So you refuse to even read anything about SR? How is your behaviour not exactly like the “religious” behaviour you complain about?
The burden is on you to demonstrate that your scenario makes sense. Show us exactly how your flashers accelerate.
Simple, I demand that you think about what you preach. Show your logic.
No. I showed my logic. If you want to claim that it is in error, that is YOUR assertion to support with YOUR logic. If your logic is merely “but my bible says you are wrong”, then as I said earlier, I have no more to say to you against your faith, except that you are still on the wrong forum.
Your logic was simply to say, “they accelerate at the same time in every reference frame.” But that’s an assertion that needs proof before we can accept it, especially since SR includes the relativty of simultaneity, as anyone who can read knows.
I am not simply quoting some Bible, I am referencing the actual theory that you claim to be discussing. If anyone goes to read the links, they see immediately that you know nothing about what you are talking about. If you would rather whinge about being shown up rather than try to defend your position, that’s fine with me.
Folks, not that I understand one iota of what is being discussed here, but could the participants in this thread doing so not get bent all out of shape. You’d think ideas being shared here are of life or death consequence. Countering arguments can be made showing data without useless bickering. I would say show the damning evidence which would facilitate some understanding, except I wouldn’t recognize it if it flew off the screen and bit me on the backside. While I appreciate people’s participation in this forum, it seems possible to me that civility should be an important attribute during discussions. Thanks. 
No it doesn’t. That is the setup of the scenario. If it isn’t done that way, you are not doing the experiment right.
No. YOU are discussing that theory from your holy Scripture. I am talking about the scenario and the logical paradox it presents to Galilean relativity. Either quote and support your bible passage or bail out (just as Liteninbolt just said).
First, you have no experiment, just a scenario. Second, if you want to imagine that, then you are simply declaring that SR is untrue from the start. If that’s the case, then why try to decieve everyone with the “paradox”? If you can’t do the mathematics to describe the acceleration in your own scenario, then you again demonstrate your inability to undertstand this subject.
But let’s talk about positions. From here: fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein says, “So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.” If you want the demonstration, follow the link and read it. If you have never read that paper, then you are not simply irresponsible in attacking SR, you are just plain crazy.
Who cares about Galilean Relativity? It’s already been shown to be false many, many times.
No. YOU are declaring it to be false by saying that it applies when it actually doesn’t.
It seems that it is YOU who cannot do the mathematics that you claim causes one flasher to disagree with the other. YOU merely claim that they are not in sync. YOU cannot support that notion at all except to say, "Einstein said they won’t be in sync", which he didn’t really say.
By showing that Galilean relativity is incorrect, everything Einstein did becomes incorrect deduction because he assumed Galilean relativity as his premise.
Which I have NOT done.
Is that your confusion?
I take it that you never realized that he was talking about events taking place as in a collision that was generated within the moving frame (as in his railcar scenario relating to relativity of simultaneity). In my scenario, no such collision was proposed. The clocks merely maintain their sync because from either frame, they both experience the exact same influence. In one frame they both accelerate identically (else you didn’t do it right, start over). In the other frame, they are not touched.
Thus from EITHER frame, the laws of physics do not allow them to be out of sync if they were originally in sync. To get one of them out of sync, you have to DO something to them and do something differently to one than the other. That is merely common sense as well as fundamental physics.
Yeah, anyone not worshiping your lord and master is “crazy”.
Obviously you do not know the origin of your scriptures and the prophets that wrote them. Einstein ASSUMED Galilean relativity before he began. Thus when Galilean relativity is shown to be false, special relativity and general relativity sink and have to be revisited if they are to be brought back to life.
The scenario very clearly shows that the very foundation upon which all relativity theories rest, is flawed.
If you think otherwise, SHOW THE MATH/LOGIC and stop merely quoting from the debunked scripture (“I know it is true because the Bible told me so.”)
Well, I think it’s pretty much established that you are simply a crank, JSS. If you seriously think that SR relies on Galilean Relativity, then you are, frankly, insane. I guess this is over.
(PS. You can’t debunk crazy. physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=422354 )
Haha… yeah. Since you cannot show the math/logic that you claim debunks it, I would say that you have little choice but to bail out.
Besides, all that you have been saying from the start has been a waste. The scenario stipulated that at 4:00-t all clocks would be in sync. So even if your imagined law of SR was true, all it would mean would be that when you began the run, the clocks (or flashers) would have to be desychronized enough to allow for any alteration that is proposed to happen merely because they moved.
You had actually lost before you began.
Just to make it more clear, I have added the following summary to the OP scenario;
Lol your a comedian and your sophistry makes no difference you’re still utterly lost in a sea of faulty assumptions. I’m going to leave you to your mindless prevarication, we’re wasting our time trying to have a reasoned conversation with you. You are right and every other scientist on the planet is wrong because of some maths bullshit you made up. All evidence supports relativity is wrong and they are just making stuff up because faulty a priori logic trumps experiment. 
