Re: Stupid Einstein question.

From: suzysewnshow (suzysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 08/30/04 

Date: 30 Aug 2004 02:52:59 -0700

rbwinn3@juno.com (Robert B. Winn) wrote in message news:<a17e5e0e.0408291605.49f04719@posting.google.com>...
> suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au (suzysewnshow) wrote in message news:<e0a23188.0408290819.29e85728@posting.google.com>...
> > [decapitated]
> > > > >
> > > > > > We might look to another opportunity. If the two observers fire
> > > > > > identical cannon at each other when coincident(for each FOR) flashes
> > > > > > are detected, the balls will be midway between the two cannon when
> > > > > > they collide.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rod: If properly aligned, yes of course.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rod Ryker...
> > > > > It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The ability to simultaneously fire identical cannon, can be shown a
> > > > > > prerequisite to such a mid-point collision by deductive reason.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind regards, Sue...
> > > > > >
> > >
> > > The only thing different in the two frames of reference is time.
> By Decree? AE has yet to prove such possibility.
> > > If
> > > lightning strikes both ends of the train simultaneously,
> > Yes the plamsa is a bad idea. A real drag on a near c train.
> > So we must have:
> > Four emitters A A' B B'
> > The pulse of current from wheel to track will do this. M' will have to
> > stick his head out a window. LOL
> >
> > > then an
> > > observer midway between the two strikes of lightning in the frame of
> > > reference of the embankment[ M ] sees the two strikes [A B] of lightning in a
> > > time of d=ct, where d is half the length of the train. In like
> > > manner, an observer on the train [ M' ] at the middle of the train sees the
> > > two flashes [A' B'] of light simultaneously [by first postulate] in a time of d=ct', where d is
> > > half the length of the train and t' is the time as shown by his clock
> > > on the train.
> > No funny clocks yet. AE has yet to make the case that they can exist
> > or describe their mechanism.
> > THAT is the quest of this gedanken experiment.
> > >
> > > This can be proven by the equations
> > >
> > > x=wt
> > Does t' represent a funny clock?
> t' is defined as time in K'.
>
> > If so then your "proof" is based only on it's own assumption.
> No, my proof uses no clocks other than photons, which are defined to
> be traveling with a velocity which has the magnitude of c and in this
> problem a direction of + or- on the x axis. Therefore, a photon
> traveling in the +x direction has a velocity of +c and t= x/c,
> t'=x'/c. A photon traveling in the -x direction has a velocity of
> -c, and t=x/-c, t'=x'/-c. This refers to a photon emitted at the
> origin of K or K' when t=t'=0.
>
> > > x'=wt'
> > > x'=x-vt
> > > Where w is the velocity of a photon, and v is the velocity of the
> > > train relative to the embankment.
> > >
>
> > > From the frame of reference of the train, the equations would be
> > >
> > > x=wt
> > > x'=wt'
> > > x=x'-v't'
> > >
> > > where w is the velocity of a photon, and v' is the velocity of the
> > > embankment relative to the train. This velocity is the negative of
> > > the velocity of the train to the embankment.
> > > A photon from the lightning at the rear of the train has a velocity
> > > of +c as it travels to either observer. A photon from the lightning
> > > at the front of the train has a velocity of -c as it travels to either
> > > observer.
> > > Robert B. Winn
> > AE is TRYING to prove the principle of relativity, not the
> > practicality of Dr. Who's Tardis.
> > Cross his t's , dot his i's and let the dear professor rest in peace.
> > :-)
> > Kind regards,
> > Sue...
> Well, I have no idea what you are trying to say. It seems like some
> kind of political statement to me.
> Robert B. Winn

In your case it probably could be taken that way. I see you are
another member of the slow learners club.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=Robert+B.+Winn&btnG=Search&meta=group%3Dsci.physics.relativity
Bye
Sue...