Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited

[C***@comcast.net]

5. Marty sees the lightning strikes at different times. To you,
   the track observer, the reason is perfectly obvious. Although
   he was equidistant from the two strikes when they occurred,
   his forward motion causes him to meet with the forward pulse

==============================================
So the speeds of light for Marty are c+v and v-c, consistent with blue
and red shift.
The times the light reaches Marty are t1 and t2.
The distances the light travels are d1 = (v-c)t1 and d2 = (c+v)t2.
If Marty travels at v = c then the light from behind never reaches him.
You have no brain  to shut off.
 Loading Image...
You are a fuckwit.

The problem is, c+v and c-v has NEVER been observed.

Indeed, c+kv and c-kv has never been observed, with k as small
as 2e-9. There is no evidence, experimental or observational, for
any additivity effects of c with source velocity.

DeSitter, Physik. Zeitschr. 14, 429, (1913)
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm.

DeSitter, Physik. Zeitschr. 14, 1267, (1913)
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm.

Brecher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051–1054, 1236(E) (1977).
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Brecher_1977.pdf

Heckmann, Ann. d. Astrophys. 23 (1960), pg 410.

Observations of Supernovae - from Roberts' web site:
"A supernova explosion sends debris out in all directions with
speeds of 10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of
spectral lines). If the speed of light depended on the source
velocity, its arrival at Earth would be spread out in time due to
the spread of source velocities. Such a time spread is not
observed, and observations of distant supernovae give k < 5×10^-9.
These observations could be subject to criticism due to Optical
Extinction, but some observations are for supernovas considerably
closer than the extinction length of the X-ray wavelengths used."

Alvaeger et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964).
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Alvager_et_al_1964.pdf

Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), pg 271.

Babcock and Bergmann, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964).
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Babcock_Bergman_1964.pdf

Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Filippas_Fox_1964.pdf

Beckmann and Mandics, Radio Science, 69D, no. 4, pg 623 (1965).
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Beckmann_Mandics_1965.pdf

Operation of FLASH http://vuv-fel.desy.de/
For a simplified explanation as to why FLASH disproves BaTh,
see my post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4184b65957707e56

Jerry

[G]

Thanks for introducing this timely topic. By the way my posts on
'Square Peg round hole' have been
siphoned off by the Relativity Thought Police - but that's another
discussion

Let my try out my applet on you. Ken and Androcles have both shut
their brains off.
Please refer to the top applet on this page:http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/simultaneity/Simultaneou...
1. There is a train moving relative to the train tracks
2. There is an observer, Marty Feldman, at the exact midpoint of
the train. I used Marty as the observer because of his ability
to look forwards and backwards at the same time.
3. You are the observer on the embankment at the point directly
opposite Marty when the lightning strikes
4. Lightning strikes the ends of the train. At each end of the
train is a glass window. The lightning strikes the middle of
each glass window, leaving them a bit scorched.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Note carefully all steps past this point
-----------------------------------------------------------------
5. Marty sees the lightning strikes at different times. To you,
the track observer, the reason is perfectly obvious. Although
he was equidistant from the two strikes when they occurred,
his forward motion causes him to meet with the forward pulse

Why should Marty see the strikes at different times? He does not know
if the train is moving or not . The points are equidistant from him
and the velocity of light is c. Therefore equal times for him

==============================================
So the speeds of light for Marty are c+v and v-c, consistent with blue
and red shift.
The times the light reaches Marty are t1 and t2.
The distances the light travels are d1 = (v-c)t1 and d2 = (c+v)t2.
If Marty travels at v = c then the light from behind never reaches him.
You have no brain to shut off.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/closing.gif
You are a fuckwit.

[G]

Thanks for introducing this timely topic. By the way my posts on
'Square Peg round hole' have been
siphoned off by the Relativity Thought Police - but that's another
discussion

Let my try out my applet on you. Ken and Androcles have both shut
their brains off.
Please refer to the top applet on this page:http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/simultaneity/Simultaneou...
1. There is a train moving relative to the train tracks
2. There is an observer, Marty Feldman, at the exact midpoint of
the train. I used Marty as the observer because of his ability
to look forwards and backwards at the same time.
3. You are the observer on the embankment at the point directly
opposite Marty when the lightning strikes
4. Lightning strikes the ends of the train. At each end of the
train is a glass window. The lightning strikes the middle of
each glass window, leaving them a bit scorched.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Note carefully all steps past this point
-----------------------------------------------------------------
5. Marty sees the lightning strikes at different times. To you,
the track observer, the reason is perfectly obvious. Although
he was equidistant from the two strikes when they occurred,
his forward motion causes him to meet with the forward pulse
==============================================
So the speeds of light for Marty are c+v and v-c, consistent with blue
and red shift.

