Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 23 Dec 2009 10:00 On Dec 22, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 3:08 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 22, 2:39 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:00, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 22, 11:44 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 12:57, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Correct. What is disputable is where the light travels from to M and > > > > > > > M'. Without knowing the state of the aether the light propagates > > > > > > > through, simultaneity cannot be determined. > > > > > > > Of course it can!!!!. Just ask the two guys what they saw. One of them > > > > > > (M) will tell you "I saw two simultaneous strikes", the other (M') > > > > > > will assure you "I saw two non simultaneous strikes"....case closed. > > > > > > A lightning strike occurs one light year away from the Observer on the > > > > > embankment. A second before the light from the lightning strike > > > > > reaches the Observer on the embankment, a lighting strike occurs one > > > > > second away from the Observer on the embankment. The light from both > > > > > lightning strikes reach the Observer simultaneously. Were the > > > > > lightning strike simultaneous? > > > > > For the observer location YES!!!!. He did observe TWO simultaneous > > > > flashes at his location. There are an infinity number of ways in which > > > > this simultaneous observation can be obtained. Do you have a problem > > > > with this? > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > The Observer cannot conclude anything about the simultaneity of the > > > events without knowing how far away the lighting strikes occurred > > > relative to the Observer and how the Observer is moving with respect > > > to the aether. > > > > When the Observer measures the one light year to the one lightning > > > strike and measures the one light second to the other lightning strike > > > does the Observer still conclude the lightning strikes were > > > simultaneous? > > > > No, because the Observer has more information. What the Observer needs > > > to realize is the Observer still does not have enough information. The > > > Observer needs to know how the Observer is moving with respect to the > > > aether. > > > You should careful read what Paul Draper beautifully explained. Here > > is again his immaculate reasoning: > > > a) Observer M sees TWO SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > b) Observer M' sees TWO NON SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > c) M' measures the distance from himself to the two scorch marks and > > notes that those two distances are the same. > > d) M does the same and gets the same result. > > e) M' measures the speed of light in both directions and observes that > > it is the same. > > f) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > Now here is an INDISPUTABLE train of thought: > > > 1. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > > 2. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > > 3. If the signals arrive at the observer at the same time, > > 4. Then the original source of the signals occurred at the same time. > > Incorrect. You need to know the state of the medium the light travels > through. No, you don't. The conditions I listed are completely sufficient for determining simultaneity. Einstein remarked that this is what simultaneity MEANS. > The water is at rest with respect to the TRAIN. Lighting > strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. Does the light travel from A and B to > M or from A' and B' to M? The light travels with respect to the water > which is at rest with respect to the train, so the light travels from > A' and B' to M. > > > Likewise: > > > 1'. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > > 2'. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > > 3'. If the signals arrive at the observer at not the same time, > > 4'. Then the original source of the signals occurred at not the same > > time. > > > So here are the facts: > > > a) M observes facts 1, 2, 3, and rightfully makes INDISPUTABLE > > conclusion 4, that is indeed both strikes were simultaneous. > > b) M' observes facts 1', 2', 3' and rightfully makes INDISPUTABLE > > conclusion 4', that is indeed both strikes were not simultaneous. > > > Miuel Rios
