SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 17 May 2010 10:10 On 5/17/10 8:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > On May 16, 10:56 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/16/10 7:20 PM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> What are you saying here? are you saying that the t' clock predicts >>> that the t clock is slow?? if that's what you are saying then it is >>> wrong. The t' clock must predict that the t clock is running faster >>> than the t' clock. >> >> You know, Seto, we've been over this many times over the years and >> you still can seem to understand the fact relativity is relative. >> How could your parent raise you to be this way? Please look at the >> following carefully. >> >> Assume that A and B have identical atomic clocks. That means they >> tick at the same rate when together. Now let us suppose that >> A and B have relative motion, such that their velocity (closing or >> opening) with respect to each other is, v> 0, and that dv/dt = 0 . >> >> Correcting for any Doppler shift, A measures B's time interval as >> ∆t_B' = γ ∆t_B >> >> and B measures A's time interval as >> ∆t_A' = γ ∆t_A >> >> where ∆t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity >> between A and B, and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) . >> >> Therefore, A measures B's time interval to be longer than her own. >> And B measures A's time interval to be longer than his own. Who's >> clock measures slow is observer dependent. Seto do you know what >> observer dependent means? > > Wormy you are an idiot. All you do is copy and paste. Ken you can't seem to understand that who's clock measures slow is observer dependent. Seto, do you know what observer dependent means? Do you?
From: PD on 17 May 2010 10:19 On May 15, 5:18 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On May 14, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 14, 1:20 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On May 14, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 14, 9:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 13, 10:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 13, 8:42 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 12, 3:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:37 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 9:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 7:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 11:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 9:08 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 1:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:10 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot then why did theyusethe SR math to calculate the SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > effect??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because, Ken, there is more than one "SR effect" and they apply in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different situations. The effect you have been asking about is mutual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >timedilation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The you should go and argue with your SR brother Moroney... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, how many times have I told you to stop trying to learn relativity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by listening to people on usenet, and start reading a REAL BOOK????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey I am not trying to learn SR on usenet. I already know more about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity than all of you combined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no evidence of that, Ken. All the stuff you've recited about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SR is repetition of stuff you've heard on usenet or stuff you've made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up in your own head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I was able to come up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a superset of relativity that includes SR as a subset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I was trying to do is to point that you runts of the SRians are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making contradictory statement and wilds claims that are not supported > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, even if there are statements on usenet that are in conflict with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each other about SR, that does not mean there is a conflict in SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What it means is that you will not get reliable information about SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So does that mean what you and your runt SR brothers wrote on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usenet were just bullshits? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying, Ken, is that you cannot get a good, consistent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > presentation about SR on usenet. You need to abandon that as your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source of information and get to a book or six, pronto. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What one get from the text book are the same garbage as in the usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not true, Ken. Nor would you know, because you've never read a > > > > > > > > > > > > > book on relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Same garbage. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but you can't judge. You've never opened up a book on > > > > > > > > > > > relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > You are too lazy, too cheap, and you're too insecure to read. > > > > > > > > > > > So you come here, thinking that you can figure it out on a newsgroup. > > > > > > > > > > > Bad idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: every observer defines the speed of light to be isotropic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and at the same time the speed of light is non-isotropic in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > observed frame due to relativity of simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not so, Ken. Closing speed and light speed are not the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed does not affect the arriving speed of light fronts to > > > > > > > > > > > > the train observer M'....otherwise M' will not be able to measure the > > > > > > > > > > > > speed of light to be isotopic. > > > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two completely different quantities. > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any > > > > > > > > > > observer....the speed of light is isotropic. > > > > > > > > > > Good heavens. You don't even know what the term closing speed means, > > > > > > > > > Ken. > > > > > > > > > If