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")observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
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 !!!
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")
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC7, 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.
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
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC7, 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
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:37:03 AM UTC5, 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. II have explained elsewhere the logical impossibility that his RoS
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 !!!
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
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 canI too am writing a very comprehensive thesis on the history of Einstein's
tell me where did you publish your argument. Thanks.
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.
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC7, 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.
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.
On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC7, 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 forAlso, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
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.
On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC7, 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 forAlso, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
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.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC5, 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
You can also reference the online version of Taylor and Wheeler
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:12:31 PM UTC5, Jack Liu wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC5, 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.No. Simultaneity is a relative concept.
Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .
On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC7, 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 forAlso, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
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.
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")observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:19:51 PM UTC5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:12:31 PM UTC5, Jack Liu wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC5, 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.No. Simultaneity is a relative concept.
Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .
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.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:33:19 PM UTC5, Jack Liu wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:19:51 PM UTC5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:12:31 PM UTC5, Jack Liu wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC5, 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.No. Simultaneity is a relative concept.
Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .
Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog"Same time" does not have an absolute meaning.
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.
Sorry. Newtonian time has been long disproven.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:19:51 PM UTC5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: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.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:12:31 PM UTC5, Jack Liu wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC5, 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.No. Simultaneity is a relative concept.
Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .
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
Jack
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.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:42:18 AM UTC5, Volney wrote:
On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC7, Jack Liu wrote:Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
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.
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.
On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC7, 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 forAlso, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
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.
On 4/28/2023 12:15 PM, Jack Liu wrote:Einstein did not use relativity in his relativity paper. That would be circular.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:42:18 AM UTC5, Volney wrote:
On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC7, Jack Liu wrote:Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
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.
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'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")observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
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 UTC7, Jack Liu wrote:Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
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.
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?
On 26Apr23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/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.
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
On 26Apr23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/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.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC5, Sylvia Else wrote:two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
On 26Apr23 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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/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 Lorentzcontracted 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
On 26Apr23 7:23 am, Jack Liu wrote:two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/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.
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.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC5, Sylvia Else wrote:two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
On 26Apr23 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
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.I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
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
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 UTC7, Jack Liu wrote:Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
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.
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!
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC5, Sylvia Else wrote:two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
On 26Apr23 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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/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 Lorentzcontracted 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
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 UTC7, Jack Liu wrote:Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
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.
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.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 2:50:50 AM UTC5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26Apr23 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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/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 Lorentzcontracted 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 canHow would you work out a answer? that is PARADOX: any conclusion will be against its premise.
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
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.
On 29Apr23 8:03 pm, Jack Liu wrote:two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26Apr23 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
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.I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
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.
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(1v²/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(1Vo²/c²)
These are the two reciprocal equations.
So we have g=1/sqrt(1Vo²/c²)
or g=sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
But g=1/sqrt(1+v²/c²) doesn't seem to be of interest.
R.H.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:29:03 AM UTC5, Sylvia Else wrote:of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
On 29Apr23 8:03 pm, Jack Liu wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26Apr23 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
The relativity of simultaneity is a selfcontradictory idea, so it is not a paradox. A paradox is something that is apparently contradictory but not really contradictory.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.I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
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.
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.
Time stands still for the surfer and he can never travel faster than the wave.
But he can hit a surfboard at 2c
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.
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:You are right of course. So what does this all mean?
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.
On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC7, Jack Liu wrote:Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
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.
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
I never mentioned anyone on the train!
The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.
Why does Einstein use this example?
Dear R.H.
1/sqrt(1v²/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(1v²/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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
Jack
****************************************************************************************
Le 29/04/2023 à 16:33, Jack Liu a écrit :
Dear R.H.
1/sqrt(1v²/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 eachNo, no.
other, which Einstein and Poincaré had not considered.
The direction of the speed does not intervene in the bathmotropy.
In any case, we always have g=1/sqrt(1v²/c²).
But this direction intervenes effectively in the anisotropy,
and you have to write:
Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
Let Vapp=Vo/(1Vo/c) if the object is approaching, and Vapp=Vo/(1+Vo/c) if the object moves away directly in the line of sight.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:28:43 AM UTC5, Volney wrote:light and displacement. Speed is of no immediate importance.
Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.
Why does Einstein use this example?
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 spacetime relationship in the theory of relativity only involves the speed of
Jack Liu wrote:light and displacement. Speed is of no immediate importance.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:28:43 AM UTC5, Volney wrote:
Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.
Why does Einstein use this example?
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 spacetime relationship in the theory of relativity only involves the speed of
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
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 17:38:52 UTC+2, Python wrote:of light and displacement. Speed is of no immediate importance.
Jack Liu wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:28:43 AM UTC5, Volney wrote:
Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.
Why does Einstein use this example?
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 spacetime relationship in the theory of relativity only involves the speed
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 (andand 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.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:53:01 AM UTC5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26Apr23 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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/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 Lorentzcontracted 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 canThere is no mention of length contraction in the book.
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
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.
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,
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.That's right. From his postulates and simple relationships, he DERIVED relativity and time dilation/length contraction.
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.Surfer? A physical object moving at c? Einstein stated that would not be possible because of infinities.
But he can hit a surfboard at 2cThere are no surfboards moving at 2c.
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:You are right of course. So what does this all mean?
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:The point is the three observers all disagree which strike happened
On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC7, 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")Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for >>>>> both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
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.
first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.
I never mentioned anyone on the train!
The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.
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.
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.
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.
There are no surfboards moving at 2c.
But he can hit a surfboard 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.
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:Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.
On 4/28/2023 10:56 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:You are right of course. So what does this all mean?
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.
On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC7, 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")Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for >>>>>>> both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
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
I never mentioned anyone on the train!
The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.
Why does Einstein use this example?
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?
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
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 RobertsThe wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of Aether!
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:45:20 AM UTC5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
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 UTC5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26Apr23 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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/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 specialThe 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
relativity to the world.
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 Lorentzcontracted 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 canThere is no mention of length contraction in the book.
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
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
oneway speed of light coming at him from different directions.
predict that the train observer would predict variation
Note that measurement of *variation* in the oneway speed of
light in different directions does not require being able to
measure the actual *value* of the oneway 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.Leave the embankment out. That is Newtonian.
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:Einstein didn't use this example. Einstein used a moving train.
On 4/28/2023 10:56 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:You are right of course. So what does this all mean?
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:42:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote:The point is the three observers all disagree which strike happened >>>> first, with no SR or GR involved whatsoever.
On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC7, 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")Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for >>>>>>> both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
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.
I never mentioned anyone on the train!
The unstated assumption is that the person on the train does not know he is moving.
Why does Einstein use this example?
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.That's the relativity of simultaneity. From observations, I can say
If sun blinked out you would not know for 8 minutes. Is it now or then?
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.
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 areThat just means you did not "create" a wave equation that remains valid
chasing a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave
equation does not apply.
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!
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:52:00 AM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:45:20 AM UTC5, 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 UTC5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26Apr23 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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/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 specialThe 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
relativity to the world.
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 Lorentzcontracted 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 canThere is no mention of length contraction in the book.
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
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
oneway speed of light coming at him from different directions.
predict that the train observer would predict variationIs this this science? A predicts what B would predict? I think not. Sciene is measurements.
Note that measurement of *variation* in the oneway speed of
light in different directions does not require being able to
measure the actual *value* of the oneway 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.
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:10:57 AM UTC5, 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 himWrong, for the same reason.
TRUE EVENTS HAVE NO DURATION and hence NO SPEED
An event is just a single point in spacetime.
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 areThat just means you did not "create" a wave equation that remains valid >> in your scenario.
chasing a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave
equation does not apply.
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
Aether theories of the sort that you envision
predict that the train observer would predict variation in the
oneway 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.
Which, of course, contradicts the conclusion of the observer
on the embankment.
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?
 How can a simple shift in viewpoint reverse the results?
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 Lorentzcontracted 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.
On April 29, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work,Yes, that's given in the thought experiment.
"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?
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 properYou're confused. No reference to length contraction is required.
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 Lorentzcontracted 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.
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.
