What does that even mean? If you can't state something that's intelligible, why even bother?
Maybe you should try reading it more slowly. All it means is that when an object is in motion and two light beams are sent to the same location, then they will arrive at the same time. That was the discovery that was made in the MME.
So far you haven't been able to give a lucid explanation of the thought experiment, or the misunderstanding that initiated the OP. You're just posting nonsense.
Did you miss the whole point of the thought experiment? The thought experiment shows that two beams of light do not arrive at the same time to the observer on the train. In the MME is considered to be in motion, the beams of light reach the detector at the same time.
Ah, the strawman trap, baited and hooked. At least now you admit to the sequence of events, in direct contradiction to your prior remarks.
Einstein like many other scientist, didn't know what the results of the MME would be. Everyone was surprised that they arrived at the same time. When confronted about this issue, he claimed that he wasn't aware of the results of the experiment and published theories in contrary to what the experiment said.
That would be true if relativity were false which is false so your assertion is false.
It doesn't mean relativity is false, I didn't say that it was false. Relativity isn't ever explained in any books as being caused by simultaneity, except in Einsteins own publishings. It is explained as the light clock example, that isn't entirely correct either. This is because the light clock example doesn't produce the correct equation. This is why I have shown how an example close to the light clock can produce the same equation for the proper time. It is only a simple shortcut that doesn't use a lot of the more complex mathmatics that Einstein used. So then I agree, that the equation for the proper time is correct, but it doesn't say anything about when beams of light arrive at locations. The correct interpretation of that is always described as the MME experiment.
Look to yourself for the source of all failures. You have yet to construct a cogent statement of facts in controversy.
The reason why they did away with classical mechanics is because no description of classical mechanics produce the results found in experiments on particles. It isn't because they could not figure out what classical mechanics describes particles, it is because classical mechanics actually does not and can not accuratly describe them.
What does that even mean? Nothing. It's just more BS. Your jaded opinions of science are useless. Fortunately for science, Einstein's work stands on its own merit, not on your confused general denials dripping with anti-science/pseudoscience bluster.
Of course you could just get to the point and tell us which equations Einstein "derived by classical means." You clearly "missed the train" on Einstein's purpose, methods and results.
It means that when they discovered quantum mechanics that the behaivor of particles was so different that normal everyday physics, that they had to invent new mathmatics and physics in order to be able to describe the results that they got from experiments. The physics of the time of Newton just wasn't good enough in order to descibe particle nature.
What does your statement have to do with what Einstein said? You're just posting random nonsense.
The final conclusion of the thought experiment is that the beams do not arrive at the same time. This is not the result found by experiment.
Even if the train were a quantum particle your statement stands as more BS. But it's not. So your statement is reduced to moot BS.
I was talking about the flashes of light being particles, that scientist call photons. I was saying that the arrival time of the photons inside of the train would have to be descibed by quantum mechanics, not that the train itself would have to be described by quantum mechanics. Quantum Mechanics would tell you when those particles arrive at the same location, and then since it is based on the MME, then they would arrive at the same time.
Those would be observers riding in or on or at the same speed and direction as the object. Everyone else experiences relativistic observations, which is what Einstein was talking about. What are you talking about?
Basically that the observer on the station, and the observer on the train would measure the beam in front of the train and the beam behind the train to travel at the same speed. So take a look at the diagrams in the thought experiment, their is a difference in how much the beam approuches the train from the front and the back relative to the observer on the train. There cannot be this difference in motion, since the observer on the train will measure both beams to travel the same speed at the same time. If the observer on the train could measure a difference in how much closer or further away it got from each beam, then the observer on the train wouldn't acctually measure both beams to be the same speed at the same time.
Only if you remove at least 90% of what he said. Nevertheless, time dilation is neither trivial nor something to be dismissed as you seem to want to do. That's the subtext of this whole thread, the topic you keep dancing around, throwing Molotov cocktails at.
The theory doesn't actually describe particles themselves, it is more like a description of how the speed of light plays a role in other objects that are not particles. The actual theories that describe the actual particles are not exactly what is in his 1905 paper. You wouldn't check his paper in order to figure out how particles behave for instance.
By "credited" you mean he won the Nobel prize. Is that all? He didn't do anything else? You could at least try to give a summary of his publications and the contribution of each. Or at least try to research a claim before you go postal with it.
In a lot of books it says that Einsteins theories are not used in quantum mechanics. Einsteins theories describe the macroscale, like normal everyday sizes, and quantum theory is used to describe the microscopic scale. His theories and quantum theory apply to different things, and these two theories have not been combined into one theory that can describe both. They are not compatable.
That's got to be the shallowest treatment of a prolific work of science to date. This is what makes your posts anti-science. Instead of reading the source material and trying to digest it yourself, you're relying on some twisted fragments of hearsay to construct your statements, then you grind it up with wild ideas and opinions and spit it out as BS.
I didn't develop these opinions on my own, most of the time Einsteins 1905 paper is ever mentioned is when someone is writing about SR, they just don't ever refer to it in quantum theory. Quantum theory that scientist use was developed by different people. No scientist use his work in quantum theory.
Well, yah, not correct and wrong go together, but Dirac and the train? Oil and water.
If you wanted to describe the actual photons on the train that would be a better choice. If you wanted to describe the time dilation of the train itself, then Einsteins theory would be the better choice.
Or (calling your bluff) maybe you care to show how "Dirac's equations" show the train example to be wrong. Ignoring the irrelevance of particle-scale theory to this example, I seriously doubt you can tackle either the math or the physical interpretations. Besides since Dirac pounded away at methods to apply relativity to quantum theory, to update and refine the fledgling theories of his day, it's ludicrous to claim that he undermines the relativity of simultaneity. Once again, you've simply got it backwards, apparently because you haven't come to grips with the counter-intuitive paradoxes of relativity. I think that's the subtext to all of your posts. But don't blame Einstein for your shortcomings. And, besides, you can't blame him without blaming science at large. And that's just anti-science posturing.
No I wouldn't care to do that, all I am saying is that in Einsteins thought experiment, the conclusion is wrong about the arrival time of the photons, and his theories are not descriptions of photons themselves. They already have proved over and over with experiments that an object in motion will have two beams traveling the same distance reach the same point at the same time. I am just repeating the words of science writters. They all cannot be wrong, but I think you can. You will never convince me otherwise because I have already read the same thing being put out as scientific fact from dozens of different science writters. So either they are all wrong, or you are wrong, I will always pick you are wrong.