From: mpc755 on 23 Dec 2009 10:06 On Dec 23, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 3:08 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 22 dic, 16:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:39 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:00, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 11:44 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 12:57, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Correct. What is disputable is where the light travels from to M and > > > > > > > > M'. Without knowing the state of the aether the light propagates > > > > > > > > through, simultaneity cannot be determined. > > > > > > > > Of course it can!!!!. Just ask the two guys what they saw. One of them > > > > > > > (M) will tell you "I saw two simultaneous strikes", the other (M') > > > > > > > will assure you "I saw two non simultaneous strikes"....case closed. > > > > > > > A lightning strike occurs one light year away from the Observer on the > > > > > > embankment. A second before the light from the lightning strike > > > > > > reaches the Observer on the embankment, a lighting strike occurs one > > > > > > second away from the Observer on the embankment. The light from both > > > > > > lightning strikes reach the Observer simultaneously. Were the > > > > > > lightning strike simultaneous? > > > > > > For the observer location YES!!!!. He did observe TWO simultaneous > > > > > flashes at his location. There are an infinity number of ways in which > > > > > this simultaneous observation can be obtained. Do you have a problem > > > > > with this? > > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > > The Observer cannot conclude anything about the simultaneity of the > > > > events without knowing how far away the lighting strikes occurred > > > > relative to the Observer and how the Observer is moving with respect > > > > to the aether. > > > > > When the Observer measures the one light year to the one lightning > > > > strike and measures the one light second to the other lightning strike > > > > does the Observer still conclude the lightning strikes were > > > > simultaneous? > > > > > No, because the Observer has more information. What the Observer needs > > > > to realize is the Observer still does not have enough information. The > > > > Observer needs to know how the Observer is moving with respect to the > > > > aether. > > > > You should careful read what Paul Draper beautifully explained. Here > > > is again his immaculate reasoning: > > > > a) Observer M sees TWO SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > > b) Observer M' sees TWO NON SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > > c) M' measures the distance from himself to the two scorch marks and > > > notes that those two distances are the same. > > > d) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > e) M' measures the speed of light in both directions and observes that > > > it is the same. > > > f) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > > Now here is an INDISPUTABLE train of thought: > > > > 1. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > > > 2. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > > > 3. If the signals arrive at the observer at the same time, > > > 4. Then the original source of the signals occurred at the same time. > > > Incorrect. You need to know the state of the medium the light travels > > through. > > No, you don't. The conditions I listed are completely sufficient for > determining simultaneity. > Einstein remarked that this is what simultaneity MEANS. > Einstein, and you, are incorrect on what simultaneity means. You are looking down into a pool of water. At the bottom of the pool, directly below you is A. Off in the distance you see A' moving towards A. M' is behind A'. When A and A' are at the same point in space, a flash goes off in the water directly between you and A. Does the light travel from A' to M' or from A to M'. The light travels from A to M'. "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert Einstein > > The water is at rest with respect to the TRAIN. Lighting > > strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. Does the light travel from A and B to > > M or from A' and B' to M? The light travels with respect to the water > > which is at rest with respect to the train, so the light travels from > > A' and B' to M. > > > > Likewise: > > > > 1'. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > > > 2'. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > > > 3'. If the signals arrive at the observer at not the same time, > > > 4'. Then the original source of the signals occurred at not the same > > > time. > > > > So here are the facts: > > > > a) M observes facts 1, 2, 3, and rightfully makes INDISPUTABLE > > > conclusion 4, that is indeed both strikes were simultaneous. > > > b) M' observes facts 1', 2', 3' and rightfully makes INDISPUTABLE > > > conclusion 4', that is indeed both strikes were not simultaneous. > > > > Miuel Rios > >
From: mpc755 on 23 Dec 2009 10:25 On Dec 23, 10:22 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 10:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 23, 9:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 23, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 22, 3:08 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:39 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:00, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 11:44 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 12:57, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct. What is disputable is where the light travels from to M and > > > > > > > > > > > M'. Without knowing the state of the aether the light propagates > > > > > > > > > > > through, simultaneity cannot be determined. > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it