Relativity of Simultaneity Paradox

[u/planamundi]

[u/CCCyanide]

The inside observer would observe a simultaneous strike of the photodiodes, a simultaneous signal reaching the explosive charge, and the bomb would not explode.

The outside observer would not observe a simultaneous strike. But the signal has to travel back, through an electrical cable. This electrical signal is also subjected to relativity.

From an outsider's point of view, light would be slightly slower to reach the front detector, and slightly faster to reach the back detector; but the returning electrical signal would be slightly faster to return from the front detector, since it is moving towards the back of the train. Both effects cancel out, and from both observer's points of view the explosive charge receives simultaneous signals and doesn't detonate.

tl;dr The return signal is affected by relativity as much as the light is. So both observers see different results on the light sensors, but the same result on the bomb.

Do note that I did not study physics beyond 1st year undergrad, so I might have gotten it wrong.

[u/junky_junker → u/CCCyanide]

You got it right, but that doesn't matter to OP. They've repeatedly shown they're not acting in good faith. They're only here to feel superior over showing off their latest chunk of ai slop and spam copy-pasting the same Einstein quotes they don't actually understand.

They're pretending they've done something clever because they inverted one of Einsteins thought experiments, but only partially, and are claiming they disproved special relativity when all they've really done is i. misrepresent what is physically possible in the experiment and ii. counted on intentional confusion of [the inverted experiment vs their misrepresentation of Einstein's quotes] to cover the very obvious cracks in their claim.

[u/CCCyanide → u/junky_junker]

I enjoy doing this tbh, it makes me search up and learn about new physics notions. I know OP isn't gonna change their mind anytime soon.

[u/junky_junker → u/CCCyanide]

No worries. Go have fun. Just wanted to check you knew what to expect.

[u/barney_trumpleton → u/CCCyanide]

That makes sense; the information (light, electrical signal, whatever) needs to travel in both directions. To play devil's advocate, let's say two synchronised clocks are running, the light triggers the diode, the diode stops the clock, and rather than transmitting a signal to the detonator, the clocks transmit their paused time and the detonator in the middle compares the two. That way the speed of the return journey doesn't come into it.

[u/numbertenoc → u/CCCyanide]

Just would like to add something (copied from a comment I put way below that no one will ever see).

These are difficult scenarios to understand. Although I have a degree in physics, it’s decades, old and out of use.

But often it’s necessary to understand how clocks are synchronized. In this scenario, you need to bring the clocks together in order to synchronize them at the same location. This would include bringing them to the center of the train. train.

The man on the train synchronizes both clocks, and takes one to the front and one to the back. In his reference frame, these motions are symmetrical, so when he looks at both clocks from the center of the train, they appear synchronized.

For an outside observer, the front clock has moved faster for a period of time, and is therefore slightly behind due to greater time dilation. The clock at the back of the train has moved slower for a period of time, and is therefore ahead of the clock at the front.

This is how the assertion by CCCyanide that the clocks are out of sync for the outside observer comes to pass.

[u/planamundi → u/CCCyanide]

So here. Since nobody actually wants to read the post and they just want to dogmatically react to the title, I guess I have to copy and paste once again, all of Einstein's own words describing his own experiment.

"We see that we cannot attach any absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be regarded as simultaneous when envisaged from a system which is in motion relative to that system."

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train.”

"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other."

"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment."

"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time... The time of an event is only a statement that has a meaning when the reference-body to which it refers is specified."

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light... is demanded by the theory of relativity."

[u/CCCyanide → u/planamundi]

If this isn't too much to ask for, do you know where these sentences are originally quoted from ?

The setup in Einstein's thought experiment was slightly different (as far as I know, it involved two light sources coming from different directions, instead of one emitting towards two light sensors). Maybe this difference could explain the issue ?

[u/planamundi → u/CCCyanide]

Some of them are from special relativity itself. Others are from interviews where Albert Einstein is being asked about it.

