasped by a wide audience.

    To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the
    first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
    I struggled with the question,

    | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
    | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
    | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
    | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
    | different times?
    |
    | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results? Is
    | this possibly a paradox that invalidates the gedanken?

    It took me years before I worked out the answer.

    1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper
    distance between the lightning strikes.
    2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz-
    contracted so that its length is the same as the distance
    between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in
    the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
    3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning
    strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
    length of the train, which of course when measured in the
    frame of the train is its proper length.

    Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can
    miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several
    times before you see everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sat Apr 29 02:12:31 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 2:50:50 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can
    miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several
    times before you see everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif

    After watching Kung Fu Panda, I was inspired to add stop
    motion effects to the #2 views so that the events are easier
    to see.

    If you've looked at this animation before and don't see stop
    motion, try clearing your browser cache.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sat Apr 29 02:47:21 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of
    two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
    Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity to the world.

    Sylvia.

    https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Special-General-Original-Version/dp/1542472377
    Part 1, Chapter 3-5

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sat Apr 29 02:56:05 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 2:50:50 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of
    two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up. Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity to the world.
    The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work,
    "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book,
    Einstein translated the formal presentation of his paper into
    terms more easily grasped by a wide audience.

    To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the
    first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
    I struggled with the question,

    | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
    | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
    | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
    | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
    | different times?
    |
    | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results? Is
    | this possibly a paradox that invalidates the gedanken?

    It took me years before I worked out the answer.

    1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper
    distance between the lightning strikes.
    2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz-
    contracted so that its length is the same as the distance
    between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in
    the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
    3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning
    strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
    length of the train, which of course when measured in the
    frame of the train is its proper length.

    Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can
    miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several
    times before you see everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif


    How would you work out a answer? that is PARADOX: any conclusion will be against its premise.

    In the premise he said two lightning hit road with "simultaneity", the conclusion is two lightning hit road without simultaneity". That is biggest Paradox in Relativity, funnier than Twin Paradox.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sat Apr 29 03:03:26 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of
    two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
    Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity to the world.

    Sylvia.

    To Sylvia.

    I don't expect you agree with me for anything. But I agree with you for the following 2 points :

    1. that I am the one making stuff up, I am the one to name it Einstein Paradox.
    2. that you said Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity to the world, which means you don't care it is Paradox since Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity.

    That is good enough. Seems we have finally some agreement.

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 29 12:01:31 2023
    Le 29/04/2023 à 02:38, Jack Liu a écrit :

    Dear R. H.

    Thank you for reading my book.

    That is Lorentz Factor I derive for inbound motion Lorentz Transformation.

    Einstein consider only outbound moving body and derive a Lorentz factor > 0, which indicate time dilation. That is only half of the whole picture.
    I apply same logic of Einstein to apply to inbound moving body, and derive to above new Lorentz factor which is <1, which indicate time contraction.

    I try to demonstrate that, once SP continue to develop another half, it will contradict to itself.


    I don't understand your use of the "+" sign in your equation.

    The "1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)" factor proposed by Henri Poincaré (the greatest mathematician in the history of mankind and the only one who was able to control the entirety of all the science of his time ( physics,
    mathematics, philosophy) which would no longer be possible today as the
    fields have become vast) is correct.

    You must ask:
    Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

    and Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

    These are the two reciprocal equations.

    So we have g=1/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

    or g=sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

    But g=1/sqrt(1+v²/c²) doesn't seem to be of interest.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Sat Apr 29 22:28:59 2023
    On 29-Apr-23 8:03 pm, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of
    two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
    Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special
    relativity to the world.

    Sylvia.

    To Sylvia.

    I don't expect you agree with me for anything. But I agree with you for the following 2 points :

    1. that I am the one making stuff up, I am the one to name it Einstein Paradox.
    2. that you said Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity to the world, which means you don't care it is Paradox since Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity.

    That is good enough. Seems we have finally some agreement.

    Jack


    No, it means that you should not invent straw men.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Apr 29 05:41:08 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:54:41 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 10:56 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
    both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
    Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
    contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

    Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
    Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B >> is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
    embankment at the rear.

    Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of >> the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
    reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
    actually happen.

    What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees >> the strike on the rear.

    What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the front.

    No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
    finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
    simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

    This is because the person closer to the lightning strikes sees it first.
    The point is the three observers all disagree which strike happened
    first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.

    The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.
    I never mentioned anyone on the train!

    You are right of course. So what does this all mean?

    Why does Einstein use this example?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sat Apr 29 05:45:18 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of
    two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up. Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity to the world.
    The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work,
    "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book,
    Einstein translated the formal presentation of his paper into
    terms more easily grasped by a wide audience.

    To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the
    first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
    I struggled with the question,

    | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
    | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
    | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
    | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
    | different times?
    |
    | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results? Is
    | this possibly a paradox that invalidates the gedanken?

    It took me years before I worked out the answer.

    1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper
    distance between the lightning strikes.
    2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz-
    contracted so that its length is the same as the distance
    between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in
    the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
    3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning
    strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
    length of the train, which of course when measured in the
    frame of the train is its proper length.

    Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can
    miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several
    times before you see everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif

    There is no mention of length contraction in the book.

    The experiment no longer bothers me because it is an exact description of what would happen if there is an Aether in the frame of the tracks.

    At least agree on this.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Apr 29 06:20:25 2023
    On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 08:54:41 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 10:56 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
    both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
    Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
    contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

    Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
    Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B >> is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
    embankment at the rear.

    Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of >> the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
    reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
    actually happen.

    What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees >> the strike on the rear.

    What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the front.

    No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
    finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
    simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

    This is because the person closer to the lightning strikes sees it first.
    The point is the three observers all disagree which strike happened
    first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.

    Not quite. The point is that a poor idiot has
    fabricated it all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paparios@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 29 07:10:58 2023
    El sábado, 29 de abril de 2023 a las 5:56:07 UTC-4, Jack Liu escribió:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 2:50:50 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective
    of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up. Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity to the world.
    The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work,
    "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book,
    Einstein translated the formal presentation of his paper into
    terms more easily grasped by a wide audience.

    To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the
    first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
    I struggled with the question,

    | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
    | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
    | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
    | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
    | different times?
    |
    | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results? Is
    | this possibly a paradox that invalidates the gedanken?

    It took me years before I worked out the answer.

    1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper
    distance between the lightning strikes.
    2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz-
    contracted so that its length is the same as the distance
    between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in
    the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
    3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning
    strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
    length of the train, which of course when measured in the
    frame of the train is its proper length.

    Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can
    miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several
    times before you see everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
    How would you work out a answer? that is PARADOX: any conclusion will be against its premise.

    In the premise he said two lightning hit road with "simultaneity", the conclusion is two lightning hit road without simultaneity". That is biggest Paradox in Relativity, funnier than Twin Paradox.

    Nonsense. First, there is no paradox in this train and embankment thought experiment.
    Secondly, you do not need to know anything about SR to derive it.

    The explanation is quite simple:

    1) You have a very long train (say 120000 km long), with a static observer M' located at the center of the train (ie at 60000 km from the front A and the back B). The train is moving at a very large speed (say 0.8c, or 240000 Km/sec), from left to right.
    2) In the embankment you have another observer M which also is static at point O (located at 600000 km from A and B.
    3) Just when M' and M are colocated (ie observer M' is passing by observer M) lightning strikes hit the train tracks at points A and B simultaneously at time t=0 (we do not need to measure or verify that, it is an assumption).
    4) Observer M, being at point O in the middle, will receive the light from both lightning strikes at the same time (ie simultaneously). Those signals will arrive at M at t=0.2 seconds.
    5) When the light from strikes arrives to observer M (at t=0.2 seconds) M' is no longer colocated with M. In fact, M' has moved (with the train) 48000 km to the right of M. Therefore M' will encounter the light coming from point B, before that light
    arrives to observer M. Also, M' will receive the light coming from point A after that light arrives to M.
    6) Therefore, while M saw both lights to occur simultaneously, M' saw first the light from B and then the light from A (ie the light were not simultaneous).

    See https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ch09.htm for Einstein's text

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sat Apr 29 07:19:05 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:29:03 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 29-Apr-23 8:03 pm, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of
    two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
    Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special >> relativity to the world.

    Sylvia.

    To Sylvia.