light doesn't close with an observer, how does the light ever get > > > > > > > > > to the observer? > > > > > > > > > > I simply cannot believe you would say something so patently stupid as > > > > > > > > > "Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any observer". > > > > > > > > > Could you not even take the trouble to even attempt to look up the > > > > > > > > term "closing speed" on the internet and read a little about it before > > > > > > > > opening your yap? > > > > > > > > Hey idiot the closing speed between light and any observer is > > > > > > > isotropic c in any direction. > > > > > > > No, it isn't. Wherever did you get that stupid idea? Do you know what > > > > > > closing speed even is? > > > > > > No, I didn't think so. > > > > > > Hey idiot there is no such thing as difference in closing speeds > > > > > between an observer and light fronts from different directions. > > > > > Of course there is. You don't know what closing speed is, do you? > > > > No it is you who don't know what closing speeds are. > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but this game can only go so far. > > Here's why you don't understand what closing velocity means: According > to Einstein in his train gedanken he said that M' is at equal distance > from the ends of the train and he is moving (closing velocities)wrt > the light fronts from the ends of the train that means that the speed > of light in the M' frame cannot be isotropic in the M' frame. That > means that the bogus conept of RoS is refuted by the SR postulate. No it does NOT mean that. Closing speed is not isotropic, as Einstein said. Light speed is isotropic, as Einstein said. You have confused the two, thinking they are the same thing. They are not. > > Ken Seto > > > If the whole world understands what the term "zebra" means, and you > > are the only one that points to a penguin and calls it a zebra, then > > you are the one that does not know what "zebra" means. > > If the whole world understands what the term "closing speed" means, > > and you are the only that confuses it with light speed, then you are > > the one that does not know what "closing speed" means. > > > Someday, you're just going to have to accept the fact that there are > > things you do not understand, and there are some things you are wrong > > about. When you can do this without feeling like your ego has been > > shredded, then you have a chance at making a positive contribution. > > > > Observed relative > > > velocity and direction of relative velocity by the track observer (M) > > > has absolutely no effect on the closing speeds of light fronts from > > > the ends of the train to the train observer as Einstein asserted. > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > The > > > > > speed of light is isotropic and the speed of light is independent of > > > > > the motions of the sources. > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two completely different things. > > > > > > You are so stupid. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > RoS is bogus because it asserts that M > > > > > > > detects different closing speeds from different directions. > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > What if the gedanken set up is changed as follows: > > > > > > > > > > M' sees the light fronts from the ends of the train arrive at him > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously and he is at equal distance from the ends of the train. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore he concluded that the flashes happened simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > Question: > > > > > > > > > > Does M see the flashes arrive at him simultaneously? According to RoS > > > > > > > > > > the answer is no. > > > > > > > > > > That's correct. > > > > > > > > > > > But according to the SR postulaTE THE ANSWER IS YES. > > > > > > > > > > No, the SR postulate would not say that. > > > > > > > > > > Good Jiminy Jumping Jacks, you are hopeless. I've never seen anyone so > > > > > > > > > thick in my whole life, and I've seen a good number of thick students. > > > > > > > > > > > What this mean is that closing speed as perceived by M has no effect > > > > > > > > > > on the istropy of the speed of light. > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two different quantities. > > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >...due to the closing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed between the moving observer and the light fronts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's the problem, Ken. You don't know enough relativity to know who > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here understands it or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong I know more of relativyt than all of you runts of the SRians. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Ken, you don't. You are living a fantasy life, detached from > > > > > > > > > > > > > reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you know is some stuff that you guys made up to explain > > > > > > > > > > > > contradictory claims. For example: A predicts B's clock is running > > > > > > > > > > > > slow and B predicts that A's clock is running slow, The speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > is constant because it is measured with the speed of > > ... > > read more »
From: Sam Wormley on 17 May 2010 11:29 On 5/17/10 8:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > On May 16, 10:56 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> You know, Seto, we've been over this many times over the years and >> you still can seem to understand the fact relativity is relative. >> How could your parent raise you to be this way? Please look at the >> following carefully. >> >> Assume that A and B have identical atomic clocks. That means they >> tick at the same rate when together. Now let us suppose that >> A and B have relative motion, such that their velocity (closing or >> opening) with respect to each other is, v> 0, and that dv/dt = 0 . >> >> Correcting for any Doppler shift, A measures B's time interval as >> ∆t_B' = γ ∆t_B >> >> and B measures A's time interval as >> ∆t_A' = γ ∆t_A >> >> where ∆t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity >> between A and B, and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) . >> >> Therefore, A measures B's time interval to be longer than her own. >> And B measures A's time interval to be longer than his own. Who's >> clock measures slow is observer dependent. Seto do you know what >> observer dependent means? > > Wormy you are an idiot. All you do is copy and paste. Ken, I think the crux of your non-acceptance of relativity, is that you are bothered by the fact that who's clock measures slow is observer dependent. Sam and Ken have identical clocks. Ken and Sam have constant linear motion with respect to each other. Ken says, "Sam, your clock is running slower than