can!!!!. Just ask the two guys what they saw. One of them > > > > > > > > > > (M) will tell you "I saw two simultaneous strikes", the other (M') > > > > > > > > > > will assure you "I saw two non simultaneous strikes".....case closed. > > > > > > > > > > A lightning strike occurs one light year away from the Observer on the > > > > > > > > > embankment. A second before the light from the lightning strike > > > > > > > > > reaches the Observer on the embankment, a lighting strike occurs one > > > > > > > > > second away from the Observer on the embankment. The light from both > > > > > > > > > lightning strikes reach the Observer simultaneously. Were the > > > > > > > > > lightning strike simultaneous? > > > > > > > > > For the observer location YES!!!!. He did observe TWO simultaneous > > > > > > > > flashes at his location. There are an infinity number of ways in which > > > > > > > > this simultaneous observation can be obtained. Do you have a problem > > > > > > > > with this? > > > > > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > > > > > The Observer cannot conclude anything about the simultaneity of the > > > > > > > events without knowing how far away the lighting strikes occurred > > > > > > > relative to the Observer and how the Observer is moving with respect > > > > > > > to the aether. > > > > > > > > When the Observer measures the one light year to the one lightning > > > > > > > strike and measures the one light second to the other lightning strike > > > > > > > does the Observer still conclude the lightning strikes were > > > > > > > simultaneous? > > > > > > > > No, because the Observer has more information. What the Observer needs > > > > > > > to realize is the Observer still does not have enough information. The > > > > > > > Observer needs to know how the Observer is moving with respect to the > > > > > > > aether. > > > > > > > You should careful read what Paul Draper beautifully explained. Here > > > > > > is again his immaculate reasoning: > > > > > > > a) Observer M sees TWO SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > > > > > b) Observer M' sees TWO NON SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > > > > > c) M' measures the distance from himself to the two scorch marks and > > > > > > notes that those two distances are the same. > > > > > > d) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > > > > e) M' measures the speed of light in both directions and observes that > > > > > > it is the same. > > > > > > f) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > > > > > Now here is an INDISPUTABLE train of thought: > > > > > > > 1. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > > > > > > 2. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > > > > > > 3. If the signals arrive at the observer at the same time, > > > > > > 4. Then the original source of the signals occurred at the same time. > > > > > > Incorrect. You need to know the state of the medium the light travels > > > > > through. > > > > > No, you don't. The conditions I listed are completely sufficient for > > > > determining simultaneity. > > > > Einstein remarked that this is what simultaneity MEANS. > > > > Einstein, and you, are incorrect on what simultaneity means.' > > > I'm sorry, MPC, but now you are just denying reality. > > Simultaneity is determined by the conditions that I mentioned. This is > > what simultaneity has meant for hundreds of years. > > If you don't understand that meaning, it doesn't mean that it's wrong. > > It only means that you don't understand it. > > > > You are looking down into a pool of water. At the bottom of the pool, > > > directly below you is A. Off in the distance you see A' moving towards > > > A. M' is behind A'. When A and A' are at the same point in space, a > > > flash goes off in the water directly between you and A. > > > > Does the light travel from A' to M' or from A to M'. > > > > The light travels from A to M'. > > > > "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly > > > have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes > > > place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the > > > latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert > > > Einstein > > > Don't you find it interesting that you're quoting Einstein, when you > > just said he was wrong about what simultaneity means? > > Not at all. I find Einstein to be mostly correct. > > "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly > have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes > place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the > latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert > Einstein > > You are looking down into a pool of water. At the bottom of the pool, > directly below you is A. Off in the distance you see A' moving towards > A. M' is behind A'. When A and A' are at the same point in space, a > flash goes off in the water directly between you and A. > > Does the light travel from A' to M' at w or from A to M' at w. > > The light travels from A to M' at w. > The light also travels from A to M at w.
From: PD on 23 Dec 2009 10:17 On Dec 23, 9:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 22, 3:08 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:39 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:00, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 11:44 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 12:57, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Correct. What is disputable is where the light travels from to M and > > > > > > > > > M'. Without knowing the state of the aether the light propagates > > > > > > > > > through, simultaneity cannot be determined. > > > > > > > > > Of course it can!!!!. Just ask the two guys what they saw. One of them > > > > > > > > (M) will tell you "I saw two simultaneous strikes", the other (M') > > > > > > > > will assure you "I saw two non simultaneous strikes"....case closed. > > > > > > > > A lightning strike occurs one light year away from the Observer on the > > > > > > > embankment. A second before the light from the lightning strike > > > > > > > reaches the Observer on the embankment, a lighting strike occurs one > > > > > > > second away from the Observer on the embankment. The light from both > > > > > > > lightning strikes reach the Observer simultaneously. Were the > > > > > > > lightning strike simultaneous? > > > > > > > For the observer location YES!!!!. He did observe TWO simultaneous > > > > > > flashes at his location. There are an infinity number of ways in which > > > > > > this simultaneous observation can be obtained. Do you have a problem > > > > > > with this? > > > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > > > The Observer cannot conclude anything about the simultaneity of the > > > > > events without knowing how far away the lighting strikes occurred > > > > > relative to the Observer and how the Observer is moving with respect > > > > > to the aether. > > > > > > When the Observer measures the one light year to the one lightning > > > > > strike and measures the one light second to the other lightning strike > > > > > does the Observer still conclude the lightning strikes were > > > > > simultaneous? > > > > > > No, because the Observer has more information. What the Observer needs > > > > > to realize is the Observer still does not have enough information.. The > > > > > Observer needs to know how the Observer is moving with respect to the > > > > > aether. > > > > > You should careful read what Paul Draper beautifully explained. Here > > > > is again his immaculate reasoning: > > > > > a) Observer M sees TWO SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > > > b) Observer M' sees TWO NON SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > > > c) M' measures the distance from himself to the two scorch marks and > > > > notes that those two distances are the same. > > > > d) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > > e) M' measures the speed of light in both directions and observes that > > > > it is the same. > > > > f) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > > > Now here is an INDISPUTABLE train of thought: > > > > > 1. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > > > > 2. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > > > > 3. If the signals arrive at the observer at the same time, > > > > 4. Then the original source of the signals occurred at the same time. > > > > Incorrect. You need to know the state of the medium the light travels > > > through. > > > No, you don't. The conditions I listed are completely sufficient for > > determining simultaneity. > > Einstein remarked that this is what simultaneity MEANS. > > Einstein, and you, are incorrect on what simultaneity means.' I'm sorry, MPC, but now you are just denying reality. Simultaneity is determined by the conditions that I mentioned. This is what simultaneity has meant for hundreds of years. If you don't understand that meaning, it doesn't mean that it's wrong. It only means that you don't understand it. > > You are looking down into a pool of water. At the bottom of the pool, > directly below you is A. Off in the distance you see A' moving towards > A. M' is behind A'. When A and A' are at the same point in space, a > flash goes off in the water directly between you and A. > > Does the light travel from A' to M' or from A to M'. > > The light travels from A to M'. > > "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly > have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes > place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the > latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert > Einstein Don't you find it interesting that you're quoting Einstein, when you just said he was wrong about what simultaneity means? > > > > The water is at rest with respect to the TRAIN. Lighting > > > strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. Does the light travel from A and B to > > > M or from A' and B' to M? The light travels with respect to the water > > > which is at rest with respect to the train, so the light travels from > > > A' and B' to M. > > > > > Likewise: > > > > > 1'. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > > > > 2'. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > > > > 3'. If the signals arrive at the observer at not the same time, > > > > 4'. Then the original source of the signals occurred at not the same > > > > time. > > > > > So here are the facts: > > > > > a) M observes facts 1, 2, 3, and rightfully makes INDISPUTABLE > > > > conclusion 4, that is indeed both strikes were simultaneous. > > > > b) M' observes facts 1', 2', 3' and rightfully makes INDISPUTABLE > > > > conclusion 4', that is indeed both strikes were not simultaneous. > > > > > Miuel Rios