    I don't expect you agree with me for anything. But I agree with you for the following 2 points :

    1. that I am the one making stuff up, I am the one to name it Einstein Paradox.
    2. that you said Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity to the world, which means you don't care it is Paradox since Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity.

    That is good enough. Seems we have finally some agreement.

    Jack

    No, it means that you should not invent straw men.

    Sylvia.

    The Scarecrow was created in 1905. I expounded that the relativity of simultaneity is a paradox, but you said that the relativity of simultaneity is not the basis of the theory of relativity. That's how you defend the your straw man. Ha ha.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sat Apr 29 07:33:56 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:01:40 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 29/04/2023 à 02:38, Jack Liu a écrit :

    Dear R. H.

    Thank you for reading my book.

    That is Lorentz Factor I derive for inbound motion Lorentz Transformation.

    Einstein consider only outbound moving body and derive a Lorentz factor > 0,
    which indicate time dilation. That is only half of the whole picture.
    I apply same logic of Einstein to apply to inbound moving body, and derive to
    above new Lorentz factor which is <1, which indicate time contraction.

    I try to demonstrate that, once SP continue to develop another half, it will
    contradict to itself.

    I don't understand your use of the "+" sign in your equation.

    The "1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)" factor proposed by Henri Poincaré (the greatest mathematician in the history of mankind and the only one who was able to control the entirety of all the science of his time ( physics,
    mathematics, philosophy) which would no longer be possible today as the fields have become vast) is correct.

    You must ask:
    Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

    and Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

    These are the two reciprocal equations.

    So we have g=1/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

    or g=sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

    But g=1/sqrt(1+v²/c²) doesn't seem to be of interest.

    R.H.


    *****************************************************************************************

    Dear R.H.

    1/sqrt(1-v²/c²) is the factor for two Coordinate Systems departing from each other, which Einstein and Poincaré had considered.
    1/sqrt(1+v²/c²) is the factor for two Coordinate Systems approaching each other, which Einstein and Poincaré had not considered.

    1/sqrt(1+v²/c²) can be derived mathematically like1/sqrt(1-v²/c²). My book derives them using two different methods, although my derivations are limited to the high school math level.

    See Chapter Seven for the derivation process. https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    Jack ****************************************************************************************

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Sat Apr 29 07:34:33 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:19:06 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:29:03 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 29-Apr-23 8:03 pm, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective
    of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
    Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special >> relativity to the world.

    Sylvia.

    To Sylvia.

    I don't expect you agree with me for anything. But I agree with you for the following 2 points :

    1. that I am the one making stuff up, I am the one to name it Einstein Paradox.
    2. that you said Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity to the world, which means you don't care it is Paradox since Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity.

    That is good enough. Seems we have finally some agreement.

    Jack

    No, it means that you should not invent straw men.

    Sylvia.
    The Scarecrow was created in 1905. I expounded that the relativity of simultaneity is a paradox, but you said that the relativity of simultaneity is not the basis of the theory of relativity. That's how you defend the your straw man. Ha ha.
    The relativity of simultaneity is a self-contradictory idea, so it is not a paradox. A paradox is something that is apparently contradictory but not really contradictory.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 29 07:43:49 2023
    T24gU2F0dXJkYXksIEFwcmlsIDI5LCAyMDIzIGF0IDc6NDE6MTDigK9BTSBVVEMtNSwgZ2VoYW4u YW0uLi5AZ21haWwuY29tIHdyb3RlOg0KIA0KPiBXaHkgZG9lcyBFaW5zdGVpbiB1c2UgdGhpcyBl eGFtcGxlPw0KDQoNCuKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKA lOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKA lOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKA lOKAlOKAlOKAlA0KDQpUbyBHZWhhbiANCg0KRWluc3RlaW4gYXJndWVkIHRoYXQganVkZ21lbnRz IGFib3V0IHRpbWUgYXJlIGFjdHVhbGx5IGp1ZGdtZW50cyBhYm91dCBzaW11bHRhbmVpdHksIHNv IGhlIHRyaWVkIHRvIHByb3ZlIHRoYXQgc2ltdWx0YW5laXR5IGlzIHJlbGF0aXZlLg0KQnV0IFdo YXQgaGUgbWFkZSB3YXMgYSBiaWcgam9rZS4gDQpJbiB0aGUgcHJvb2YgcHJvY2Vzcywgb25lIG9m IGhpcyBwcmVtaXNlcyBpcyBzaW11bHRhbmVpdHkuIEhlIHRyaWVkIHRvIHVzZSB0aGUgYWJzb2x1 dGVuZXNzIG9mIHNpbXVsdGFuZWl0eSB0byBwcm92ZSB0aGUgcmVsYXRpdml0eSBvZiBzaW11bHRh bmVpdHkuIFRoaXMgaXMgdGhlIGdyZWF0ZXN0IHBhcmFkb3ggb2YgY29udGVtcG9yYXJ5IHBoeXNp Y3MuIFRoaXMgcGFyYWRveCBpcyBleHBvc2VkIGFuZCBjcml0aXF1ZWQgaW4gZGV0YWlsIGluIENo YXB0ZXIgOSBvZiBteSBib29rLg0KDQpodHRwczovL2RyaXZlLmdvb2dsZS5jb20vZmlsZS9kLzFW ZmhPTDYzanZCMkRtbjRKQ1JtT3g2UzhEaDluUmJkQy92aWV3DQoNCkphY2sNCuKAlOKAlOKAlOKA lOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKA lOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKA lOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlOKAlA==

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 29 07:49:21 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:34:34 AM UTC-5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    The relativity of simultaneity is a self-contradictory idea, so it is not a paradox. A paradox is something that is apparently contradictory but not really contradictory.


    To Dear Laurence Clark Crossen

    If you admit relativity of simultaneity is a self-contradictory idea, I am happy enough.
    But paradox is eye-catching.

    Also, paradox could mean self-contradictory . see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox


    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 29 11:11:08 2023
    On 4/28/2023 11:00 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:29:33 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 12:15 PM, Jack Liu wrote:

    It is so ridiculous to think Relativity revolution has overthrow the absolute time while Einstein himself trust absolute time.

    No, Einstein never uses absolute time. It's called the Theory of
    RELATIVITY, in part because time is relative, not absolute.

    If you believe the 1905 paper or any of Einstein's gedankens use
    absolute time, you simply don't understand them.

    Einstein did not use relativity in his relativity paper. That would be circular.
    He used Newtonian mechanics plus the second postulate to draw some conclusions.

    That's right. From his postulates and simple relationships, he DERIVED relativity and time dilation/length contraction.

    Time stands still for the surfer and he can never travel faster than the wave.

    Surfer? A physical object moving at c? Einstein stated that would not be possible because of infinities.

    But he can hit a surfboard at 2c

    There are no surfboards moving at 2c.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Apr 29 08:35:27 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:28:43 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:


    Why does Einstein use this example?
    Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.

    This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
    reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
    this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.

    Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
    the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
    let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what happened there 66 million years ago.

    Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
    evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
    image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
    is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
    planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved.
    Yet there still is this puzzle.

    It doesn't matter whether the distant planets are in relative motion or not. The key is the distance between the two. Minkowski geometry has shown that the essence of the space-time relationship in the theory of relativity only involves the speed of
    light and displacement. Speed is of no immediate importance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 29 11:28:43 2023
    On 4/29/2023 8:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:54:41 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 10:56 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
    both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
    Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
    contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

    Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
    Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B >>>> is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
    embankment at the rear.

    Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of >>>> the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each >>>> reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
    actually happen.

    What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees >>>> the strike on the rear.

    What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees >>>> the strike on the front.

    No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
    finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
    simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

    This is because the person closer to the lightning strikes sees it first. >> The point is the three observers all disagree which strike happened
    first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.

    The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.
    I never mentioned anyone on the train!

    You are right of course. So what does this all mean?

    Why does Einstein use this example?

    Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.

    This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
    reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
    this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.

    Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
    the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
    let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what
    happened there 66 million years ago.

    Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
    evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
    image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years
    ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
    is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
    planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved.
    Yet there still is this puzzle.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 29 15:37:00 2023
    Le 29/04/2023 à 16:33, Jack Liu a écrit :

    Dear R.H.

    1/sqrt(1-v²/c²) is the factor for two Coordinate Systems departing from each
    other, which Einstein and Poincaré had considered.