And consistent with the track being the ether frame . A preferred
frame.

The times the light reaches Marty are t1 and t2.
The distances the light travels are d1 = (v-c)t1 and d2 = (c+v)t2.
If Marty travels at v = c then the light from behind never reaches him.
You have no brain to shut off.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/closing.gif
You are a fuckwit.

[Martin Musatov]

Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must
therefore come to the conclusion that the speed of the signal
emitted from B is c+v as per the Principle of Relativity, but other
observers like Mug-iel Rios are too stooopid to understand that.

The only problem is that you run dead square against observation
and all experimental results.

=============================================
Not I and not Gehan. You do and Mug-iel do.
=============================================

Measurements of c+v and c-v have NEVER been observed.

=========================================
You lying motherfucker, blue and red shift are often observed,
but other cranks like Tom&Jeery are too fuckin' stooopid to
understand (c+v) = cf'/f.

Diffraction gratings, which are sensitive to wavelength, clearly
demonstrate that the assumption of constant lambda inherent in
your above formula is a false assumption.
===============================================
f stands for frequency
(c+v) = c/f * f' = lambda * f'.
With invariant frequency, (c+v) = lambda' * f.
The only thing that is NOT invariant is the speed, you useless
incompetent bastard.
You lying motherfucker, blue and red shift are often observed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

About $B!g(B Blog $B!g(B WikiWikiWeb(tm)
(c)2009 MeAmI.org "Search for the People"

Powered by infinity: $B!g(B

[Sue...]

 f stands for frequency
(c+v) = c/f  * f'  = lambda * f'.
With invariant frequency, (c+v) = lambda' * f.
The only thing that is NOT invariant is the speed, you useless
incompetent bastard.

==============

How do police radars work if frequency is invariant?

If the frequency of the reflected signal
has not varied, the radar antenna and the
target are in the same inertial frame.
(co-moving)

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

Where the motion of a *charge* significantly
approaches the speed of light, a relativistic
correction applies.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html

Sue...

[G]

f stands for frequency
(c+v) = c/f * f' = lambda * f'.
With invariant frequency, (c+v) = lambda' * f.
The only thing that is NOT invariant is the speed, you useless
incompetent bastard.

How do police radars work if frequency is invariant?

=================
By measuring v + c and subtracting c, you cretin.

Amazing! I always thought Doppler radar worked by heterodyning
the returned signal with the transmited signal (in CW radar
systems) or, alternatively, using FFT or autocorrelation
techniques to determine the average frequency shift of the
returned pulses (in pulse Doppler radar).
Not only do you fantasize physics, you also fantasize basic
electronics as it suits you.
Jerry
========================================
Take a heterodyned return signal to a court of law and explain
it to a judge, shithead.
But anyway, the average frequency shift is f'
and f' = f * (c+v)/c according to the experimental physicist
f' = f * (c+v)/c
f'/f = (c+v)/c
cf'/f = c+v
v = cf'/f -c
and the value of v is given to the judge.
Amazing, isn't it, you fucking cretin!
Blue shift is observed by police radar.
Hence c+v is MEASURED, you lying motherfucker.
Not only do you fantasize physics, you also fantasize basic
algebra as it suits you.
What is the speed of this wave, which clearly
has a frequency and a wavelength?
http://tinyurl.com/ph5l22
You don't even understand the PoR.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm
If you actually DID think you'd run a pointer alongside a travelling wave
and realise it had an undefined wavelength and a zero frequency in the
frame of the pointer.
Loading Image...
Run the pointer the other way, the frequency is doubled and the wavelength
Loading Image...
F*****g m***n!

Please Androcles, using insults only helps them label us a desparate.

How Radar Works?

How Radar Guns Work
http://www.radarguns.com/how-radar-guns-work.html

"In short, Doppler Principle states that when a radar signal hits the
object that is moving toward the observer/patrol vehicle, the
returning frequency will be higher than the original. When the signal
hits that object/vehicle that is moving away from the observer, the
returning frequency will be lower than the original one. The frequency
change can be used to determine the speed of the target vehicle. "

c = lambda x f

If f changes, then either lambda or c has to change?
Can we know which one changes?

