Re: The relativity of simultaneity

On Jul 30, 7:12 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 28, 6:10 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jul 28, 3:05 pm, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 28, 1:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 28, 10:14 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Einstein's conclusion is wrong. Why? Because he failed to realize that
his stipulations requires that the flashes were simultaneous to begin
with.

This is the remarkable part about Seto. He is perfectly happy to read
two or three successive paragraphs in something that Einstein wrote
and claim that when Einstein wrote one sentence, he must have meant
"A", and that when he wrote another sentence just a little further
down the page, he must have meant "B", where A and B are mutually
inconsistent.

Hey idiot....if A is the SR constant light speed postulate and B is
the concept of RoS then indeed that they are mutually inconsistent
with each other.

It does not cross his mind that Einstein would not be so
stupid to say two inconsistent sentences on the same page.

But he was kind of naive and failed to apply his constant light
postulate to the situation.....if he did he wouldn't use closing speed
as observed by the track observer to reach the bogus conclusion that
in the train frame the train observer sees the front light flash
before the rear light flash. He seemed not to know that closing speed
does not affect thesimultaneityof events in the train.

It does not
cross Seto's mind that it there is even the remotest possibility that
he has a reading comprehension problem, and that if two sentences on
the same page appear contradictory, then Seto might be
misunderstanding one of them.

I have no reading comprwehension problem. The problem is that you
refused to accpet that RoS is contradictory to the SR postulate.

It also does not occur to Seto that
thousands of readers who have read the *same* sentences on the same
page can read them and understand them without apparent contradiction,
and that if the contradiction were that plain, it would have occurred
*instantly* to the first ten readers of the page.

Is that now your arguement? A large number of people accept what
Einstein said so Einstein must be right? Maybe they are like you who
is a fanatic of SR religion.

It is Seto's personality defect that completely prevents him from
flagging a possible error on his part. Admission of an error would be
lethal to Seto's psyche, and so it is simply an impossibility. There
is no amount of reasoning or explanation or painting into  a corner
that will result in Seto understanding, let alone admitting, that he
has made a simple error. You might as well be asking a fish to ride a
bicycle.

There is no error in my part. I demonstrated the contradiction between
the constant light speed postulate of SR and the SR concept of RoS.
The correct explanation by the LT why the train observer will see the
flash simultaneously is as follows:
1. The time interval for the track observer to see the flashes
simultaneously is Delta(t)= 0.5L/c according to the track clock.
2. The LT equation for the transformation of this time interval in the
track frame to the train frame is:
Delta(t')= gamma[Delta(t)-vx/c^2]
3. When the train observer is coincide with the track observer x=0 and
the above equation becomes:
Delta(t')= gamma[Delta(t)]
This means that the train observer will see the flashes to be
simultaneous at an elapsed time of gamma[Delta(t)] according to the
track clock.

If you want a meaningful discussion debunk the above correct
explanation. I don't want to waste time and discuss what Einstein said
anymore.

Ken Seto

Thank you for making my point so abundantly confirmed, Ken. The
defendant has cross-examined himself, despite advice from the bench
not to.

Note in postscript that when Ken gets a glimmer that he is not doing
so well on matters of objective fact (such as what it is that Einstein
actually wrote down in black and white), then he likes to redirect the
discussion to his own assertions, which have nothing to do with
objective facts. This way, he can simply change the nature of the
"meaningful discussion" to "Prove me wrong!", and wherein he can
settle into a far more comfortable pattern of simply repeating
himself.

Fucking idiot....Einstein is wrong when he said that the train
observer will see the front light front befor ethe rear light front.
So why would I want to spend any more time on it?

Just as I suspected you do not want a meaningful discussion on the
following:
The correct explanation by the LT why the train observer will see the
flash simultaneously is as follows:
1. The time interval for the track observer to see the flashes
simultaneously is Delta(t)= 0.5L/c according to the track clock.
2. The LT equation for the transformation of this time interval in
the
track frame to the train frame is:
Delta(t')= gamma[Delta(t)-vx/c^2]
3. When the train observer is coincide with the track observer x=0 and
the above equation becomes:
Delta(t')= gamma[Delta(t)]
This means that the train observer will see the flashes to be
simultaneous at an elapsed time of gamma[Delta(t)] according to the
track clock.

If you want a meaningful discussion debunk the above correct
explanation. I don't want to waste time and discuss what Einstein said
anymore.

Ken Seto





There is no point in attempting to teach a pig to see elementary
logic. You just get dirty, and the pig just wants to wrestle in the
mud anyway.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
You are not understanding the relativity of simultaneity as
constructivist math (what Einstein called "practical geometry").
That's not so surprising, because until now no one knew exactly how
Einstein had used constructivist math in formulating the relativity of
simultaneity. However, we do now: it's the "natural" coincidence he
imported into the formulation. Here is a discussion of it, and some
discussion of the influence of utterly ridiculous constructivist math
on the twentieth century.

Unfortuately, constructivism proceeds on the assumption that arguments
must have their logical content removed or they will end in
"paradox." For this bugaboo, Einstein destroyed whatever ideas he
ever had. Isn't it absurd?

You probably don't have any interest in living in the 21st century--
most people are MUCH to vain to educate themselves. They prefer their
prejudices. But if you can manage to struggle free of your vanity,
you may begin your education in twentieth-century ideas by reading A.
Garciadiego, BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE ORIGINS OF THE SET-THEORETIC
'PARADOXES.'

Sooner or later, if you manage this, you will realize that the
question before us is this:

where is "natural" coincidence in the Pythagorean theorem?

It will prove beyond your powers to address this question, and you
will lapse back into your prejudices.


Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and
Twentieth-Century Ideas" (June 17, 2008). Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085





.

Quantcast