    1/sqrt(1+v²/c²) is the factor for two Coordinate Systems approaching each other, which Einstein and Poincaré had not considered.

    No, no.

    The direction of the speed does not intervene in the bathmotropy.

    In any case, we always have g=1/sqrt(1-v²/c²).

    But this direction intervenes effectively in the anisotropy,
    and you have to write:
    Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

    Let Vapp=Vo/(1-Vo/c) if the object is approaching, and Vapp=Vo/(1+Vo/c) if
    the object moves away directly in the line of sight.

    1/sqrt(1+v²/c²) can be derived mathematically like1/sqrt(1-v²/c²). My book
    derives them using two different methods, although my derivations are limited to
    the high school math level.

    See Chapter Seven for the derivation process. https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    Jack

    ****************************************************************************************

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sat Apr 29 09:01:21 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:37:02 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 29/04/2023 à 16:33, Jack Liu a écrit :

    Dear R.H.

    1/sqrt(1-v²/c²) is the factor for two Coordinate Systems departing from each
    other, which Einstein and Poincaré had considered.


    1/sqrt(1+v²/c²) is the factor for two Coordinate Systems approaching each
    other, which Einstein and Poincaré had not considered.
    No, no.

    The direction of the speed does not intervene in the bathmotropy.

    In any case, we always have g=1/sqrt(1-v²/c²).

    But this direction intervenes effectively in the anisotropy,
    and you have to write:
    Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

    Let Vapp=Vo/(1-Vo/c) if the object is approaching, and Vapp=Vo/(1+Vo/c) if the object moves away directly in the line of sight.



    Dear R.H.

    What I want to explain is that the speed itself is not important; the displacement is important, which affects the time of information transmission. The direction of velocity affects displacement differently: Velocity in the positive direction increases
    displacement, while velocity in the opposite direction decreases displacement.

    For the detailed derivation process, it is not convenient to demonstrate here, please refer to my book for two different method with same conclusion 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²) for two approaching frames .

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Sat Apr 29 17:38:50 2023
    Jack Liu wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:28:43 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:


    Why does Einstein use this example?
    Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.

    This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
    reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
    this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't
    require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.

    Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
    the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
    let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what
    happened there 66 million years ago.

    Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
    evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
    image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years
    ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither
    intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
    is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
    planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved.
    Yet there still is this puzzle.

    It doesn't matter whether the distant planets are in relative motion or not. The key is the distance between the two. Minkowski geometry has shown that the essence of the space-time relationship in the theory of relativity only involves the speed of
    light and displacement. Speed is of no immediate importance.

    This is plain wrong. In Minkowski's geometry relative speed
    (or "rapidity" if you pick the hyperbolic rotations point
    of view) is the main (the only one actually...) parameter defining
    coordinates transformations equations.

    And, in mathematics, transformation equations (and
    the invariant associated to them) IS defining the geometry.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Python on Sat Apr 29 09:12:46 2023
    On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 17:38:52 UTC+2, Python wrote:
    Jack Liu wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:28:43 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:


    Why does Einstein use this example?
    Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.

    This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
    reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
    this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't >> require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.

    Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
    the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
    let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what
    happened there 66 million years ago.

    Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
    evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
    image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years >> ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither >> intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
    is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
    planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved. >> Yet there still is this puzzle.

    It doesn't matter whether the distant planets are in relative motion or not. The key is the distance between the two. Minkowski geometry has shown that the essence of the space-time relationship in the theory of relativity only involves the speed of
    light and displacement. Speed is of no immediate importance.
    This is plain wrong. In Minkowski's geometry relative speed
    (or "rapidity" if you pick the hyperbolic rotations point
    of view) is the main (the only one actually...) parameter defining coordinates transformations equations.

    And, in mathematics, transformation equations (and


    and speaking of mathematics - it's always good to remind
    that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest,
    very important part false, as it didn't want to fit your
    madness.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Apr 29 09:59:27 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:12:47 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 17:38:52 UTC+2, Python wrote:
    Jack Liu wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:28:43 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:


    Why does Einstein use this example?
    Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.

    This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
    reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created >> this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't
    require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.

    Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image >> the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet, >> let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what
    happened there 66 million years ago.

    Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
    evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They >> image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years
    ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither >> intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who >> is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
    planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved.
    Yet there still is this puzzle.

    It doesn't matter whether the distant planets are in relative motion or not. The key is the distance between the two. Minkowski geometry has shown that the essence of the space-time relationship in the theory of relativity only involves the speed
    of light and displacement. Speed is of no immediate importance.
    This is plain wrong. In Minkowski's geometry relative speed
    (or "rapidity" if you pick the hyperbolic rotations point
    of view) is the main (the only one actually...) parameter defining coordinates transformations equations.

    And, in mathematics, transformation equations (and
    and speaking of mathematics - it's always good to remind
    that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest,
    very important part false, as it didn't want to fit your
    madness.

    Where light arrives together in space time there is a simultaneity appearance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 29 16:51:58 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:45:20 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective
    of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up. Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special relativity to the world.
    The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work,
    "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book,
    Einstein translated the formal presentation of his paper into
    terms more easily grasped by a wide audience.

    To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the
    first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
    I struggled with the question,

    | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
    | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
    | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
    | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
    | different times?
    |
    | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results? Is
    | this possibly a paradox that invalidates the gedanken?

    It took me years before I worked out the answer.

    1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper
    distance between the lightning strikes.
    2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz-
    contracted so that its length is the same as the distance
    between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in
    the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
    3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning
    strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
    length of the train, which of course when measured in the
    frame of the train is its proper length.

    Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can
    miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several
    times before you see everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
    There is no mention of length contraction in the book.

    The experiment no longer bothers me because it is an exact description of what would happen if there is an Aether in the frame of the tracks.

    At least agree on this.

    Absolutely not. Aether theories of the sort that you envision
    predict that the train observer would predict variation in the
    one-way speed of light coming at him from different directions.

    Note that measurement of *variation* in the one-way speed of
    light in different directions does not require being able to
    measure the actual *value* of the one-way speed of light.

    No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
    will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
    to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,
    (1) given that he is in the *middle* of the train and that (2)
    light moves at the same speed whether coming from the
    front of the train or the back, and (3) light arrives at his spot
    at different times, is that (4) the lightning strikes did not
    occur at the same time.

    Which, of course, contradicts the conclusion of the observer
    on the embankment.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sat Apr 29 22:48:57 2023
    On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 01:52:00 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
    will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
    to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,

    A gedanken observer has only one posibility, indeed -
    to obey, agree and confirm any delusion his creator
    invented.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Apr 29 23:41:36 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:11:28 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 11:00 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:29:33 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 12:15 PM, Jack Liu wrote:

    It is so ridiculous to think Relativity revolution has overthrow the absolute time while Einstein himself trust absolute time.

    No, Einstein never uses absolute time. It's called the Theory of
    RELATIVITY, in part because time is relative, not absolute.

    If you believe the 1905 paper or any of Einstein's gedankens use
    absolute time, you simply don't understand them.

    Einstein did not use relativity in his relativity paper. That would be circular.
    He used Newtonian mechanics plus the second postulate to draw some conclusions.
    That's right. From his postulates and simple relationships, he DERIVED relativity and time dilation/length contraction.

    We agree!

    Time stands still for the surfer and he can never travel faster than the wave.
    Surfer? A physical object moving at c? Einstein stated that would not be possible because of infinities.

    But he can hit a surfboard at 2c
    There are no surfboards moving at 2c.

    Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are chasing
    a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave equation does
    not apply. So you make up a theory. Nothing travels faster than a wave.
    Because the equation says so.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Apr 29 23:45:33 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:28:43 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/29/2023 8:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:54:41 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 10:56 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote: >>>>>> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for >>>>> both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
    Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
    contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

    Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped). >>>> Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
    is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the >>>> embankment at the rear.

    Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of >>>> the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each >>>> reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they >>>> actually happen.

    What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees >>>> the strike on the rear.

    What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees >>>> the strike on the front.

    No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a >>>> finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
    simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

    This is because the person closer to the lightning strikes sees it first.
    The point is the three observers all disagree which strike happened
    first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.

    The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.
    I never mentioned anyone on the train!

    You are right of course. So what does this all mean?

    Why does Einstein use this example?
    Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.

    This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
    reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
    this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.

    Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
    the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
    let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what happened there 66 million years ago.

    Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
    evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
    image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
    is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
    planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved.
    Yet there still is this puzzle.

    There is no problem with this scenario. If you can't see it, you do not know. If sun blinked out you would not know for 8 minutes. Is it now or then?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sun Apr 30 15:17:29 2023
    On 4/30/23 1:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are
    chasing a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave
    equation does not apply.

    That just means you did not "create" a wave equation that remains valid
    in your scenario.

    Note the equation given in virtually all textbooks for water waves is
    valid ONLY in the rest frame of the water. So it's no surprise it
    doesn't work in your scenario.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sun Apr 30 16:30:32 2023
    On 4/30/2023 2:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:11:28 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 11:00 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    Time stands still for the surfer and he can never travel faster than the wave.
    Surfer? A physical object moving at c? Einstein stated that would not be
    possible because of infinities.

    But he can hit a surfboard at 2c
    There are no surfboards moving at 2c.

    Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are chasing
    a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave equation does not apply. So you make up a theory. Nothing travels faster than a wave. Because the equation says so.

    And how is this (a speed in a medium) relevant to the speed of light?
    BTW reductio ad absurdum proofs are considered valid. Your example looks
    like one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sun Apr 30 16:36:30 2023
    On 4/30/2023 2:45 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:28:43 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/29/2023 8:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:54:41 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 10:56 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote: >>>>>>>> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for >>>>>>> both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
    Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
    contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

    Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped). >>>>>> Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B >>>>>> is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the >>>>>> embankment at the rear.

    Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of >>>>>> the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each >>>>>> reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they >>>>>> actually happen.

    What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees >>>>>> the strike on the rear.

    What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees >>>>>> the strike on the front.

    No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a >>>>>> finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the >>>>>> simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

    This is because the person closer to the lightning strikes sees it first. >>>> The point is the three observers all disagree which strike happened
    first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.

    The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.
    I never mentioned anyone on the train!

    You are right of course. So what does this all mean?

    Why does Einstein use this example?
    Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.

    This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
    reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
    this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't
    require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.

    Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
    the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
    let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what
    happened there 66 million years ago.

    Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
    evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
    image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years
    ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither
    intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
    is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
    planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved.
    Yet there still is this puzzle.

    There is no problem with this scenario. If you can't see it, you do not know. If sun blinked out you would not know for 8 minutes. Is it now or then?

    That's the relativity of simultaneity. From observations, I can say
    their dinosaurs just got wiped out just now, while our dinosaurs got
    wiped out 66 million years ago. Meanwhile, they can say our dinosaurs
    got wiped out just now (they witnessed it!) while their dinosaurs got
    wiped out 66 million years ago. Relativity of simultaneity, strictly
    from distance and a constant speed of light.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Apr 30 22:01:50 2023
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:17:41 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/30/23 1:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are chasing a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave equation does not apply.
    That just means you did not "create" a wave equation that remains valid
    in your scenario.

    Note the equation given in virtually all textbooks for water waves is
    valid ONLY in the rest frame of the water. So it's no surprise it
    doesn't work in your scenario.

    Tom Roberts

    The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of Aether!

    No wonder it does not work in the rest frame of nothing. Einstein's harmonization process with the knowledge base that was 100 years behind us now.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sun Apr 30 22:15:01 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:01:51 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:17:41 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/30/23 1:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are chasing a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave equation does not apply.
    That just means you did not "create" a wave equation that remains valid
    in your scenario.

    Note the equation given in virtually all textbooks for water waves is valid ONLY in the rest frame of the water. So it's no surprise it
    doesn't work in your scenario.

    Tom Roberts
    The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of Aether!

    false, imbecile

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Apr 30 22:10:55 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:52:00 AM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:45:20 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective
    of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up. Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special
    relativity to the world.
    The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work, "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book, Einstein translated the formal presentation of his paper into
    terms more easily grasped by a wide audience.

    To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the
    first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
    I struggled with the question,

    | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
    | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
    | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
    | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
    | different times?
    |
    | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results? Is
    | this possibly a paradox that invalidates the gedanken?

    It took me years before I worked out the answer.

    1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper
    distance between the lightning strikes.
    2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz- contracted so that its length is the same as the distance
    between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in
    the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
    3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning
    strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
    length of the train, which of course when measured in the
    frame of the train is its proper length.

    Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can
    miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several
    times before you see everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
    There is no mention of length contraction in the book.

    The experiment no longer bothers me because it is an exact description of what would happen if there is an Aether in the frame of the tracks.

    At least agree on this.


    Absolutely not. Aether theories of the sort that you envision
    predict that the train observer would predict variation in the
    one-way speed of light coming at him from different directions.

    predict that the train observer would predict variation

    Is this this science? A predicts what B would predict? I think not. Sciene is measurements.

    Note that measurement of *variation* in the one-way speed of
    light in different directions does not require being able to
    measure the actual *value* of the one-way speed of light.


    I do not understand this statement. Or how it could be true.

    No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
    will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
    to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,
    (1) given that he is in the *middle* of the train and that (2)
    light moves at the same speed whether coming from the
    front of the train or the back, and (3) light arrives at his spot
    at different times, is that (4) the lightning strikes did not
    occur at the same time.

    Which, of course, contradicts the conclusion of the observer
    on the embankment.Leave the embankment out. That is Newtonian.

    Let us take this one by one:

    The observer is in the middle of the train and he knows it.

    Light moves at the same speed in empty space and he knows it.

    The speed of light is independent of the source. He know that.

    Light moving from the front of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him.

    Light from the back of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him

    The rule is: if a light source is moving towards observer with speed v

    and it does not matter if v = 0 or v= 1 or v =-1 0r 30,0000

    Then it can be replaced with a light source moving at v=0 to the observer.

    From which we get: all light sources have zero velocity with respect to the observer.

    This is the second postulate.

    How can light from light sources from the front and back of the train, moving with v=0 relative to the observer arrive at different times?


    I would be happy for anyone to point out my error in logic so I can just leave.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Apr 30 22:29:46 2023
    On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 22:36:27 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 4/30/2023 2:45 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:28:43 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/29/2023 8:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:54:41 AM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 10:56 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote: >>>>>>>> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for >>>>>>> both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
    Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
    contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

    Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped). >>>>>> Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
    is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the >>>>>> embankment at the rear.

    Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
    the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
    reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they >>>>>> actually happen.

    What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the rear.

    What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
    the strike on the front.

    No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a >>>>>> finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the >>>>>> simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

    This is because the person closer to the lightning strikes sees it first.
    The point is the three observers all disagree which strike happened >>>> first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.

    The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.
    I never mentioned anyone on the train!

    You are right of course. So what does this all mean?

    Why does Einstein use this example?
    Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.

    This gedanken is my own. I use the stationary train because those
    reading this will be familiar with Einstein's moving train. I created
    this because it's an example of relativity of simultaneity which doesn't >> require or involve ANY SR/GR, only a finite speed of light.

    Another example, let's say we invent a super telescope which can image
    the surface of a planet 66 million LY away. As we watch such a planet,
    let's say we see dinosaurs and an asteroid destroy them. We see what
    happened there 66 million years ago.

    Now that same planet, 66 million years after that asteroid impact,
    evolves an intelligent race who also invents the super telescope. They
    image earth. What do they see? They see earth as it was 66 million years >> ago, and they see our dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid. Neither >> intelligent race is or can be aware of the other intelligent race. Who
    is correct? We see their dinosaurs or they see our dinosaurs? The
    planets are not moving relative to each other, and no SR or GR involved. >> Yet there still is this puzzle.

    There is no problem with this scenario. If you can't see it, you do not know.
    If sun blinked out you would not know for 8 minutes. Is it now or then?
    That's the relativity of simultaneity. From observations, I can say
    their dinosaurs just got wiped out just now, while our dinosaurs got
    wiped out 66 million years ago. Meanwhile, they can say our dinosaurs
    got wiped out just now (they witnessed it!) while their dinosaurs got
    wiped out 66 million years ago. Relativity of simultaneity, strictly
    from distance and a constant speed of light.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Mon May 1 09:13:02 2023
    On 5/1/2023 1:01 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:17:41 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/30/23 1:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are
    chasing a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave
    equation does not apply.
    That just means you did not "create" a wave equation that remains valid
    in your scenario.

