The Relativity of Simultaneity

[Pete]

Your mathematical world is incorrect.

How do you explain the fact that lightening struck A and B simultaneously, the speed of light is measured to be c in the train in each direction, the observer on the train was at the midpoint, and the lights impacted him at different times??

Tell me how you explain that, in your delusional world that is Einstein's.

We've done the numbers already, remember MD?
The train observer uses a different synchronization standard.

Both observers agree that according to the embankment standard, the strikes were simultaneous.
Both observers agree that according to the train standard, the lightning strike at B occurred first.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Nope, there's no point in arguing with crank. You frequently ask 'how do you explain that', and then ignore the answers. I'm happy to point out that you're delusional, but I refuse to partake in your delusion by pretending that it has any relationship to reality.

That's what I thought. Just another delusional Einstein ass kisser.

 

[Motor Daddy]

We've done the numbers already, remember MD?
The train observer uses a different synchronization standard.

Both observers agree that according to the embankment standard, the strikes were simultaneous.
Both observers agree that according to the train standard, the lightning strike at B occurred first.

Wrong Pete, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the lights to have struck A and B at different times, because the points only lined up at one point in time, not two. You are dead wrong, Pete!

 

[origin]

So you are saying that since the strikes occurred at A and B simultaneously, that the light reached the train observer simultaneously, because he was at the midpoint of the train. That is what you are saying, correct? Since light always travels at c in the train, and the train observer is "at rest", and at the midpoint of the train, you must be saying the train observer was impacted by the lights simultaneously.

You start with a contradiction right off the bat!!!

Nice dodge. Your analysis only works if you assume that light has a different relative speed for different inertial frames, which is not true. Therefore your analysis is wrong and your conclusions are wrong.

If you disagree then give some evidence that the relative speed of light is affected by the speed of the observer. Oh, that's right you have no evidence except for a gut feeling. As a matter of fact ALL MEASUREMENTS SAY YOU AR WRONG. But by all means don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.

 

[Pete]

Wrong Pete, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the lights to have struck A and B at different times, because the points only lined up at one point in time, not two. You are dead wrong, Pete!

You do remember the difficulty the train observer had in synchronizing his clocks, right?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Nice dodge. Your analysis only works if you assume that light has a different relative speed for different inertial frames, which is not true. Therefore your analysis is wrong and your conclusions are wrong.

If you disagree then give some evidence that the relative speed of light is affected by the speed of the observer. Oh, that's right you have no evidence except for a gut feeling. As a matter of fact ALL MEASUREMENTS SAY YOU AR WRONG. But by all means don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.

Again, another delusional Einstein ass kisser. You don't answer the questions put forth to you, you avoid them. That speaks volumes of your understanding, and the lack thereof.

 

[AlexG]

That's what I thought. Just another delusional Einstein ass kisser.

Piffle... just another common self-deluded, garden variety crank.

 

[Motor Daddy]

You do remember the difficulty the train observer had in synchronizing his clocks, right?

Stick to the point. You say the train observer must conclude that the strikes occurred at A and B at different times, correct?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Piffle... just another common self-deluded, garden variety crank.

Yeah, one that has done what no man has ever been able to do before, measure the velocity of a box in space from within the box!

 

[AlexG]

Yeah, one that has done what no man has ever been able to do before, measure the velocity of a box in space from within the box!

This nonsense again?

Of course, you haven't measured anything, have you?

 

[Pete]

Stick to the point. You say the train observer must conclude that the strikes occurred at A and B at different times, correct?

Not necessarily, but that's what the train-synchronized clocks said.

Don't forget this post...

By definition an object's motion is compared to the speed of light.

By what definition? Perhaps you're confusing motion with distance.
In Einstein's world, you can't determine motion by comparison with the speed of light. As our train observer discovered.

So you haven't made measurements?
So how can you tell which world you live in?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Not necessarily, but that's what the train-synchronized clocks said.

Does the train observer conclude the strikes occurred at A and B simultaneously, or does he conclude the strikes occurred at different times at A and B? What does the train observer conclude? Answer the question directly!

 

[Pete]

Does the train observer conclude the strikes occurred at A and B simultaneously, or does he conclude the strikes occurred at different times at A and B? What does the train observer conclude? Answer the question directly!

He can't make any absolute conclusion.

All he can say is that the train clock at B read an earlier time for its lightning strike than the train clock at A.

The embankment observer agrees with him.

And they both agree that the embankment clock at B read the same time for its lightning strike as the embankment clock at A.

 

[origin]

Again, another delusional Einstein ass kisser. You don't answer the questions put forth to you, you avoid them. That speaks volumes of your understanding, and the lack thereof.

Why, oh why, would I address a question about your analysis when it is based an assumption that measurements show is wrong. Are you delusional? All measurements are counter to your assumption about the speed of light relative to a moving observer.

I would be happy to address your analysis if it was based on something other than your delusions. Show me I am wrong, that you are not delusional, and have some evidence (you know like actual measurements) that your assumption is correct. If you can't show that then your analysis is wrong - very. very simple. Hell even you can understand that, can't you?

 

[Motor Daddy]

He can't make any absolute conclusion.

All he can say is that the train clock at B read an earlier time for its lightning strike than the train clock at A.

The embankment observer agrees with him.

And they both agree that the embankment clock at B read the same time for its lightning strike as the embankment clock at A.

So the train observer doesn't know if the strikes occurred at A and B simultaneously or at different times? That's odd, why would he think anything other than they occurred at different times, since he assumes the speed of light is always c on the train, in each direction, and he knows he was at the midpoint and the strikes impacted him at different times???????

You are dodging the question, Pete! What does the train observer conclude about the simultaneity or lack thereof of the strikes at A and B?????

 

[Pete]

So the train observer doesn't know if the strikes occurred at A and B simultaneously or at different times? That's odd, why would he think anything other than they occurred at different times, since he assumes the speed of light is always c on the train, in each direction, and he knows he was at the midpoint and the strikes impacted him at different times???????

You are dodging the question, Pete! What does the train observer conclude about the simultaneity or lack thereof of the strikes at A and B?????

I've told you my interpretation already, you question-dodger, you.

How can you tell? Have you made measurements?

 

[Motor Daddy]

I've told you my interpretation already, you question-dodger, you.

I'm not asking you YOUR interpretation, I'm asking you what the train observer must conclude?

He is at the midpoint between A and B on the train.
He assumes the speed of light to be c in all directions on the train.
He was struck by the lights from A and B at different times.

There is no other option for him but to conclude that the strikes at A and B occurred at different times, correct? If not correct, tell me what his other option is?

 

[Pete]

I'm not asking you YOUR interpretation, I'm asking you what the train observer must conclude?

And I told you.
He doesn't have to make any absolute conclusion.

He can only make the relative conclusion that measurements in the train standard give different times for the lightning strikes.


And I'm still asking you how you can tell whether you're living in Einstein's world.
Have you made measurements?

 

[Motor Daddy]

And I told you.
He doesn't have to make any absolute conclusion.

He can only make the relative conclusion that measurements in the train standard give different times for the lightning strikes.

So in his frame (the train), according to him the strikes occurred at different times at A and B?

And I'm still asking you how you can tell whether you're living in Einstein's world.
Have you made measurements?

No, I haven't made measurements. I am telling you how distance and time work in the universe, according to the definition of the speed of light and the meter.

They are inseparable.

1/299,792,458 of a second of light travel time is 1 meter. I don't need to take any measurements, it is defined!

 

[Pete]

Something to think about for the train standard, MD.

The train observer and the embankment observer want to know who's the faster runner.
Can they find out without a shared synchronization standard?