Re: Problem with Einstein's Train Thought Experiment

On May 2, 9:41 pm, jrysk...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 2, 10:10 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 2, 11:53 am, jrysk...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

I agree that M and M' cannot be the same point in three dimensional
space because M is on the embankment and M' is on the train.

But that doesn't tell us what is occurring when a lightning strike
occurs at both A and A' and a second lightning strike also occurs at
B
and B'.

Simultaneity of Relativity does.

The answer to this is simple:  there is no A' or B' in the train
experiment.  Don't rewrite Einstein.  The problem with a lot of
commentators on the train experiment is that they rewrite it, trying
to correct for an error which they sense is there, but cannot
identify.

That is what you are doing.  Stick STRICTLY to the terms of the
experiment.  And don't say you are doing so, because you are the one
who inserted A' and B', when they are nowhere to be found in the train
experiment.

Go back, think carefully, and you will see that I am right.

And also, what exactly do you think Einstein is trying to DO in the
train experiment.  I think YOU think Einstein is trying to present an
argument with logical content, because I think YOU want an argument
with logical content.

Well, welcome to the world of "practical geometry" (constructivist
mathematics), in which the authors arguments do NOT want to present
arguments with logical content, because they believe such argument
only lead to paradox.

So watch out for this.  You are trying to defend Einstein from a
charge which he would ADMIT.

Indeed your observations have some support.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-r5IGSTJVPcC&pg=PA4&source=gbs_selec...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Sue...

 I suggest, to get a better grasp of the
history of mathematics out of which relativity emerges, you go back
over Einstein's "Geometry and Experience" essay, and also read a
wonderful book, A Garciadiego, BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE ORIGINS OF THE
SET-THEORETIC 'PARADOXES.'

To say that the relativity of simultaneity lacks logical content, is
merely to say what Einstein himself believed.  My only contribution is
to say WHERE the logic of the argument falls down.  Just look at the
train experiment again, without changing it, and you will see that I
am obviously right.  I mean, come on, the geometry isn't clear enough
to you? and the artibtrary insertion Einstein makes isn't clear enough
to you?  What is this?  Just wake up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

These sources don't really reflect an understanding of "practical
geometry."  

Did you miss the metaphysics URL?

And they don't pinpoint the central logical problem.

You said Einstein pinpointed it. And he did.
And the source says he did.

That's my little accomplishment.  No one has noticed it before.  I am
sure that the reason is, almost everyone shares Einstein's
constructivist mathematical orientation.  Fine.  Share it.  But don't
share it and then come back and say the relativity of simultaneity has
logical content, because it doesn't.  Either sign on to logical
content or leave Einstein alone.

Einstein said it is not based on logic.
Is your birth certificate older than his?


I think that, unconsciously, scientists do NOT support constructivist
mathematics.  However, if you weren't able to locate the
constructivist import into the relativity of simultaneity, what else
could you say but that, for all you knew, it did have logical content.

You are now reading minds. Also illogical.


But it's all over now.  The more you think about "natural" coincidence
and the role it plays, the further you will distance yourself from
past ideas and intellectual orientations.  Let's fact it: Brouwer,
Cantor, Godel and the rest of the gang notwithstanding, people were,
sooner or later, going to get fed up with the complete nonsense which
is constructivist mathematics, and start rooting it out of theory.
"Outing" "natural" coincidence is a start.  Hooray!!

<<Torsion balance, measuring acceleration of different masses
towards the earth, sun and galactic center, using several
different kinds of masses

difference is less than a few parts in a trillion >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
Let the "outing" begin.

Sue...


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Problem with Einsteins Train Thought Experiment
    ... space because M is on the embankment and M' is on the train. ...  Don't rewrite Einstein. ... mathematics), in which the authors arguments do NOT want to present ... is constructivist mathematics, and start rooting it out of theory. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Problem with Einsteins Train Thought Experiment
    ... space because M is on the embankment and M' is on the train. ...  Don't rewrite Einstein. ... mathematics), in which the authors arguments do NOT want to present ... is constructivist mathematics, and start rooting it out of theory. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Proposal for an experiment to differentiate SRT from LET
    ... This is so because both theories use the same mathematics ... the Lorentz transform. ... Imagine you have a train with a laser mounted at right angles at X. ... We do not need to perform this experiment - It would hit T' not T just ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How cranks maintain their delusions
    ... Einstein was an incompetent fraud when he claimed to have demonstrated ... the Relativity of Simultaneity as a consequence of his Special ... He tells us to consider a train passing moving at high speed. ... we have to say that these lightning strikes are simultaneous ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR fundamental contradiction
    ... | Nobody but you is claiming that. ... Relativity has more holes in it than the cheese Einstein ate in Switzerland. ... |> It represents the time of the reflection. ... | The length of the train is the same in both directions. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)