mine, for that is what I measure". Sam says, "I don't doubt that Ken. Furthermore, I measure your clock running slower than mine". Ken and Sam each measure the other's clock to be running slower than his own--and that's the way reality is. No problem. No contradiction. Who measures what is observer dependent. It's all relative. Special relativity in in total agreement with these observations. In the 105 years since Einstein relativity paper in 1905, after hundreds of thousands of observation, measurements and experiments, there has never been an observation that contradicts a prediction of special relativity. The equations above allow you to make the calculations of time dilation as a function of velocity. It's trivial to plug in a velocity and predict to the time interval of somebody else's clock interval is longer than your own, when relative motion is involved. Hey, I'm not teaching this summer, if you would like me to tutor you in special relativity. There are a number of good textbooks we could use. Physics FAQ: Introductory Textbooks on STR http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html#intro_sr
From: kenseto on 17 May 2010 12:49 On May 17, 10:10 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/17/10 8:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On May 16, 10:56 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote: > >> On 5/16/10 7:20 PM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> What are you saying here? are you saying that the t' clock predicts > >>> that the t clock is slow?? if that's what you are saying then it  is > >>> wrong. The t' clock must predict that the t clock is running faster > >>> than the t' clock. > > >>   You know, Seto, we've been over this many times over the years and > >>   you still can seem to understand the fact relativity is relative. > >>   How could your parent raise you to be this way? Please look at the > >>   following carefully. > > >>   Assume that A and B have identical atomic clocks. That means they > >>   tick at the same rate when together. Now let us suppose that > >>   A and B have relative motion, such that their velocity (closing or > >>   opening) with respect to each other is, v>  0, and that dv/dt = 0 . > > >>   Correcting for any Doppler shift, A measures B's time interval as > >>    ât_B' = γ ât_B > > >>   and B measures A's time interval as > >>    ât_A' = γ ât_A > > >>   where ât represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity > >>   between A and B, and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) . > > >>   Therefore, A measures B's time interval to be longer than her own. > >>   And B measures A's time interval to be longer than his own. Who's > >>   clock measures slow is observer dependent. Seto do you know what > >>   observer dependent means? > > > Wormy you are an idiot. All you do is copy and paste. > >   Ken you can't seem to understand that who's clock measures slow is >   observer dependent. Seto, do you know what observer dependent means? > >   Do you? Hey idiot....there is no measurement made. Every SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest and thus predicts that all clocks movng wrt him are running slow. Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 17 May 2010 12:54
On May 17, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 15, 5:18 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 14, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 14, 1:20 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 14, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 14, 9:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 13, 10:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 13, 8:42 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 3:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:37 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 9:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 7:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 11:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 9:08 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 1:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:10 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot then why did theyusethe SR math to calculate the SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > effect??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because, Ken, there is more than one "SR effect" and they apply in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different situations. The effect you have been asking about is mutual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >timedilation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The you should go and argue with your SR brother Moroney... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, how many times have I told you to stop trying to learn relativity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by listening to people on usenet, and start reading a REAL BOOK????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey I am not trying to learn SR on usenet. I already know more about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity than all of you combined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no evidence of that, Ken. All the stuff you've recited about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SR is repetition of stuff you've heard on usenet or stuff you've made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up in your own head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I was able to come up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a superset of relativity that includes SR as a subset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I was trying to do is to point that you runts of the SRians are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making contradictory statement and wilds claims that are not supported > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, even if there are statements on usenet that are in conflict with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each other about SR, that does not mean there is a conflict in SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What it means is that you will not get reliable information about SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So does that mean what you and your runt SR brothers wrote on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usenet were just bullshits? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying, Ken, is that you cannot get a good, consistent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > presentation about SR on usenet. You need to abandon that as your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source of information and get to a book or six, pronto. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What one get from the text book are the same garbage as in the usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not true, Ken. Nor would you know, because you've never read a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > book on relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Same garbage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but you can't judge. You've never opened up a book on > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are too lazy, too cheap, and you're too insecure to read. > > > > > > > > > > > > So you come here, thinking that you can figure it out on a newsgroup. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bad idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: every observer defines the speed of light to be isotropic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and at the same time the speed of light is non-isotropic in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > observed frame due to relativity of simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not so, Ken. Closing speed and light speed are not the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed does not affect the arriving speed of light fronts to > > > > > > > > > > > > > the train observer M'....otherwise M' will not be able to measure the > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed of light to be isotopic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two completely different quantities. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any > > > > > > > > > > > observer....the speed of light is isotropic. > > > > > > > > > > > Good heavens. You don't even know what the term closing speed means, > > > > > > > > > > Ken. > > > > > > > > > > If light doesn't close with an observer, how does the light ever get > > > > > > > > > > to the observer? > > > > > > > > > > > I simply cannot believe you would say something so patently stupid as > > > > > > > > > > "Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any observer". > > > > > > > > > > Could you not even take the trouble to even attempt to look up the > > > > > > > > > term "closing speed" on the internet and read a little about it before > > > > > > > > > opening your yap? > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot the closing speed between light and any observer is > > > > > > > > isotropic c in any direction. > > > > > > > > No, it isn't. Wherever did you get that stupid idea? Do you know what > > > > > > > closing speed even is? > > > > > > > No, I didn't think so. > > > > > > > Hey idiot there is no such thing as difference in closing speeds > > > > > > between an observer and light fronts from different directions. > > > > > > Of course there is. You don't know what closing speed is, do you? > > > > > No it is you who don't know what closing speeds are. > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but this game can only go so far. > > > Here's why you don't understand what closing velocity means: According > > to Einstein in his train gedanken he said that M' is at equal distance > > from the ends of the train and he is moving (closing velocities)wrt > > the light fronts from the ends of the train that means that the speed > > of light in the M' frame cannot be isotropic in the M' frame. That > > means that the bogus conept of RoS is refuted by the SR postulate. > > No it does NOT mean that. Closing speed is not isotropic, as Einstein > said. Light speed is isotropic, as Einstein said. No idiot....if M' is moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train that he is riding then he cannot measure the speed of light to be isotropic. > > You have confused the two, thinking they are the same thing. They are > not. I did not confuse the two...I merely point out that if M' moves wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train the speed of light in the train is not iostropic. Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > If the whole world understands what the term "zebra" means, and you > > > are the only one that points to a penguin and calls it a zebra, then > > > you are the one that does not know what "zebra" means. > > > If the whole world understands what the term "closing speed" means, > > > and you are the only that confuses it with light speed, then you are > > > the one that does not know what "closing speed" means. > > > > Someday, you're just going to have to accept the fact that there are > > > things you do not understand, and there are some things you are wrong > > > about. When you can do this without feeling like your ego has been > > > shredded, then you have a chance at making a positive contribution. > > > > > Observed relative > > > > velocity and direction of relative velocity by the track observer (M) > > > > has absolutely no effect on the closing speeds of light fronts from > > > > the ends of the train to the train observer as Einstein asserted. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > The > > > > > > speed of light is isotropic and the speed of light is independent of > > > > > > the motions of the sources. > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two completely different things.. > > > > > > > You are so stupid. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > RoS is bogus because it asserts that M > > > > > > > > detects different closing speeds from different directions. > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > What if the gedanken set up is changed as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > M' sees the light fronts from the ends of the train arrive at him > > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously and he is at equal distance from the ends of the train. > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore he concluded that the flashes happened simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > Question: > > > > > > > > > > > Does M see the flashes arrive at him simultaneously? According to RoS > > > > > > > > > > > the answer is no. > > > > > > > > > > > That's correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > But according to the SR postulaTE THE ANSWER IS YES. > > > > > > > > > > > No, the SR postulate would not say that. > > > > > > > > > > > Good Jiminy Jumping Jacks, you are hopeless. I've never seen anyone so > > > > > > > > > > thick in my whole life, and I've seen a good number of thick students. > > > > > > > > > > > > What this mean is that closing speed as perceived by M has no effect > > > > > > > > > > > on the istropy of the speed of light. > > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two different quantities. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >...due to the closing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed between the moving observer and the light fronts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's the problem, Ken. You don't know enough relativity to know who > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here understands it or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong I know more- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » |