Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 16 Dec 2009 15:06 On Dec 16, 3:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 10:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 16, 11:20 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 16, 10:00 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 16, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 16, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 16, 10:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 5:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 1:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Dec 15, 11:41=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Your animation is a perfectly accurate representation... > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ...of how the thunderclaps propagate when M sees A and B simultaneously > > > > > > > > > > > > >> struck by lightning. > > > > > > > > > > > > >And M' sees A' and B' simultaneously struck by lightning? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. Your diagram works for how the _sound_ of the thunder would > > > > > > > > > > > > propagate. Just like if I was in the front of a nearly supersonic > > > > > > > > > > > > jet and someone in the back spoke to me, I could measure the speed of > > > > > > > > > > > > sound in the jet as normal (relative to the jet) but someone on the > > > > > > > > > > > > ground could measure the sound speed (relative to the ground) as > > > > > > > > > > > > nearly twice normal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Light doesn't behave like that. As others have mentioned many times, > > > > > > > > > > > > your diagram doesn't match the observed behavior of light, so it is > > > > > > > > > > > > automatically wrong. It is irrelevant whether SR is correct, or has > > > > > > > > > > > > even been formulated. Your diagram would have been just as wrong in 1850, > > > > > > > > > > > > before Einstein was even born, and SR never derived yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > MPC is under the impression that a model can only be shown wrong by > > > > > > > > > > > pointing out where the logical error is. He is under the impression > > > > > > > > > > > that if a model is internally consistent, then it must be right. The > > > > > > > > > > > idea that a model can be internally consistent but still not describe > > > > > > > > > > > a natural phenomenon accurately is something he doesn't comprehend. > > > > > > > > > > > If my animation only showed A', B' and M' and the light from the > > > > > > > > > > lightning strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously, would the > > > > > > > > > > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the train frame of > > > > > > > > > > reference? > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > Of course it does. It shows the light from the lightning strike from > > > > > > > > A' and B' reaching M' simultaneously. What are you implying, that it > > > > > > > > is impossible for the light from the lightnings strikes to reach M' > > > > > > > > simultaneously? > > > > > > > > You asked whether it accurately reflects what occurs with light in the > > > > > > > train frame of reference. > > > > > > > It does not, according to experiment. > > > > > > > According to experiment, the light from A' and B' does not arrive at > > > > > > > M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > This is an observational FACT. > > > > > > > Once again, you are simply not paying very much attention to a > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > That is not what I have been saying at all. Please pay attention. > > > > > > > In MY ANIMATION the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > That's right. But your animation has no bearing on reality. > > > > > > In REALITY, the light from A' and B' does not reach M' simultaneously. > > > > > In SR, the light from A' and B' does not reach M' simultaneously. > > > > > SR accurately represents reality. > > > > > Your animation does not accurately represent reality. > > > > > > There is no point in discussing what happens in an animation that has > > > > > no bearing on reality. No matter how much attention you crave. > > > > > Ok, I am not talking about an animation, I am talking about the > > > > scenarios below: > > > > OK, so what you are now asking about is reality, then? > > > You want some guidance on what happens in reality. > > > > > > > I will try and make it as simple as possible so there may at least be > > > > > > a slight chance you will not once again misinterpret what I am saying. > > > > > > > Scenario 1: > > > > > > > All there is is a train. That is it. There is no embankment. Lightning > > > > > > strikes occur at A' and B' and the light from the lightning strikes > > > > > > reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > Whether the light from the lightning strikes reaches M' simultaneously > > > depends on the frame of reference being used to look at the train and > > > the lightning strikes and M'. > > > > If you think there is only one reference frame here, then we need to > > > talk about what a frame of reference is. > > > I'm simply asking you if it is physically possible in nature for the > > light from lightning strikes at A' and B' to reach M' simultaneously. > > Yes, in one reference frame, but this is not the reference frame shown > in your animation. This is the part you are having difficulty with, > and we need to discuss what a reference frame is. > > > > > > > > > > > Scenario 2: > > > > > > > All there is is an embankment. That is it. There is no train.. > > > > > > Lightning strikes occur at A and B and the light from the lightning > > > > > > strikes reach M simultaneously. > > > > Whether the light from the lightning strikes reaches M simultaneously > > > depends on the frame of reference being used to look at the embankment > > > and the lightning strikes and M. > > > > If you think there is only one reference frame here, then we need to > > > talk about what a frame of reference is. > > > I'm simply asking you if it is physically possible in nature for the > > light from lightning strikes at A and B to reach M simultaneously. > > Yes, in one reference frame. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you agree Scenario 1 and Scenario two are physically possible in > > > > > > nature? > > > > Yes, but see my notes. > > > > > > > Scenario 3: > > > > > > > There are both a train frame of reference and an embankment frame of > > > > > > reference. The frames of reference occupy completely different regions > > > > > > of three dimensional space. The frames of reference never interact. > > > > We obviously need to discuss what a frame of reference is. What you've > > > described regarding frames of reference is not what a reference frame > > > is. > > > Ok, so let's not talk about frames of reference. The train is 100 > > billion light years away from the embankment. > > The distance makes no difference as far as reference frames are > considered. ALL of 3-dimensional space is in each and every reference > frame. > > You don't want to talk about reference frames. But Einstein's gedanken > is all about reference frames. We can talk about your animation if you > like, even though it doesn't represent reality, but the moment you > want to talk about Einstein's gedanken, we're going to have to talk > about what reference frames are. > > > Is it physically > > possible for the light from lightning strikes at A' and B' to reach M' > > simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' on the train and is > > it physically possible for the light from lightning strikes at A and B > > to reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M if the > > train and the embankment are 100 billion light years apart and A and B > > are 1 mile each from M and A' and B' are one mile each from M'? > > Now, keep in mind that you are talking about FOUR lightning strikes: > at A, A', B, B', and there is significant distance between each of > them. > > When we get around to talking about Einstein's gedanken, remember that > there are only TWO lightning strikes. Any claim about what Einstein > said has to be done in the context of TWO and only TWO lightning > strikes. > > The other thing I'd want to point out to you is that your animation > DOES adopt a particular reference frame: the rest frame of A, B, and > M. Do you understand that? Do you understand what a reference frame > is? The reason I mention this is that your animation shows the light > from A' and B' arriving at M' simultaneously IN THE REST FRAME OF A, > B, AND M. This does not represent reality. > You didn't answer the question: Is it physically possible for the light from lightning strikes at A' and B' to reach M' simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' on the train and is it physically possible for the light from lightning strikes at A and B to reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M if the train and the embankment are 100 billion light years apart and A and B are 1 mile each from M and A' and B' are one mile each from M'?
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 15:09 On Dec 16, 12:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 11:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Ok, so let's not talk about frames of reference. The train is 100 > > billion light years away from the embankment. Is it physically > > possible for the light from lightning strikes at A' and B' to reach M' > > simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' on the train and is > > it physically possible for the light from lightning strikes at A and B > > to reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M if the > > train and the embankment are 100 billion light years apart and A and B > > are 1 mile each from M and A' and B' are one mile each from M'? > > Let's assume logic prevails and if the train and the embankment are > 100 billion light years apart, light from lightning strikes at A' and > B' can reach M' simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' and > light from lightning strikes at A and B can reach M simultaneously as > determined by an Observer at M. > > So, when does SR 'kick in'? > > For some reason, in SR, in my animation, the train and the embankment > are too close to each other even though both exist in their own > regions of three dimensional space: You apparently don't understand the train and the embankment scenario that Einstein was proposing. In that scenario, there are only TWO lightning strikes, not FOUR. And you are wrong in thinking there are two frames that live in isolated regions of three-dimensional space. You have the impression that the train frame is the space inside the train and the embankment frame is the space outside the train. That is not what a frame of reference is. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > For some reason, in SR, in my animation, the light from the lightning > strikes at A' and B' cannot reach M' simultaneously as determined by > an Observer at M' AND the light from the lightning strikes at A and B > cannot reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M. In SR's train and embankment scenario, there are only TWO lightning strikes, not four. > > I would think a theory where the distance between the train and the > embankment where unique separate events on the train determines the > simultaneity of unique separate events on the embankment and vice > verse would cause the theory to be disregarded, but then again we are > discussing the dogma which is SR.
From: mpc755 on 16 Dec 2009 15:14 On Dec 16, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 12:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 16, 11:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Ok, so let's not talk about frames of reference. The train is 100 > > > billion light years away from the embankment. Is it physically > > > possible for the light from lightning strikes at A' and B' to reach M' > > > simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' on the train and is > > > it physically possible for the light from lightning strikes at A and B > > > to reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M if the > > > train and the embankment are 100 billion light years apart and A and B > > > are 1 mile each from M and A' and B' are one mile each from M'? > > > Let's assume logic prevails and if the train and the embankment are > > 100 billion light years apart, light from lightning strikes at A' and > > B' can reach M' simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' and > > light from lightning strikes at A and B can reach M simultaneously as > > determined by an Observer at M. > > > So, when does SR 'kick in'? > > > For some reason, in SR, in my animation, the train and the embankment > > are too close to each other even though both exist in their own > > regions of three dimensional space: > > You apparently don't understand the train and the embankment scenario > that Einstein was proposing. > In that scenario, there are only TWO lightning strikes, not FOUR. > > And you are wrong in thinking there are two frames that live in > isolated regions of three-dimensional space. You have the impression > that the train frame is the space inside the train and the embankment > frame is the space outside the train. That is not what a frame of > reference is. > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > For some reason, in SR, in my animation, the light from the lightning > > strikes at A' and B' cannot reach M' simultaneously as determined by > > an Observer at M' AND the light from the lightning strikes at A and B > > cannot reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M. > > In SR's train and embankment scenario, there are only TWO lightning > strikes, not four. > In SR's train and embankment scenario? You mean in Einstein's train and embankment scenario. I'm saying the SR interpretation of my animation where there are four lightning strikes. There is a difference between SR and Einstein's train thought experiment. > > > > I would think a theory where the distance between the train and the > > embankment where unique separate events on the train determines the > > simultaneity of unique separate events on the embankment and vice > > verse would cause the theory to be disregarded, but then again we are > > discussing the dogma which is SR. > >
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 15:32 On Dec 16, 2:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 3:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 16, 10:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 16, 11:20 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 16, 10:00 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 16, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 16, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 16, 10:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 5:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 1:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Dec 15, 11:41=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Your animation is a perfectly accurate representation... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ...of how the thunderclaps propagate when M sees A and B simultaneously > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> struck by lightning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And M' sees A' and B' simultaneously struck by lightning? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. Your diagram works for how the _sound_ of the thunder would > > > > > > > > > > > > > propagate. Just like if I was in the front of a nearly supersonic > > > > > > > > > > > > > jet and someone in the back spoke to me, I could measure the speed of > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound in the jet as normal (relative to the jet) but someone on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > ground could measure the sound speed (relative to the ground) as > > > > > > > > > > > > > nearly twice normal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Light doesn't behave like that. As others have mentioned many times, > > > > > > > > > > > > > your diagram doesn't match the observed behavior of light, so it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > automatically wrong. It is irrelevant whether SR is correct, or has > > > > > > > > > > > > > even been formulated. Your diagram would have been just as wrong in 1850, > > > > > > > > > > > > > before Einstein was even born, and SR never derived yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > MPC is under the impression that a model can only be shown wrong by > > > > > > > > > > > > pointing out where the logical error is. He is under the impression > > > > > > > > > > > > that if a model is internally consistent, then it must