    Note the equation given in virtually all textbooks for water waves is
    valid ONLY in the rest frame of the water. So it's no surprise it
    doesn't work in your scenario.

    Tom Roberts

    The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of Aether!

    Nope. Maxwell's equations don't even reference the aether, despite
    Maxwell believing in the aether. The equations come up with a speed of
    light which doesn't have ANY reference to anything or any frame.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Mon May 1 06:43:16 2023
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:10:57 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:52:00 AM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:45:20 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the
    perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up. Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special
    relativity to the world.
    The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work, "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book, Einstein translated the formal presentation of his paper into
    terms more easily grasped by a wide audience.

    To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the
    first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
    I struggled with the question,

    | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
    | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
    | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
    | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
    | different times?
    |
    | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results? Is
    | this possibly a paradox that invalidates the gedanken?

    It took me years before I worked out the answer.

    1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper
    distance between the lightning strikes.
    2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz- contracted so that its length is the same as the distance
    between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in
    the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
    3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
    length of the train, which of course when measured in the
    frame of the train is its proper length.

    Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can
    miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several times before you see everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
    There is no mention of length contraction in the book.

    The experiment no longer bothers me because it is an exact description of what would happen if there is an Aether in the frame of the tracks.

    At least agree on this.


    Absolutely not. Aether theories of the sort that you envision
    predict that the train observer would predict variation in the
    one-way speed of light coming at him from different directions.

    predict that the train observer would predict variation
    Is this this science? A predicts what B would predict? I think not. Sciene is measurements.

    Note that measurement of *variation* in the one-way speed of
    light in different directions does not require being able to
    measure the actual *value* of the one-way speed of light.

    I do not understand this statement. Or how it could be true.
    No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
    will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
    to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,
    (1) given that he is in the *middle* of the train and that (2)
    light moves at the same speed whether coming from the
    front of the train or the back, and (3) light arrives at his spot
    at different times, is that (4) the lightning strikes did not
    occur at the same time.

    Which, of course, contradicts the conclusion of the observer
    on the embankment.Leave the embankment out. That is Newtonian.

    Let us take this one by one:

    The observer is in the middle of the train and he knows it.

    Light moves at the same speed in empty space and he knows it.

    The speed of light is independent of the source. He know that.

    Light moving from the front of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him.

    Ideally, events HAVE NO DURATION, and hence NO SPEED
    An event is a single point in spacetime having coordinates x,y,z,t.

    The tokens often used to represent events in popular writings, like firecrackers, sparks and the like, are not true events because they
    have finite extent and finite duration, and yes, can have a speed.

    *** Not understanding this point is a MAJOR source of confusion. ***

    Light from the back of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him

    Wrong, for the same reason.
    TRUE EVENTS HAVE NO DURATION and hence NO SPEED

    An event is just a single point in spacetime.

    The rule is: if a light source is moving towards observer with speed v

    and it does not matter if v = 0 or v= 1 or v =-1 0r 30,0000

    Then it can be replaced with a light source moving at v=0 to the observer.

    From which we get: all light sources have zero velocity with respect to the observer.

    This is the second postulate.

    How can light from light sources from the front and back of the train, moving with v=0 relative to the observer arrive at different times?


    I would be happy for anyone to point out my error in logic so I can just leave.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Mon May 1 07:03:20 2023
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:43:18 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:10:57 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    Light moving from the front of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him.
    Ideally, events HAVE NO DURATION, and hence NO SPEED
    An event is a single point in spacetime having coordinates x,y,z,t.

    The tokens often used to represent events in popular writings, like firecrackers, sparks and the like, are not true events because they
    have finite extent and finite duration, and yes, can have a speed.

    *** Not understanding this point is a MAJOR source of confusion. ***
    Light from the back of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him
    Wrong, for the same reason.
    TRUE EVENTS HAVE NO DURATION and hence NO SPEED

    An event is just a single point in spacetime.

    I restored a couple of sentences from the Wiki article Spacetime that
    had been deleted sometime between 2017 and now.

    | Unlike the analogies used in popular writings to explain events, such
    | as firecrackers or sparks, mathematical events have zero duration and
    | represent a single point in spacetime. Although it is possible to be in
    | motion relative to the popping of a firecracker or a spark, it is not
    | possible for an observer to be in motion relative to an event.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon May 1 08:42:28 2023
    On Monday, 1 May 2023 at 15:13:00 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 5/1/2023 1:01 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:17:41 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/30/23 1:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are
    chasing a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave
    equation does not apply.
    That just means you did not "create" a wave equation that remains valid >> in your scenario.

    Note the equation given in virtually all textbooks for water waves is
    valid ONLY in the rest frame of the water. So it's no surprise it
    doesn't work in your scenario.

    Tom Roberts

    The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of Aether!
    Nope. Maxwell's equations don't even reference the aether, despite

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Mon May 1 10:38:50 2023
    On April 29, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    Aether theories of the sort that you envision
    predict that the train observer would predict variation in the
    one-way speed of light coming at him from different directions.
    No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
    will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
    to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,
    (1) given that he is in the *middle* of the train and that (2)
    light moves at the same speed whether coming from the
    front of the train or the back, and (3) light arrives at his spot
    at different times, is that (4) the lightning strikes did not
    occur at the same time.

    Not so, there's another valid inference.

    He might postulate an ether which fills the universe, which transmits
    light at constant speed c, relative to itself. And further, that the train carries an equivalent ether inside itself. (just as it carries its own atmosphere, which transmits sound) Hence measurements of light
    speed within the train also indicate c.

    Then, from your conditions 1.. 3, he can conclude, validly, that the light
    from the lighting strikes reach him at different times because the train
    moves relative to the universal ether. And the lightning strikes were simultaneous, where time is defined absolutely in the frame of the ether.

    Which, of course, contradicts the conclusion of the observer
    on the embankment.

    No contradiction, in the case of this alternative deduction.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Mon May 1 11:00:46 2023
    On April 29, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work,
    "Relativity: The Special and General Theory".
    To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the
    first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
    I struggled with the question
    | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
    | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
    | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
    | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
    | different times?

    Yes, that's given in the thought experiment.
    The unprimed observer is moving toward the eastern strike.

    | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results?

    ?
    Nothing is reversed.

    1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper
    distance between the lightning strikes.
    2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz-
    contracted so that its length is the same as the distance
    between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in
    the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
    3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning
    strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
    length of the train, which of course when measured in the
    frame of the train is its proper length.

    You're confused. No reference to length contraction is required.
    It's explained by relative simultaneity.

    The length of the train is actually a misdirection. We need merely
    specify that the train passenger is at the midpoint between the
    strikes, which is well defined in the frame of the earth.

    PS This gedanken is a direct analog of the limo in the garage
    paradox; the train is the car, the strikes are the doors. In that one,
    we do need to invoke relative lengths, to explain the paradox.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to RichD on Mon May 1 11:07:29 2023
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:00:48 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
    On April 29, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work,
    "Relativity: The Special and General Theory".
    To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the
    first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
    I struggled with the question
    | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
    | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
    | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
    | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
    | different times?
    Yes, that's given in the thought experiment.
    The unprimed observer is moving toward the eastern strike.
    | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results?
    ?
    Nothing is reversed.
    1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper
    distance between the lightning strikes.
    2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz-
    contracted so that its length is the same as the distance
    between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in
    the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
    3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning
    strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
    length of the train, which of course when measured in the
    frame of the train is its proper length.
    You're confused. No reference to length contraction is required.
    It's explained by relative simultaneity.

    The length of the train is actually a misdirection. We need merely
    specify that the train passenger is at the midpoint between the
    strikes, which is well defined in the frame of the earth.

    PS This gedanken is a direct analog of the limo in the garage
    paradox; the train is the car, the strikes are the doors. In that one,
    we do need to invoke relative lengths, to explain the paradox.

    You obviously don't "get it". These are subtle points that are
    glossed over in the usual presentation of the gedanken, which
    focus only on first order effects.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Mon May 1 11:21:53 2023
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:07:31 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    You obviously don't "get it". These are subtle points that are
    glossed over in the usual presentation of the gedanken, which
    focus only on first order effects.

    Let's go over things one at a time.

    The measured length of the train, which is moving in the
    track frame, is precisely equal to the measured distance
    between the lightning strikes as measured in the track
    frame.