You still haven’t explained why all evidence dismisses Aether theories and supports relativity, because you can’t. Apparently Einstein assumes that there are absolute frames of reference now or Galilean time, what bullshit he started from Galilean time and then showed how it was false using his transforms. Sink Galilean time and you support relativity, how many times do people have to say this?
You’re just ignoring all my posts again. When I say that “if A = B and B = C, then A = C” etc is false as an axiom unless all things are identical between frames of reference, it behoves you to challenge this or at the very least have the courtesy to discuss it. I’ve explained why your logic is wrong and how real world experiment makes it wrong, and how therefore Galilean assumptions about frames are false, you’re just reiterating logically incoherent garbage as if reality somehow is changed by it, what is the point? Your logic relies on a demonstrably false axiom and is circular. If God exists then God exists.
You’re not even a crackpot, that would assume you understand what you are talking about, you are just flat out wrong. I’ll leave you to it perhaps physbang can penetrate your adamantium skull with reason.
I’d tell you to take this to that physics forum where many of the mods are professional scientists who might penetrate your illogical bluster, but you already did and everything you said was completely debunked and you still maintain you are right, so there’s really nothing more to say, go on believing what you do, you will be a cult of one though. I hope that works out for you. In science experiment is king not maths and not specious logic. Experiment ultimately dictates the maths and the logic not the other way around.
I’ll leave you with this: Galilean invariance is also known as Newtonian invariance:
This isn’t a competition this is a vain struggle to make someone understand the relatively simple equations of a theory that is solidly supported by all experiment and debunks Galilean time. The Michelson-Morley Experiment shows there is no aether dragging effect and that Einstein’s theory thus holds true. This amongst all the other experimental examples I gave is enough to confirm the theory of relativity and to dismiss your pointless mathematical posturings, which are demonstrably false.
In a sense the only failure here is our inability to persuade you of your delusions and your inability to comprehend the basics of a theory. In that sense we all failed but meh if it makes you feel better chalk up an imaginary score on an imaginary chalk board. Whatever.
How very Zen Sen Se.
But he is right: to engage with him is to lose. It is better to simply and directly warn people off.
Hi Guys,
The Galilean transform is given by:
The light sphere is given by:
Substituting for the unprimed variables above we get:
Expanding x’ – vt’ we get:
This is almost the right equation for the light sphere in the primed coordinate system except that we will need -2vx’t’ = 0 in every case. This in turn requires that 2v = 0, and since v is the velocity of the moving reference frame, v is not 0.
Therefore the Galilean transform does not require a constant speed of light in all reference frames.
This is not surprising since the Michelson Morley experiments were not completed until the late 1800’s. (I will not ridicule Einstein’s veracity here, tempting though it may be).
The Lorentzian transforms can be found at:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
Under Lorentz transformation for frames in standard configuration, you will see the time transform.
It is clear, due to the fact that the clocks on the moving frame are all located at different positions, (all different xs) that, as viewed from the station clock, the train clock times will all be different.
Ed
Whoops! The -v should be +v from the third equation on!
I’m not sure you are addressing the actual situation with that. The setup is that whatever is necessary is done such as to ensure that the flashers and clocks all read 4:00-t at the moment the flashers are centered about the station clock;
So there can be no doubt that all clocks read the same at the moment of flash. Of course once the light has traveled to the clocks, they might not read the same (certainly wouldn’t). But the question doesn’t really involve what the clocks read since the mere logic seems to imply that both clocks would have to stop and also not stop, regardless of what time they read.
Hi James,
I am reasonably confident that an absolute reference frame, at least one that uses the Galilean transform, is logically absurd.
However, I am not so confident that I can dismiss your paradox.
In any case I will need more time to think about it.
Thanks Ed
Farsight has actually been answering that one. The solution is that we and all of our measuring tools are made of the same light we try to measure. Thus all measurement gets “dilated” because as it goes, we too must go. We can get into the equations using an absolute frame sometime if I can get anyone past this little paradox challenge.
Take your time. I appreciate the effort.
Hi James, I apologize for not having read the whole of this thread, so if i repeat arguments let me know and I’ll look for your comments on them. But from our recent interactions, I get the impression that you feel the discussion is pretty close to square 1.
My comment in the other thread that you are assuming that two things happen simultaneously in different reference frame was not referring to the flashing of the lights, but the flashing of the lights and the alignment of the clocks. The lights are supposed to flash when the two clocks are lined up, but that moment is different from different frames of reference. The reason you arrive at a paradox is because you assume that the lights flash when the clocks are next to each other in both frames of reference. But the two events will not be simultaneous. In one frame of reference, the lights will flash earlier or later than expected, while in the other they will flash simultaneously.
