Motor Daddy:
I agree that the train observer had the lights hit him at different times. That's a fact.
I agree that the train observer is at the midpoint of the train equal distance from A and B on the train. That's a fact.
I agree that the train observer thinks the strikes occurred at A and B on the train at different times, if he takes Einstein's 2nd postulate to be true.
Great!
But in fact, we know the strikes occurred at the same time at A and B, so we know the train observer is incorrect.
No. All we know from Einstein's scenario is the
given "fact" that the strikes at A and B occurred at the same time
in the embankment frame. That is Einstein's starting
assumption. He then goes on to
prove that if his second postulate is true the strikes at A and B
must have occurred at different times
in the train's frame.
We can set up a different situation from Einstein's one, starting from the assumption that the strikes occurred simultaneously in the train's frame. In that situation we can run through a similar reasoning process to conclude that in the embankment frame the strikes could then not have been simultaneous. In this situation, I assume you would not be insisting on the "fact" that the embankment observer was incorrect and the train observer was correct.
You can't just say the train observer concludes the strikes occurred at A and B at different times, so that makes Einstein's postulate correct.
Right. This thought experiment
in no way proves that Einstein's postulate is correct. It just tells you what
must be true if Einstein's postulate is correct.
By the same reasoning, your thought experiment in no way proves that your postulate is correct. It just tells you what must happen if it is, in fact, correct.
These thought experiments don't
prove anything about reality. To do that, you need to go out and do some real-world measurements to see what actually happens.
You have to be able to KNOW if in fact the strikes occurred at A and B simultaneously, or they in fact occurred at different times. We KNOW, for a fact that the strikes occurred simultaneously, so the train observer is in error in his conclusions, because he relied on Einstein's second postulate, and that proved to be wrong.
I'll say it again. In the given scenario it is a GIVEN that the strikes occured at A and B simultaneously
in the embankment frame. The postulates of relativity are then used to derive the conclusion that the strikes
cannot be simultaneous in the train frame. The thought experiment shows the process of reasoning, based on the chosen postulates. It does not prove that the postulates are true. Nor does any thought experiment that you make up based on your postulates prove that your postulates are true.
Do you ever intend to present real-world evidence? Yes or no?
Is there a time limit? I intend to seek out real world evidence just as I have with my idea that the Earth came from the Sun.
There's no time limit, but you really ought to get onto this problem. After all, it's been over 100 years now since Einstein presented his postulates, and so far
nobody has proven him wrong with
any real-world experiment. And there have literally been thousands of such experiments done by other people.
So, as things stand, we have thousands of experiments proving Einstein correct, and not a single one proving him wrong. Not one in 100 years.
If you were right and Einstein was wrong, don't you think that
somebody would have come up with the same idea you have in 100 years, and have done the experiments that show conclusively that Einstein was wrong? Would somebody who was actually a qualified physicist have done the definitive experiment by now? Or do you think all physicists are too brainwashed to even want to try to make themselves more famous than Einstein by proving his theories wrong?
I am trying to support my idea, and you are calling me a troll. So when I do the same for this idea, am I also trolling? When I show you a link to support my claim, is that evidence or trolling?
I'm very happy for you to link to any real-world evidence that you have that proves Einstein wrong. Any time.
The embankment A and train A were aligned simultaneously when the embankment B and train B were aligned, along with when the observers at the midpoint were aligned. ALL the points were aligned simultaneously.
That's true in the embankment frame. As Einstein's argument clearly shows, it is not true in the train's frame.
[Einstein] made a mistake by assuming his second postulate is correct, and that in turn proved to be false.
Where did it turn out to be false? You have presented no evidence that his postulate is false. All you have done is to say what would happen
if it was false.
Your postulate is: the measured speed of light is different in every frame of reference.
It has to be, because different frames have different velocities, correct?
It has to be if your assumptions about absolute space and time are true. Sadly, however, they are false. Einstein's postulates are how the real world works, not Motor Daddy's postulates.
It's funny to note that Einstein creates a bad second postulate, he uses it to create a paradox of simultaneity, he then discards the concept of simultaneity, changes the way light is measured in every frame by altering the standard meter and second, and then claims that every observer in a frame can claim to be at rest. That is so darn funny!
There's no bad postulate. Einstein's postulate turns out to be true in the real world, so you can't call it bad.
Also, there's no paradox of simultaneity. Just relativity of simultaneity. A paradox is a self-inconsistent statement. Einstein's theory is completely self-consistent. There are no real paradoxes in Einstein's relativity.
Lastly, you don't need Einstein's postulates to consider yourself at rest in a reference frame. If you're sitting on a seat in a moving train, you're at rest relative to the seat, whether the universe is Newtonian or Einsteinian or Motor Daddyian.
Why does he go to such extreme lengths? Because he doesn't know how to measure distance properly using the constant speed of light.
We've been through this. Send a light pulse from one end to the other and time how long it takes using the clocks in the rest frame of the length to be measured. The distance is then L=ct in that reference frame. Simple. If you want to convert that distance to the distance that would be measured in a different frame, Einstein has an exact procedure that tells you how to do that, too.
So, saying Einstein didn't know how to measure a distance is just wrong.
This is the correct equation for length, remember??
L=(2cTt)/(T+t)
Yes. In any single, given frame. In the train frame we have T=t, which gives
$$L=\frac{2cTt}{T+t} = \frac{2ct^2}{2t} = ct$$
just like Einstein said (see above).
This is an incorrect equation:
An oscilloscope is used to obtain the time of flight = 2L/c, where L is the (one way) length of the path.
But this equation agrees with your equation!