    What does that tell you about the proper length of the
    train compared with the proper distance between the
    lightning strikes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon May 1 12:35:26 2023
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:13:00 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 5/1/2023 1:01 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:17:41 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/30/23 1:41 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Create a wave equation. For water for example. Then imagine you are
    chasing a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave
    equation does not apply.
    That just means you did not "create" a wave equation that remains valid >> in your scenario.

    Note the equation given in virtually all textbooks for water waves is
    valid ONLY in the rest frame of the water. So it's no surprise it
    doesn't work in your scenario.

    Tom Roberts

    The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of Aether!
    Nope. Maxwell's equations don't even reference the aether, despite
    Maxwell believing in the aether. The equations come up with a speed of
    light which doesn't have ANY reference to anything or any frame.

    Yes and no. Let's start with the "no": the equations were originally considered with the
    then-obvious unstated assumption in mind: the aether medium. It was a big mystery
    that the equations were observer-dependent while Newtonian mechanics was not. (It was a very troubling problem because all mechanical interactions were thought
    to be due to the electromagnetic ones at the microscopic level, so Newton's theory
    "suddenly" allowing for an observer change, without anything in either theory indicating why this should be so, was an annoying puzzle.)

    Regardless, one could in theory use Maxwell's theory in a Galilean-transformed frame, so no contradiction there. It's just puzzling viz. its relation to Newton and
    basically mathematically ugly.

    And yes, the equations can be interpreted to be invariant if one reformulates the relevant kinematics. This is what Einstein did in his 1905 paper whose
    main impetus was (I think) Einstein's observation that the transformations keeping Maxwell's equations invariant (the Lorentz transformation) can be derived from certain simple first principles concerning time and space,
    without referring to the mathematical details of electrodynamics. My
    guess is this was the instant when Einstein realised he had something non-trivial to communicate (and not just a rephrasing of something known
    which was the mistake even the great E. T. Whittaker made, he didn't even
    get Einstein's postulates right - but I digress).

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Mon May 1 13:19:57 2023
    On Monday, 1 May 2023 at 20:21:55 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:07:31 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    You obviously don't "get it". These are subtle points that are
    glossed over in the usual presentation of the gedanken, which
    focus only on first order effects.
    Let's go over things one at a time.

    The measured length of the train, which is moving in the
    track frame, is precisely equal to the measured distance
    between the lightning strikes as measured in the track
    frame.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Mon May 1 15:32:26 2023
    On May 1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    The measured length of the train, which is moving in the
    track frame, is precisely equal to the measured distance
    between the lightning strikes as measured in the track
    frame.
    What does that tell you about the proper length of the
    train compared with the proper distance between the
    lightning strikes.

    Tom Traveler rides the train. As seen by Stationary Sam, he
    arrives at the midpoint between the lightning strikes simultaneously
    with those strikes. They occur 100 m apart, in Sam's frame.

    i) The train is 200 m long, Tom sits 50 m from the rear.
    ii) The train is 200 m long, Tom sits 20 m from the front.
    iii) The train is 50 m long, Tom sits 10 m from the rear.
    iv) The train is 50 m long, Tom sits 20 m from the front.

    All lengths measured in Tom's frame.

    Tell me if ANY of the above parameters have ANY effect
    on the essential question of simultaneity.

    v) Tom rides a unicycle, which has length zero.


    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Mon May 1 21:49:22 2023
    On 5/1/23 12:01 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of
    Aether!

    That's what was originally thought. Then people started doing
    experiments on earth that agreed with the predictions of Maxwell's
    equations. That led to attempts to measure the speed of the earth
    relative to the aether. When all those attempts failed, a whole new
    theory was required. Einstein laid the foundation, thousands of
    experimenters explored various aspects of the problem, joined by many theorists, and today we have GR and the standard model. The wave
    equation for electrodynamics is now known to be just an approximation to
    QED, which is vastly different and more subtle.

    So today we know better, and that the (vacuum) wave equation for E&M
    radiation actually works in any (locally) inertial frame. This is
    directly related to the symmetry known as local Lorentz invariance.

    Note that your approach is hopeless -- just sitting around and thinking
    about physics leads nowhere but to posting nonsense around here. To
    learn about physics you must STUDY, using real textbooks, not random
    websites on the internet and USENET.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon May 1 22:40:02 2023
    On 5/1/23 8:13 AM, Volney wrote:
    Maxwell's equations don't even reference the aether, despite
    Maxwell believing in the aether. The equations come up with a speed of
    light which doesn't have ANY reference to anything or any frame.

    Not true. Maxwell's original equations had a G field, which serves as an absolute reference. Need I point out that the version of Maxwell's
    equations in modern textbooks omit it?

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue May 2 01:53:55 2023
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:43:18 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:10:57 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:52:00 AM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:45:20 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the
    perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative
    to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
    Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special
    relativity to the world.
    The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work, "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book, Einstein translated the formal presentation of his paper into
    terms more easily grasped by a wide audience.

    To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
    I struggled with the question,

    | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
    | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
    | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
    | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
    | different times?
    |
    | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results? Is
    | this possibly a paradox that invalidates the gedanken?

    It took me years before I worked out the answer.

    1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper
    distance between the lightning strikes.
    2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz- contracted so that its length is the same as the distance
    between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in
    the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
    3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
    length of the train, which of course when measured in the
    frame of the train is its proper length.

    Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can
    miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several times before you see everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
    There is no mention of length contraction in the book.

    The experiment no longer bothers me because it is an exact description of what would happen if there is an Aether in the frame of the tracks.

    At least agree on this.


    Absolutely not. Aether theories of the sort that you envision
    predict that the train observer would predict variation in the
    one-way speed of light coming at him from different directions.

    predict that the train observer would predict variation
    Is this this science? A predicts what B would predict? I think not. Sciene is measurements.

    Note that measurement of *variation* in the one-way speed of
    light in different directions does not require being able to
    measure the actual *value* of the one-way speed of light.

    I do not understand this statement. Or how it could be true.
    No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
    will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
    to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,
    (1) given that he is in the *middle* of the train and that (2)
    light moves at the same speed whether coming from the
    front of the train or the back, and (3) light arrives at his spot
    at different times, is that (4) the lightning strikes did not
    occur at the same time.

    Which, of course, contradicts the conclusion of the observer
    on the embankment.Leave the embankment out. That is Newtonian.

    Let us take this one by one:

    The observer is in the middle of the train and he knows it.

    Light moves at the same speed in empty space and he knows it.

    The speed of light is independent of the source. He know that.

    Light moving from the front of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him.
    Ideally, events HAVE NO DURATION, and hence NO SPEED
    An event is a single point in spacetime having coordinates x,y,z,t.

    The tokens often used to represent events in popular writings, like firecrackers, sparks and the like, are not true events because they
    have finite extent and finite duration, and yes, can have a speed.

    *** Not understanding this point is a MAJOR source of confusion. ***
    Light from the back of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him
    Wrong, for the same reason.
    TRUE EVENTS HAVE NO DURATION and hence NO SPEED

    An event is just a single point in spacetime.

    S1==============[_______O1________]==============S2

    S3======================O2=======================S4

    O1, O2 are the observers. S1, S2, S3, S4 are lightning strikes, Simulantaneous in the frame of reference of O2.

    Now, where are these lightning strikes located in the frame of reference of O1?

    Where are these lightning strikes located in the frame of reference of O2?

    If the S1, S2 lightning strikes hit the ends of the train and is visible through the end windows to O1,
    and other two strikes S3 and S4 strikes the tracks directly opposite the place where the ends of
    the train occupy then how will your answer be different?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Tue May 2 02:21:47 2023
    On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 10:53:58 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:43:18 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:10:57 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:52:00 AM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:45:20 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the
    perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative
    to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
    Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special
    relativity to the world.
    The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work, "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book, Einstein translated the formal presentation of his paper into terms more easily grasped by a wide audience.

    To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
    I struggled with the question,

    | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees, | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving? | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
    | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
    | different times?
    |
    | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results? Is
    | this possibly a paradox that invalidates the gedanken?

    It took me years before I worked out the answer.

    1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper distance between the lightning strikes.
    2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz- contracted so that its length is the same as the distance
    between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in
    the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
    3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
    length of the train, which of course when measured in the
    frame of the train is its proper length.

    Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can
    miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several times before you see everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
    There is no mention of length contraction in the book.