The resolution to the paradox, then, is that one clock will be stopped, representing the frame of reference in which the lights flashed at the same time the clocks passed, and the other clock will not have stopped because the light from the flashes (which in this frame of reference were not equidistant from the clock) arrived at different times. This result is seemingly paradoxical, but it the problem is essentially a pure demonstration of Relativity of Simultaneity.
Okay, since the simultaneity of the flashing seems to be the most popular concern, let me label that one;
Objection 1; Simultaneity of flashing
A) Flashers will not flash in sync according to one or the other frame
B) Flashers will not flash when they are centered about P1 according to one or the other frame
Math/Logic for belief; "Hell if I know, couldn’t think of anything else."
Answer 1;
The train railcar starts by being centered at position P0. Flashers F and B (Front and Back) are synchronized and set to flash together when the train reaches the station.
At initial time T0, equal force is applied to the flashers via the train so as to accelerate them together with acceleration “a”. When the train reaches its working velocity, v, the force is reduced so as to merely maintain the velocity and no longer accelerate. This acceleration is achieved over the distance d1.
The train continues at constant velocity for an additional distance of d2 where it reaches the station. At the distance d1+d2, the flashers are exactly centered around the station clock at P1. This entire process takes “tt” seconds to occur as measured by the station clock.
Train’s travel time as per station clock = “tt”
Train distance traveled per station frame = P1 – P0 = d1+d2
Thus as measured by the station clock, at T0+tt, the flashers will be centered and equal distance from the station clock, one fore and aft.
Desiring the flashers to flash simultaneously at T0+tt station time, their internal clocks are set to flash after a time of T0+tt+tf where “tf” is any proposed time dilation component necessary to add due to the train being in motion. Since both flashers experience the exact same acceleration together, tf is equal for both flashers.
Time of flash per station’s frame Tfs = T0+tt, at P1
Time of flash per train’s frame Tft = T0+tt+tf, at P1
Thus when the station clock reads T0+tt the flashers will each read T0+tt+tf and flash. The light traveling from the flashers becomes independent of the trains motion and both light rays from the flashers must travel the same distance, “dps”, to reach the station clock, one traveling forward with the train and one backward.
If the light is traveling at a constant speed relative to the station clock, at this point it can be seen that at T0+tt+(dps/c), as measured by the station clock, the station clock will experience simultaneous photon strikes and will stop.
===========
Train Clock
But also back at P0 and T0, the train clock was positioned exactly in the center between the flashers and synchronized to them. The train clock experiences the exact same acceleration and eventual velocity as the flashers and thus at time T0+tt+tf, when the flashers are centered around P1 and flash, the train clock will still be exactly centered between the flashes.
If the flashed light is traveling at constant velocity relative to the train clock, each ray, fore and aft, will travel the same distance, “dpt” as measured by the train.
Thus at this point it can be seen that at time T0+tt+tf+(dpt/c) as measured by the train clock, the train clock will experience simultaneous photon strikes and stop.
Station clock stops at T0+tt+(dps/c) as measured by itself.
Train clock stops at T0+tt+tf+(dpt/c) as measured by itself.
But since each clock and all photons can be measured by both reference frames, each reference frame can make a prediction as to whether the other clock should experience simultaneous strikes.
From the station’s perspective, all 4 photons travel the same distance, “dps”, before stopping the station clock. Thus the 2 photons aimed toward the train clock will also meet together at P1 and T0+tt+(dps/c).
The flashers flashed at T0+tt by the station clock when they were centered around the station clock and the train clock was still centered between them on the railcar at P1, as it never changed its centeredness.
Thus by the time the photons reach the station clock, T0+tt+(dps/c), the station reference purview is that the train clock had moved with the train and is no longer centered between the flash points.
Thus the station reference predicts that the train clock will not stop.
But from the train reference a similar situation must occur reversed. When the train reaches P1 (as precalculated by T0+tt+tf and P1-P0) and the clock and flashers read T0+tt+tf at P1, the flash occurs. At T0+tt+tf+(dpt/c), the photons meet the train clock to stop it. But by that time, P1 and the station clock are no longer centered on the railcar. If all 4 photons travel at the same relative velocity by the train’s reference, the photons aimed toward the station clock will meet at T0+tt+tf+(dpt/c) and miss position P1 and the station clock.
Thus the train reference predicts that the station clock will not stop.
If the train is moving when the flashers flash, than the distence the photons from F(ront flasher) and B(ack flasher) to the clock on the train are not the same. Since the train would be traveling toward the photon from F and away from the photon from B
If B flashes slightly before F to make up the difference, than the station clock would not see the flashes happen at the same time.
If the distence between F and B to the train clock is adjusted to make up the difference instead of the delay in flashes than their distence to the station clock is no longer equal.