Search results

Good, so you understand your mistake. Now do you understand that in the second scenario it is the woman on the train that has the absolute zero velocity and is correct about the simultaneity of the strikes, and the platform observer is clueless as to the simultaneity (or lack thereof) of the...

You didn't use the same scenario from her perspective you created a different scenario. In the original scenario the woman on the train was struck by the lights at different times. That is reality. She was not struck by the light simultaneously in the original scenario, so it wasn't a change of...

Because he was at the midpoint between where the strikes occurred, and the lights hit him at the same time. That means light traveled the same distance to get to him, which means light traveled the same time to get to him, and since the lights hit him simultaneously that means the strikes...

Then make it clear what your point is. You give a vague description as to obscure your true meaning and try to sway people into a train of thought, and then you switch the concept with later clarification. The only real problem is that you didn't explain your position well enough and created...

There were two light sphere's emitted. The point at which they meet is the half way point between the point of origin of each light sphere. The radius of the light spheres are the same when they meet. The radius of the light sphere is inseparable from the time of light travel, by definition...

So which is it, Teach?

Wrong again, Bucko! When you can explain to me how a light sphere can expand its radius, and at the same time travel along with an object then I will accept that the speed of light is always measured to be c in every frame. Until then you are just blowing hot air. The light sphere is a...

That is simply an impossibility! A center of a light sphere can't travel along with a source that emitted the light sphere. You fail to understand that a light sphere increases it's radius, but that the center of the light sphere is incapable of motion, because it is not an object, it is a point...

Correct. Maybe you wish to clarify your question a bit? Which best describes your idea of the situation: A. The ball is traveling away from you at 50 MPH which means it is traveling along the tracks at 100 MPH. B. The ball has no relative motion to you and is traveling 50 MPH relative to the...

So how much time do you think elapsed in the cube frame for the light to reach the z receiver??

50 MPH. You gave me the ball's velocity and your velocity as measured from the tracks. They are both traveling 50 MPH relative to the tracks. Why would you use the tracks as your reference to speed, and use you as the ball's reference to speed?

Yes it f'n did!!! You're so hung up on visual illusions you don't know the meaning of reality! A light transmitter emitted a sphere of light at t=0. The radius of the light sphere was 194,865,098 meters when it reached the z receiver. Distance and time are bound together when speaking about the...

Clearly you are putting words in my mouth by saying the bold print. If I measured the road to have an absolute zero velocity, and I was driving along the road at 50 MPH, and I threw a ball at 50 MPH, the ball would float along side the car as we both traveled at the same rate , with a zero...

There is no view, for the last time! The test was conducted in the cube. There were no outside observations. There was light emitted from a source that remains at the center of the cube at all times (motionless in the cube frame), and there were receivers in the cube, mounted at the center of...

I demonstrated my position very clearly in the diagram, which you evidently brushed off. Your inability to comprehend the concept doesn't change the fact that it is correct. Show me the SR equivalent of a light sphere, and a cube in motion. Until you do that I will conclude that SR is not...

Yes, we build upon the knowledge of others, but is that knowledge always correct? Science has shown over and over again that what it once held true is no longer valid. "It's valid until it isn't" should be the motto for science. It's lived up to that motto since science began. What you fail to...

So you are saying that the car observer says the light is 29,979,245.8 meters ahead of him when the light hits the road observer?

I can't answer that question, as I personally wasn't there to inspect the apparatus, and I certainly wasn't there to monitor the test to observe for any error, or integrity problems. Even if I had witnessed it first hand there are unforeseen glitches in the system that can occur and throw off...

I answered you several times and you fail to acknowledge I answered your question, but I did. I told you about measuring one-way time along a stick, and when the one-way times were the same in all directions then the stick had an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. I also stated that...

I didn't ask you anything about the clock in the car frame, I asked you, in the car frame, how far ahead of the car is the light when the light hits you? According to the car observer and his meter stick, how far ahead of the car is the light when it hits you?