    The experiment no longer bothers me because it is an exact description of what would happen if there is an Aether in the frame of the tracks.

    At least agree on this.


    Absolutely not. Aether theories of the sort that you envision
    predict that the train observer would predict variation in the
    one-way speed of light coming at him from different directions.

    predict that the train observer would predict variation
    Is this this science? A predicts what B would predict? I think not. Sciene is measurements.

    Note that measurement of *variation* in the one-way speed of
    light in different directions does not require being able to
    measure the actual *value* of the one-way speed of light.

    I do not understand this statement. Or how it could be true.
    No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
    will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
    to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,
    (1) given that he is in the *middle* of the train and that (2)
    light moves at the same speed whether coming from the
    front of the train or the back, and (3) light arrives at his spot
    at different times, is that (4) the lightning strikes did not
    occur at the same time.

    Which, of course, contradicts the conclusion of the observer
    on the embankment.Leave the embankment out. That is Newtonian.

    Let us take this one by one:

    The observer is in the middle of the train and he knows it.

    Light moves at the same speed in empty space and he knows it.

    The speed of light is independent of the source. He know that.

    Light moving from the front of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him.
    Ideally, events HAVE NO DURATION, and hence NO SPEED
    An event is a single point in spacetime having coordinates x,y,z,t.

    The tokens often used to represent events in popular writings, like firecrackers, sparks and the like, are not true events because they
    have finite extent and finite duration, and yes, can have a speed.

    *** Not understanding this point is a MAJOR source of confusion. ***
    Light from the back of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him
    Wrong, for the same reason.
    TRUE EVENTS HAVE NO DURATION and hence NO SPEED

    An event is just a single point in spacetime.
    S1==============[_______O1________]==============S2

    S3======================O2=======================S4

    O1, O2 are the observers. S1, S2, S3, S4 are lightning strikes, Simulantaneous in the frame of reference of O2.

    Now, where are these lightning strikes located in the frame of reference of O1?

    "Frame of reference" is a human made abstract construct
    with the purpose of (mostly) - enabling communication
    between observers.
    If they're going to come to understanding - they have
    to use THE SAME frame of reference. If they don't,
    if they both insist on having own - they simply can't
    refer to them. The concept of every observer
    having a frame of his own is - simply - MAD.
    Yeah, I know it was Galileo's.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue May 2 03:43:56 2023
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7:49:33 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 5/1/23 12:01 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of
    Aether!
    That's what was originally thought. Then people started doing
    experiments on earth that agreed with the predictions of Maxwell's equations. That led to attempts to measure the speed of the earth
    relative to the aether. When all those attempts failed, a whole new
    theory was required. Einstein laid the foundation, thousands of experimenters explored various aspects of the problem, joined by many theorists, and today we have GR and the standard model. The wave
    equation for electrodynamics is now known to be just an approximation to QED, which is vastly different and more subtle.

    So today we know better, and that the (vacuum) wave equation for E&M radiation actually works in any (locally) inertial frame. This is
    directly related to the symmetry known as local Lorentz invariance.

    Note that your approach is hopeless -- just sitting around and thinking about physics leads nowhere but to posting nonsense around here. To
    learn about physics you must STUDY, using real textbooks, not random websites on the internet and USENET.

    Tom Roberts

    The textbooks do not make any sense to me.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Tue May 2 06:26:17 2023
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 3:43:58 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    The textbooks do not make any sense to me.


    Because you are a crank. Live with it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Tue May 2 08:04:59 2023
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 2:21:49 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 10:53:58 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:43:18 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:10:57 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:52:00 AM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:45:20 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the
    perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is
    relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
    Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special
    relativity to the world.
    The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work, "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book,
    Einstein translated the formal presentation of his paper into terms more easily grasped by a wide audience.

    To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago.
    I struggled with the question,

    | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
    | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
    | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
    | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at | different times?
    |
    | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results? Is
    | this possibly a paradox that invalidates the gedanken?

    It took me years before I worked out the answer.

    1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper distance between the lightning strikes.
    2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz- contracted so that its length is the same as the distance between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
    3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the
    length of the train, which of course when measured in the
    frame of the train is its proper length.

    Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several
    times before you see everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
    There is no mention of length contraction in the book.

    The experiment no longer bothers me because it is an exact description of what would happen if there is an Aether in the frame of the tracks.

    At least agree on this.


    Absolutely not. Aether theories of the sort that you envision predict that the train observer would predict variation in the one-way speed of light coming at him from different directions.

    predict that the train observer would predict variation
    Is this this science? A predicts what B would predict? I think not. Sciene is measurements.

    Note that measurement of *variation* in the one-way speed of
    light in different directions does not require being able to
    measure the actual *value* of the one-way speed of light.

    I do not understand this statement. Or how it could be true.
    No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
    will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
    to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,
    (1) given that he is in the *middle* of the train and that (2)
    light moves at the same speed whether coming from the
    front of the train or the back, and (3) light arrives at his spot
    at different times, is that (4) the lightning strikes did not
    occur at the same time.

    Which, of course, contradicts the conclusion of the observer
    on the embankment.Leave the embankment out. That is Newtonian.

    Let us take this one by one:

    The observer is in the middle of the train and he knows it.

    Light moves at the same speed in empty space and he knows it.

    The speed of light is independent of the source. He know that.

    Light moving from the front of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him.
    Ideally, events HAVE NO DURATION, and hence NO SPEED
    An event is a single point in spacetime having coordinates x,y,z,t.

    The tokens often used to represent events in popular writings, like firecrackers, sparks and the like, are not true events because they
    have finite extent and finite duration, and yes, can have a speed.

    *** Not understanding this point is a MAJOR source of confusion. ***
    Light from the back of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him
    Wrong, for the same reason.
    TRUE EVENTS HAVE NO DURATION and hence NO SPEED

    An event is just a single point in spacetime.
    S1==============[_______O1________]==============S2

    S3======================O2=======================S4

    O1, O2 are the observers. S1, S2, S3, S4 are lightning strikes, Simulantaneous in the frame of reference of O2.

    Now, where are these lightning strikes located in the frame of reference of O1?
    "Frame of reference" is a human made abstract construct
    with the purpose of (mostly) - enabling communication
    between observers.
    If they're going to come to understanding - they have
    to use THE SAME frame of reference. If they don't,
    if they both insist on having own - they simply can't
    refer to them. The concept of every observer
    having a frame of his own is - simply - MAD.
    Yeah, I know it was Galileo's.

    So, the addition of velocities does not require more than one frame of reference?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Tue May 2 11:11:32 2023
    On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 17:05:02 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 2:21:49 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 10:53:58 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:43:18 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:10:57 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:52:00 AM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:45:20 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 26-Apr-23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:
    Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the
    perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
    The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
    According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is
    relative to.

    His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

    Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

    for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
    Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special
    relativity to the world.
    The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work, "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book,
    Einstein translated the formal presentation of his paper into terms more easily grasped by a wide audience.

    To tell the truth, I was bothered by the thought experiment the
    first time that I encountered it more than 50 or so years ago. I struggled with the question,

    | What happens if we try to follow what the primed observer sees,
    | with the primed frame stationary and the unprimed frame moving?
    | Wouldn't we witness the light pulses reaching the primed
    | observer simultaneously, and reaching the unprimed observer at
    | different times?
    |
    | How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results? Is | this possibly a paradox that invalidates the gedanken?

    It took me years before I worked out the answer.

    1) The proper length of the train is LONGER than the proper distance between the lightning strikes.
    2) In the frame of the embankment, the moving train is Lorentz-
    contracted so that its length is the same as the distance between the lightning bolts, which of course when measured in the frame of the embankment is the proper distance.
    3) In the frame of the train, the distance between the lightning
    strikes is Lorentz-contracted so that it is less than the length of the train, which of course when measured in the frame of the train is its proper length.

    Here is an animation. If you blink at the wrong time, you can miss important events, so be prepared to have to watch it several
    times before you see everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
    There is no mention of length contraction in the book.

    The experiment no longer bothers me because it is an exact description of what would happen if there is an Aether in the frame of the tracks.

    At least agree on this.


    Absolutely not. Aether theories of the sort that you envision predict that the train observer would predict variation in the one-way speed of light coming at him from different directions.

    predict that the train observer would predict variation
    Is this this science? A predicts what B would predict? I think not. Sciene is measurements.