be right. The > > > > > > > > > > > > idea that a model can be internally consistent but still not describe > > > > > > > > > > > > a natural phenomenon accurately is something he doesn't comprehend. > > > > > > > > > > > > If my animation only showed A', B' and M' and the light from the > > > > > > > > > > > lightning strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously, would the > > > > > > > > > > > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the train frame of > > > > > > > > > > > reference? > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > Of course it does. It shows the light from the lightning strike from > > > > > > > > > A' and B' reaching M' simultaneously. What are you implying, that it > > > > > > > > > is impossible for the light from the lightnings strikes to reach M' > > > > > > > > > simultaneously? > > > > > > > > > You asked whether it accurately reflects what occurs with light in the > > > > > > > > train frame of reference. > > > > > > > > It does not, according to experiment. > > > > > > > > According to experiment, the light from A' and B' does not arrive at > > > > > > > > M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > This is an observational FACT. > > > > > > > > Once again, you are simply not paying very much attention to a > > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > That is not what I have been saying at all. Please pay attention. > > > > > > > > In MY ANIMATION the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > That's right. But your animation has no bearing on reality. > > > > > > > In REALITY, the light from A' and B' does not reach M' simultaneously. > > > > > > In SR, the light from A' and B' does not reach M' simultaneously. > > > > > > SR accurately represents reality. > > > > > > Your animation does not accurately represent reality. > > > > > > > There is no point in discussing what happens in an animation that has > > > > > > no bearing on reality. No matter how much attention you crave. > > > > > > Ok, I am not talking about an animation, I am talking about the > > > > > scenarios below: > > > > > OK, so what you are now asking about is reality, then? > > > > You want some guidance on what happens in reality. > > > > > > > > I will try and make it as simple as possible so there may at least be > > > > > > > a slight chance you will not once again misinterpret what I am saying. > > > > > > > > Scenario 1: > > > > > > > > All there is is a train. That is it. There is no embankment. Lightning > > > > > > > strikes occur at A' and B' and the light from the lightning strikes > > > > > > > reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > Whether the light from the lightning strikes reaches M' simultaneously > > > > depends on the frame of reference being used to look at the train and > > > > the lightning strikes and M'. > > > > > If you think there is only one reference frame here, then we need to > > > > talk about what a frame of reference is. > > > > I'm simply asking you if it is physically possible in nature for the > > > light from lightning strikes at A' and B' to reach M' simultaneously. > > > Yes, in one reference frame, but this is not the reference frame shown > > in your animation. This is the part you are having difficulty with, > > and we need to discuss what a reference frame is. > > > > > > > > Scenario 2: > > > > > > > > All there is is an embankment. That is it. There is no train. > > > > > > > Lightning strikes occur at A and B and the light from the lightning > > > > > > > strikes reach M simultaneously. > > > > > Whether the light from the lightning strikes reaches M simultaneously > > > > depends on the frame of reference being used to look at the embankment > > > > and the lightning strikes and M. > > > > > If you think there is only one reference frame here, then we need to > > > > talk about what a frame of reference is. > > > > I'm simply asking you if it is physically possible in nature for the > > > light from lightning strikes at A and B to reach M simultaneously. > > > Yes, in one reference frame. > > > > > > > > Do you agree Scenario 1 and Scenario two are physically possible in > > > > > > > nature? > > > > > Yes, but see my notes. > > > > > > > > Scenario 3: > > > > > > > > There are both a train frame of reference and an embankment frame of > > > > > > > reference. The frames of reference occupy completely different regions > > > > > > > of three dimensional space. The frames of reference never interact. > > > > > We obviously need to discuss what a frame of reference is. What you've > > > > described regarding frames of reference is not what a reference frame > > > > is. > > > > Ok, so let's not talk about frames of reference. The train is 100 > > > billion light years away from the embankment. > > > The distance makes no difference as far as reference frames are > > considered. ALL of 3-dimensional space is in each and every reference > > frame. > > > You don't want to talk about reference frames. But Einstein's gedanken > > is all about reference frames. We can talk about your animation if you > > like, even though it doesn't represent reality, but the moment you > > want to talk about Einstein's gedanken, we're going to have to talk > > about what reference frames are. > > > > Is it physically > > > possible for