From: mpc755 on 23 Dec 2009 10:14
On Dec 23, 10:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 22, 3:08 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:39 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:00, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 11:44 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 12:57, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Correct. What is disputable is where the light travels from to M and > > > > > > > > > M'. Without knowing the state of the aether the light propagates > > > > > > > > > through, simultaneity cannot be determined. > > > > > > > > > Of course it can!!!!. Just ask the two guys what they saw. One of them > > > > > > > > (M) will tell you "I saw two simultaneous strikes", the other (M') > > > > > > > > will assure you "I saw two non simultaneous strikes"....case closed. > > > > > > > > A lightning strike occurs one light year away from the Observer on the > > > > > > > embankment. A second before the light from the lightning strike > > > > > > > reaches the Observer on the embankment, a lighting strike occurs one > > > > > > > second away from the Observer on the embankment. The light from both > > > > > > > lightning strikes reach the Observer simultaneously. Were the > > > > > > > lightning strike simultaneous? > > > > > > > For the observer location YES!!!!. He did observe TWO simultaneous > > > > > > flashes at his location. There are an infinity number of ways in which > > > > > > this simultaneous observation can be obtained. Do you have a problem > > > > > > with this? > > > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > > > The Observer cannot conclude anything about the simultaneity of the > > > > > events without knowing how far away the lighting strikes occurred > > > > > relative to the Observer and how the Observer is moving with respect > > > > > to the aether. > > > > > > When the Observer measures the one light year to the one lightning > > > > > strike and measures the one light second to the other lightning strike > > > > > does the Observer still conclude the lightning strikes were > > > > > simultaneous? > > > > > > No, because the Observer has more information. What the Observer needs > > > > > to realize is the Observer still does not have enough information.. The > > > > > Observer needs to know how the Observer is moving with respect to the > > > > > aether. > > > > > You should careful read what Paul Draper beautifully explained. Here > > > > is again his immaculate reasoning: > > > > > a) Observer M sees TWO SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > > > b) Observer M' sees TWO NON SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > > > c) M' measures the distance from himself to the two scorch marks and > > > > notes that those two distances are the same. > > > > d) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > > e) M' measures the speed of light in both directions and observes that > > > > it is the same. > > > > f) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > > > Now here is an INDISPUTABLE train of thought: > > > > > 1. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > > > > 2. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > > > > 3. If the signals arrive at the observer at the same time, > > > > 4. Then the original source of the signals occurred at the same time. > > > > Incorrect. You need to know the state of the medium the light travels > > > through. > > > No, you don't. The conditions I listed are completely sufficient for > > determining simultaneity. > > Einstein remarked that this is what simultaneity MEANS. > > Einstein, and you, are incorrect on what simultaneity means. > > You are looking down into a pool of water. At the bottom of the pool, > directly below you is A. Off in the distance you see A' moving towards > A. M' is behind A'. When A and A' are at the same point in space, a > flash goes off in the water directly between you and A. > > Does the light travel from A' to M' or from A to M'. > > The light travels from A to M'. > > "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly > have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes > place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the > latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert > Einstein > > > > The water is at rest with respect to the TRAIN. Lighting > > > strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. Does the light travel from A and B to > > > M or from A' and B' to M? The light travels with respect to the water > > > which is at rest with respect to the train, so the light travels from > > > A' and B' to M. > > > > > Likewise: > > > > > 1'. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > > > > 2'. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > > > > 3'. If the signals arrive at the observer at not the same time, > > > > 4'. Then the original source of the signals occurred at not the same > > > > time. > > > > > So here are the facts: > > > > > a) M observes facts 1, 2, 3, and rightfully makes INDISPUTABLE > > > > conclusion 4, that is indeed both strikes were simultaneous. > > > > b) M' observes facts 1', 2', 3' and rightfully makes INDISPUTABLE > > > > conclusion 4', that is indeed both strikes were not simultaneous. > > > > > Miuel Rios > > Modification: Does the light travel from A' to M' at w or from A to M' at w. The light travels from A to M' at w. |