Recent content by jmallett

You are using the same light to move at the same speed relative to two objects that have a relative motion. Ahh, now we have it. The high priests statements are to believed, regardless of whether they correctly interpret Einstein or not and all other readings of his work are not permitted...

That particular theory was the basis of the ether. Mitchelson Morely and a number of others disproved it. Einstein went forward with the assumption that light is relative to the frame of reference in which it exists, i.e. the train's light is not the track's light. I don't yet have a full...

That particular equation only works if the track can use the train's light, so it can't be valid in this useage. That's a simplification of what occurs. The track must use the track's light.

:eek: you don't see it ?

Well, that's what Einstein said, so in terms of understanding Einstein's Special Theory of relativity this is going well. But, the "stationary observer", the track observer we are talking about, sees something quite different from that, and relatively more complex, because he knows the speed...

Now what is the equation the track uses to measure the length of the rod ?

Sorry you see it as silly. Einstein places the rest frame of the rod as the frame of the stationary observer. It is an explicit assumption that it is not at rest when moving in that frame, so we are stuck with a conclusion that is in it's rest frame when it is both in the train and when it...

Actually I did read a fair bit of that book, and here's some of the things I read: - first question the book - not being able to see your self in a mirror is IMPLAUSIBLE. This hardly works for me because it is quite plausible, in fact sound works that way. It's possible for the statement...

Then the observers on the train are measuring it's length at rest ?

Good. We are on the same page. Now back a step - Then where is the frame of reference in which the train and the rod are at rest ?

Stationary with respect to the train, that's where we started and that's the postulate of Einsteins equations, although Einstein didn't actually need a train, he just had the rod floating. The train got introduced somewhere a few pages back, I think, but never mind, let's assume the rod and...

Then where is the frame of reference in which the train and the rod are at rest ?

Then the light in the train is not in the same frame of reference as the rod ?

First accepting the postulates or beliefs of anything is merely taking it on faith. We agree. I fully accept the postulate of light speed, if we are talking about an observer will see light travel at speed c in his own frame of reference. I think you agree with that too. Let's try to move...

OK, so we are starting to agree. "Viewed from any frame of reference, the light moves at the same speed. (Again, I have no idea what you mean when you talk of things being in 'the same frame of reference'.)" I see that we agree there are various frames of reference. When I say "same...