the light from lightning strikes at A' and B' to reach M' > > > simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' on the train and is > > > it physically possible for the light from lightning strikes at A and B > > > to reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M if the > > > train and the embankment are 100 billion light years apart and A and B > > > are 1 mile each from M and A' and B' are one mile each from M'? > > > Now, keep in mind that you are talking about FOUR lightning strikes: > > at A, A', B, B', and there is significant distance between each of > > them. > > > When we get around to talking about Einstein's gedanken, remember that > > there are only TWO lightning strikes. Any claim about what Einstein > > said has to be done in the context of TWO and only TWO lightning > > strikes. > > > The other thing I'd want to point out to you is that your animation > > DOES adopt a particular reference frame: the rest frame of A, B, and > > M. Do you understand that? Do you understand what a reference frame > > is? The reason I mention this is that your animation shows the light > > from A' and B' arriving at M' simultaneously IN THE REST FRAME OF A, > > B, AND M. This does not represent reality. > > You didn't answer the question: > > Is it physically > possible for the light from lightning strikes at A' and B' to reach M' > simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' on the train and is > it physically possible for the light from lightning strikes at A and B > to reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M if the > train and the embankment are 100 billion light years apart and A and B > are 1 mile each from M and A' and B' are one mile each from M'? Yes, with FOUR lightning strikes, it is certainly possible. In this scenario, in the rest frame of A, B, and M, the lightning strikes at A and B will be simultaneous, and the lightning strikes at A' and B' will NOT be simultaneous. And in the rest frame of A', B' and M', the lightning strikes at A and B will not be simultaneous, and the lightning strikes at A' and B' will be simultaneous. PD
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 15:35
On Dec 16, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 16, 12:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 16, 11:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Ok, so let's not talk about frames of reference. The train is 100 > > > > billion light years away from the embankment. Is it physically > > > > possible for the light from lightning strikes at A' and B' to reach M' > > > > simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' on the train and is > > > > it physically possible for the light from lightning strikes at A and B > > > > to reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M if the > > > > train and the embankment are 100 billion light years apart and A and B > > > > are 1 mile each from M and A' and B' are one mile each from M'? > > > > Let's assume logic prevails and if the train and the embankment are > > > 100 billion light years apart, light from lightning strikes at A' and > > > B' can reach M' simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' and > > > light from lightning strikes at A and B can reach M simultaneously as > > > determined by an Observer at M. > > > > So, when does SR 'kick in'? > > > > For some reason, in SR, in my animation, the train and the embankment > > > are too close to each other even though both exist in their own > > > regions of three dimensional space: > > > You apparently don't understand the train and the embankment scenario > > that Einstein was proposing. > > In that scenario, there are only TWO lightning strikes, not FOUR. > > > And you are wrong in thinking there are two frames that live in > > isolated regions of three-dimensional space. You have the impression > > that the train frame is the space inside the train and the embankment > > frame is the space outside the train. That is not what a frame of > > reference is. > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > For some reason, in SR, in my animation, the light from the lightning > > > strikes at A' and B' cannot reach M' simultaneously as determined by > > > an Observer at M' AND the light from the lightning strikes at A and B > > > cannot reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M. > > > In SR's train and embankment scenario, there are only TWO lightning > > strikes, not four. > > In SR's train and embankment scenario? > > You mean in Einstein's train and embankment scenario. Yes. > > I'm saying the SR interpretation of my animation where there are four > lightning strikes. Your animation is framed from the rest frame of A, B, and M. It does NOT show the events as seen in the rest frame of A', B' and M'. SR makes a statement about what happens in two different reference frames. Your animation only shows one. > > There is a difference between SR and Einstein's train thought > experiment. > > > > > > I would think a theory where the distance between the train and the > > > embankment where unique separate events on the train determines the > > > simultaneity of unique separate events on the embankment and vice > > > verse would cause the theory to be disregarded, but then again we are > > > discussing the dogma which is SR. |