    Note that measurement of *variation* in the one-way speed of
    light in different directions does not require being able to measure the actual *value* of the one-way speed of light.

    I do not understand this statement. Or how it could be true.
    No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
    will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
    to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,
    (1) given that he is in the *middle* of the train and that (2) light moves at the same speed whether coming from the
    front of the train or the back, and (3) light arrives at his spot at different times, is that (4) the lightning strikes did not occur at the same time.

    Which, of course, contradicts the conclusion of the observer
    on the embankment.Leave the embankment out. That is Newtonian.

    Let us take this one by one:

    The observer is in the middle of the train and he knows it.

    Light moves at the same speed in empty space and he knows it.

    The speed of light is independent of the source. He know that.

    Light moving from the front of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him.
    Ideally, events HAVE NO DURATION, and hence NO SPEED
    An event is a single point in spacetime having coordinates x,y,z,t.

    The tokens often used to represent events in popular writings, like firecrackers, sparks and the like, are not true events because they have finite extent and finite duration, and yes, can have a speed.

    *** Not understanding this point is a MAJOR source of confusion. ***
    Light from the back of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him
    Wrong, for the same reason.
    TRUE EVENTS HAVE NO DURATION and hence NO SPEED

    An event is just a single point in spacetime.
    S1==============[_______O1________]==============S2

    S3======================O2=======================S4

    O1, O2 are the observers. S1, S2, S3, S4 are lightning strikes, Simulantaneous in the frame of reference of O2.

    Now, where are these lightning strikes located in the frame of reference of O1?
    "Frame of reference" is a human made abstract construct
    with the purpose of (mostly) - enabling communication
    between observers.
    If they're going to come to understanding - they have
    to use THE SAME frame of reference. If they don't,
    if they both insist on having own - they simply can't
    refer to them. The concept of every observer
    having a frame of his own is - simply - MAD.
    Yeah, I know it was Galileo's.
    So, the addition of velocities does not require more than one frame of reference?

    Addition of velocities requires.
    And addition of velocities is stupid.
    More than one velocity of a given
    object is generally violating the
    razor.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Wed May 3 00:09:13 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:52:27 -0700, Jack Liu wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:12:36 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:

    I found it independently and wrote it in my book <absolute time 2022

    Chapter 9 . However I would love to quote yours in my book if you can
    tell me where did you publish your argument. Thanks.
    I too am writing a very comprehensive thesis on the history of
    Einstein's SR and the reasons why so many people do not accept it. It
    contains a lot of new and important ideas that will surely shatter the
    whole physics estblishment. It is almost finished but I keep adding new
    ideas.
    Can I ask how and where you published your book.




    To Jane

    self publish at amazon is easy and quick :
    https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/ https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    Who did your hard cover and paper backs? I only want .pdf and ebook
    format.

    looking forward to your work and let's quote each other.

    Mine has a lot of original discovery, for instance a surprise explanation
    of the cosmic redshift...It annihilates the BB theory.

    for more info, just contact me by twitter : @songwaimai

    Jack





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Jane on Tue May 2 20:59:55 2023
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 5:10:43 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:52:27 -0700, Jack Liu wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:12:36 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:

    I found it independently and wrote it in my book <absolute time 2022

    Chapter 9 . However I would love to quote yours in my book if you can >> > tell me where did you publish your argument. Thanks.
    I too am writing a very comprehensive thesis on the history of
    Einstein's SR and the reasons why so many people do not accept it. It
    contains a lot of new and important ideas that will surely shatter the
    whole physics estblishment. It is almost finished but I keep adding new >> ideas.
    Can I ask how and where you published your book.




    To Jane

    self publish at amazon is easy and quick :
    https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/ https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    Who did your hard cover and paper backs? I only want .pdf and ebook
    format.

    looking forward to your work and let's quote each other.

    Mine has a lot of original discovery, for instance a surprise explanation
    of the cosmic redshift...It annihilates the BB theory.

    for more info, just contact me by twitter : @songwaimai

    Jack





    --
    -- lover of truth
    Give us a shout-out when you publish so we can buy one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Tue May 2 23:32:36 2023
    On 5/2/23 5:43 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7:49:33 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    [...]Note that your approach is hopeless -- just sitting around
    and thinking about physics leads nowhere but to posting nonsense
    around here. To learn about physics you must STUDY, using real
    textbooks, not random websites on the internet and USENET.

    The textbooks do not make any sense to me.

    Yes. Because as I have said before, you CLEARLY do not have the
    requisite knowledge to understand basic physics. There is a reason that
    every university course on physics lists a number of prerequisites.

    Find a course at a university you can take; you need to have discussions
    with a professor/instructor who actually understands basic physics.

    Or more likely: realize that you are unsuited for physics and find
    another hobby.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Tue May 2 21:44:15 2023
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 3:53:58 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:43:18 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:10:57 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:52:00 AM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    No experiment of any sort performed by the train observer
    will tell the train observer that he/she is moving with respect
    to the aether. The train observer's only possible conclusion,
    (1) given that he is in the *middle* of the train and that (2)
    light moves at the same speed whether coming from the
    front of the train or the back, and (3) light arrives at his spot
    at different times, is that (4) the lightning strikes did not
    occur at the same time.

    Which, of course, contradicts the conclusion of the observer
    on the embankment.Leave the embankment out. That is Newtonian.

    Let us take this one by one:

    The observer is in the middle of the train and he knows it.

    Light moves at the same speed in empty space and he knows it.

    The speed of light is independent of the source. He know that.

    Light moving from the front of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him.
    Ideally, events HAVE NO DURATION, and hence NO SPEED
    An event is a single point in spacetime having coordinates x,y,z,t.

    The tokens often used to represent events in popular writings, like firecrackers, sparks and the like, are not true events because they
    have finite extent and finite duration, and yes, can have a speed.

    *** Not understanding this point is a MAJOR source of confusion. ***
    Light from the back of the train is from a source that is moving relative to him
    Wrong, for the same reason.
    TRUE EVENTS HAVE NO DURATION and hence NO SPEED

    An event is just a single point in spacetime.
    S1==============[_______O1________]==============S2

    S3======================O2=======================S4

    O1, O2 are the observers. S1, S2, S3, S4 are lightning strikes, Simulantaneous in the frame of reference of O2.

    Now, where are these lightning strikes located in the frame of reference of O1?

    In the frame of reference of O1, at the moment that O1 is
    face to face with O2, S2 has already happened and S1 hasn't
    happened yet. O1 deems himself to be exactly equidistant
    between the two strikes.

    Where are these lightning strikes located in the frame of reference of O2?

    When O2 is face to face with O1, S3 and S4 happen at exactly
    the same time according to O2's clock. O2 deems herself to
    be exactly equidistant between the two strikes.

    If the S1, S2 lightning strikes hit the ends of the train and is visible through the end windows to O1,
    and other two strikes S3 and S4 strikes the tracks directly opposite the place where the ends of
    the train occupy then how will your answer be different?

    The length of the train makes no difference, except that it
    takes significantly fewer words for me to explain the
    following point:

    In your second scenario, since the train is in motion
    relative to the embankment, the proper length of the train,
    the length that O1 measures, is gamma times the proper
    distance between the two strikes, which is the distance that
    O2 measures.

    The difference in length of the train that O1 measures (its
    proper length) and the distance between lightning strikes
    that O1 measures (gamma times *less* than the proper distance
    between the strikes) means that it is *impossible* for the
    front of the train to experience the lightning strike at
    the same time that the rear of the train experiences the
    lightning strike.

    As observed by O1, the front of the train matches up with
    the right lightning strike, then the rear of the train
    matches up with the left lightning strike.

    As I said, there is no difference between your two scenarios,
    except that in your second scenario, the train provides a
    convenient measuring rod that reduces the number of words
    that I need to express the concept that I am trying to
    get you to understand.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Wed May 3 01:38:35 2023
    On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 06:32:48 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 5/2/23 5:43 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7:49:33 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    [...]Note that your approach is hopeless -- just sitting around
    and thinking about physics leads nowhere but to posting nonsense
    around here. To learn about physics you must STUDY, using real
    textbooks, not random websites on the internet and USENET.

    The textbooks do not make any sense to me.
    Yes. Because as I have said before, you CLEARLY do not have the
    requisite knowledge to understand basic physics.

    You don't understand that you're FORCED!!!
    To THE BEST WAY!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)