[doug]

Diffraction gratings are sensitive to lambda, and have established
that lambda changes.

============================================
Diffraction gratings are sensitive to velocity, and have established
that velocity changes.

Thomas Young established the wave theory of light two centuries
ago. Among the many experiments that he conducted were ripple
tank experiments, which he used to demonstrate interference, and
the double-slit experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Young_(scientist)
In two hundred years, there has been absolutely no reason to
challenge the standard treatment of how diffraction gratings
work. You want to claim that the standard theory of diffraction
gratings is wrong, that they are sensitive to velocity rather
than wavelength? Prove it!
http://gratings.newport.com/information/handbook/chapter2.asp
Jerry

You forget you are talking to androcles. If he thinks something
should be wrong, he just lies about it. Androcles knows no
science, he just knows he hates people who do.

[Peter Webb]

In four hundred years, there has been absolutely no reason to
challenge the standard AXIOM of how velocities add, and
only fuckin morons like you and Einstein would do so.

No, at the time, there were at least two good reasons to consider changing
how velocities add (now there are many):

1. Maxwell's equations had just provided a theoretical basis for the whole
EM spectrum, and by 1900 we had some practical experience in using Maxwell's
eqns to generate (say) radio waves. As was well known by 1900, the
transformation for adding velocities in Maxwell's eqns is the Lorentz
transform, not the Galilean as had been used for "normal" objects. If these
two use different transformations, then there must be a single reference
frame where they agree, ie a privileged rest frame.

Returning to Galileo's thought experiment in the ship, if EM waves transform
according to Lorentz, and cannonballs according to normal addition of
velocities, then it would be possible for the person in the ship to tell if
they are moving by conducting experiments comparing the behaviour of light
and real objects.

This directly violates Galileo's relativity principle, which is a foundation
of Newtonian physics.

This problem was widely known at the time.

2. The results of the MM experiment, which directly put this to the test,
and confirmed that both light and real world objects transform according to
velocity addition in exactly the same way, without actually saying what that
way is.

So even at the time of Einstein's SR, there were very good reasons indeed -
theoretical and experimental - to doubt simple addition of velocities.

I hope this helps.

Peter Webb

[mpc755]

Emission Theory is the correct theory when describing Einstein's Train
Gedanken.

How wonderful, Kook755 is back to do more babbling.  Well, 755, at the
risk of spoiling the pristine ignorance that you and your fellow kooks
value so highly, Einstein's train gedanken was intended as a common-sense,
easy-to-understand description of a particular aspect of Relativity.  Get
it?  It was designed to explain, to lay-persons, what Relativity says.
"Emission Theory" can't do that, Junior.

How wonderful, Kookjem is back to do more babbling.  Well, jem, at the
risk of spoiling the pristine ignorance that you and your fellow kooks
 value so highly, Einstein's train gedanken was intended as a
easy-to-understand description of a particular aspect of Bullshit,
which is very easy to understand.
If the flashes of light travels at c along the train then the stationmaster
will see the light from the caboose arrive first and the passenger will
see the flashes simultaneously.
If the flashes of light travels at c along the track then the passenger
will see the light from the locomotive arrive first and the stationmaster
will see the flashes simultaneously.
If the flashes of light travel at c in both frames of reference
simultaneously
then cretin Einstein's assertion "Hence the observer will see the beam of
light
emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A" contradicts
idiot Einstein's crackpot theory, YOU IMBECILE.
 Loading Image...

I see it somewhat differently.

I see the light traveling at 'c' in both frames.

This does not mean the light ever travels at 'c+v' or 'c-v' in either
frame.

The light emanates outward from A at 'c' as if A is stationary.

The light emanates outward from A' at 'c' as if A' is stationary.

When the light from the lightning strike at A' reaches the Observer at
M, it will travel from where A' *is* to M.

When the light from the lightning strike at A reaches the Observer at
M, it will travel from where A *is* to M.

The light from A' travels a shorter distance to M than does the light
from A.

The problem I see with Einstein's train thought experiment is for some
reason people say that since the light from A travels from A to M,
then the light from A' also has to travel from A to M.

It doesn't.

The light from A' travels from A' to M.

[Uncle Ben]

...