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 areThat just means you did not "create" a wave equation that remains valid >> in your scenario.
chasing a water wave and then catching up with it. You find the wave
equation does not apply.
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.
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:07:31 PM UTC5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
You obviously don't "get it". These are subtle points that areLet's go over things one at a time.
glossed over in the usual presentation of the gedanken, which
focus only on first order effects.
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.
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.
The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame of
Aether!
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.
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:10:57 AM UTC5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
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 UTC5, 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 UTC5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26Apr23 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
to.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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.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
Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special
relativity to the world.
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 Lorentzcontracted 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 canThere is no mention of length contraction in the book.
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
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
oneway speed of light coming at him from different directions.
predict that the train observer would predict variationIs this this science? A predicts what B would predict? I think not. Sciene is measurements.
Note that measurement of *variation* in the oneway speed of
light in different directions does not require being able to
measure the actual *value* of the oneway 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 himWrong, for the same reason.
TRUE EVENTS HAVE NO DURATION and hence NO SPEED
An event is just a single point in spacetime.
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:43:18 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:10:57 AM UTC5, 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 UTC5, 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 UTC5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26Apr23 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
to.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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.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.
Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special
relativity to the world.
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 Lorentzcontracted 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 canThere is no mention of length contraction in the book.
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
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
oneway speed of light coming at him from different directions.
predict that the train observer would predict variationIs this this science? A predicts what B would predict? I think not. Sciene is measurements.
Note that measurement of *variation* in the oneway speed of
light in different directions does not require being able to
measure the actual *value* of the oneway 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 himWrong, 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?
On 5/1/23 12:01 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
The wave equation given by Maxwell only works in the rest frame ofThat's what was originally thought. Then people started doing
Aether!
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.
On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 10:53:58 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
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 UTC5, 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 UTC5, 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 UTC5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26Apr23 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
relative to.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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work, "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book,
Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special
relativity to the world.
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 Lorentzcontracted 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 severalThere is no mention of length contraction in the book.
times before you see everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
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 oneway speed of light coming at him from different directions.
predict that the train observer would predict variationIs this this science? A predicts what B would predict? I think not. Sciene is measurements.
Note that measurement of *variation* in the oneway speed of
light in different directions does not require being able to
measure the actual *value* of the oneway 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 himWrong, 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.
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 2:21:49 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
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 UTC5, 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 UTC5, 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 UTC5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26Apr23 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
relative to.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
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
I don't see how expect to achieve anything by just making stuff up.The famous thought experiment was found in his popular work, "Relativity: The Special and General Theory". In this short book,
Einstein did not mention lightning in the paper that introduced special
relativity to the world.
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 Lorentzcontracted 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 severalThere is no mention of length contraction in the book.
times before you see everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
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 oneway speed of light coming at him from different directions.
predict that the train observer would predict variationIs this this science? A predicts what B would predict? I think not. Sciene is measurements.
Note that measurement of *variation* in the oneway speed of
light in different directions does not require being able to measure the actual *value* of the oneway 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 himWrong, 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.
So, the addition of velocities does not require more than one frame of reference?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.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:12:36 AM UTC5, Jane wrote:
I found it independently and wrote it in my book <absolute time 2022I too am writing a very comprehensive thesis on the history of
Chapter 9 . However I would love to quote yours in my book if you can
tell me where did you publish your argument. Thanks.
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
looking forward to your work and let's quote each other.
for more info, just contact me by twitter : @songwaimai
Jack
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:52:27 0700, Jack Liu wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:12:36 AM UTC5, Jane wrote:
I found it independently and wrote it in my book <absolute time 2022I too am writing a very comprehensive thesis on the history of
Chapter 9 . However I would love to quote yours in my book if you can >> > tell me where did you publish your argument. Thanks.
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/AbsoluteTimeRelativityJackLiu/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
Give us a shoutout when you publish so we can buy one.
 lover of truth
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.
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 UTC5, 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 himWrong, 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?
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.
Sysop:  Keyop 

Location:  Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK 
Users:  312 
Nodes:  16 (0 / 16) 
Uptime:  04:06:08 
Calls:  6,973 
Calls today:  5 
Files:  12,405 
Messages:  5,447,148 