---Tim Shuba---

Since the cretin Shuba is neither a physicist nor an educator and
only theoretical physicists (who are failed mathematicians) are
remotely interested in Einstein's idiotic drivel we can safely
dismiss his vicious and vitriolic bullshit.
...
- Show quoted text -

Speaking of cretins,  take a look at a recent review of Androcles's

Let's see how well the British educational system has worked for
our friend, John Parker, aka Androcles, when his lion is not around to
feed him the answers.
1. We have it on record today that he  thinks the
celebrated Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction of SR
is not a contraction at all, but an expansion.
Everyone else 1; Androcles 0.

Not everyone else. Only fuckwits like you too stupid to do arithmetic.
Suppose the length of the barn is 10m, and the length of the
pole is also 10m when at rest in the barn.
Being a barn, it is closed at one end and the door is closed
as the pole enters. It will fit when at rest.
 Calculate the length of the pole when moving at 0.866c.
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2)
 Loading Image...
xi = (10m)/sqrt (1-0.866^2/1^2)
 = (10m)/sqrt (1-0.75)
 = (10m)/sqrt (0.25)
 = (10m)/0.5
   = 20m
It will not fit until it is brought to a sudden stop.
Why do you incompetent fuckin' lunatics call it length
 "contraction"?
Bonehead 0, Androcles 2.

2. Elementary arithmetic:  Androcles has asserted recently in many
posts that an infinitesimal is a number that is the smallest real
number greater than zero.

Not true, you lying cunt.
Androcles defined h as the smallest real number greater than zero.
Lemma: h is not divisible by any number greater than h.
Suppose h were divisible by a number greater than h; then the
quotient would be less than h which is against the supposition
that h is the smallest number. There are no numbers less than h
which can divide h, but h can be divided by h to give a quotient
of one which is greater than h.
Lying fraud Bonehead 0, Androcles 3.

But elementary arithmetic of real, or even fractional, numbers, shows
that any number h that is claimed to be the smallest such number
greater than zero can be divided by two and get an even smaller number
greater than zero.

Nobody divides h by 2 and it cant be by my lemma.

School children 1: Androcles 0.

School children maken no such claim, you lying cunt.
Lying fraud Bonehead 0, Androcles 4.

3. Elementary calculus.  The derivative f' of a function
f(x) is defined as the limit of f(x+d) - f(x) divided by d as d tends
toward 0.  Androcles says this is nonsense because you can't divide by
d when d = 0.  Every passing student of first-year calculus knows why
he is incorrect.
First-year calculus students 1; Androcles 0

Not true, you lying cunt.
Androcles defined d as the smallest real number greater than zero.
Lying fraud Bonehead 0, Androcles 5.

4. Ability to read.  Androcles has animated one of Einstein's gedanken
experiments to illustrate how stupid Einstein was to argue that
simultaneity is relative to one's frame of reference.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/simultaneous.gif
http:/www.barteby.com/173/8.html
You, the good reader, 1; Androcles 0

Lying fraud Bonehead 0, Androcles 6.

Four is enough.  Draw your own conclusion.
Uncle Ben

Section 5 says
"with the help of the equations of transformation developed in § 3 ",
Bonehead, and section 3 says
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" which appears in the
development of the inequality of transformation,  Bonehead,
 Loading Image...
alongside the term t = x'/(c+v), which should be  x' * (1+v/c)/(c+v)
with the help of the inconsistent composition of velocities in section 5.
§ 3  ---> § 5 ---> § 3  ---> § 5 --->§ 3  ---> § 5 ---> § 3  ---> § 5 --->§
3   ad infinitum
It follows that the equations of transformation cannot be derived.
"SQUAWK! It's a closing velocity, you don't know the difference
between c+v and (c+v)/(1+v/c), Androcles! SQUAWK! SQUAWK!  " -- Uncle
Bonehead
You haven't disappointed me, you are the same bullshitting cretin
you always were.  I castigated you on your piss poor reading
of Einstein's 1905 paper and it is necessary to do so again. I note
Harald van lintel has fucked off with his tail between his legs, having
seen the light. Isn't it time you did the same? Get used to the idea,
you are unloved and stooopid. Fuck off.
 Our redneck Bonehead, stuck firmly in the Nineteenth Century,
is waving his hands and offering no evidence or MATHEMATICAL
derivation for his idiotic claim.
In the Twenty-first Century, we KNOW that the answer is v1+ v2 as it
always was and we also KNOW that Uncle Bonehead is totally
incompetent at algebra, as was his bullshitting tin god. Go on,
Bonehead, bluster some more.

Watch out, folks! He's gonna blow! Women and children, take cover!