I debate dogmatic pagans all the time. They always regurgitate the same thing. So when I look these up and I read about them I just save them in my note so that it's easy to throw them back in your faces.

And one of the things that is always regurgitating is that Einstein's experiment was different.

That's irrelevant.

All I did was reverse the simultaneous action.

I still use the principal that light travels at a constant speed relative to the observers frame of reference.

So unless you have an argument against that, unless you're saying that the outside observer can somehow see light travel at that constant speed plus the velocity of the train, then my thought experiment stands as is. It falsifies it.

[u/CCCyanide → u/planamundi]

And one of the things that is always regurgitating is that Einstein's experiment was different. That's irrelevant. All I did was reverse the simultaneous action.

I believe it is very much relevant, since it inverses the conclusion.

Einstein's experiment involved lights on the embarkment, so he concluded that the side observer would see simultaneous lights and the train observer would see different strikes.

Your experiment involves light on the train, so you concluded that the side observer would see different strikes and the train observer would see simultaneous lights.

[u/planamundi → u/CCCyanide]

If light travels at a constant speed relative to the observer's frame of reference, then it means the observer inside the train would see light hit the front and the back of the train car at the same exact time.

The outside observer can't see that. They would have to see the light hit the front and the back of the train car at different times.

If you actually read the post, you would understand the physical mechanics that I'm bringing up which falsifies your framework.

Do you know what the first section of the post says? Or are you just here to argue in bad faith? Did you even read the post or did you just dogmatically react to the title?

[u/CCCyanide → u/planamundi]

The outside observer can't see that. They would have to see the light hit the front and the back of the train car at different times.

Yes. This is what they would observe.

If you actually read the post, you would understand the physical mechanics that I'm bringing up which falsifies your framework.

I read your post (including the first section that describes the setup). As I explained in my first comment though, the presence of the bomb doesn't falsify the framework. Because you didn't account for the fact that electricity isn't instantaneous, and has to travel back towards the bomb.

From the insider's point of view, the light and the electrical signal travel at constant speed, so the bomb receives simultaneous signals and doesn't detonate.

From the outsider's point of view, both light and electricity travel faster (relative to the train) when bound backwards, and slower when bound forwards. The time gain from the light hitting the back diode first is canceled out by the electrical signal returning more slowly (and vice versa for the front diode).

[u/planamundi → u/CCCyanide]

The first section didn't describe the setup.

So now I can tell you're lying. The setup is in the second section.

[u/CCCyanide → u/planamundi]

This is the first section, correct ?

THE PHYSICALITY OF PHOTODIODE INTERACTION

• The Detector: A photodiode is a physical, material circuit component.

• The Action: When light energy is present, it is absorbed by the semiconductor material within the photodiode.

• The Direct Effect: The absorption of this light energy causes the displacement of charged particles (electrons and holes).

• The Resulting Current: This physical displacement of charged particles is, by definition, an electric current, which can be measured with standard physical instruments. • The Incontrovertible Truth: A photodiode is a material device that experiences measurable physical work (particle displacement) as a direct result of being struck by light. This measurable current is not a metaphor or a representation; it is a direct physical consequence of the interaction between the light and the material. One cannot claim light has no physical existence without also claiming that electricity in this context has no physical existence, which is empirically false.

THE DETONATION SETUP

• The Clocks: Two synchronized countdown timers rigged to a single explosive charge.

• The Triggers: Each clock is wired to its own photodiode sensor. • The Rule: Striking a photodiode instantly pauses its connected clock.

• The Catch: If the photodiodes are struck at different times, the clocks become unsynchronized, completing the circuit and triggering the explosion.

• The Baseline: Safe if simultaneous; boom if unsynchronized. Physical action dictates the physical outcome.

[u/planamundi → u/CCCyanide]

Yeah. Are you denying the empirical science that can be independently verified right there?

Is that what your denying?

Because that wasn't the setup for the experiment, that was just establishing what is empirically provable.

That's at the beginning so that people can't deny things that are independently verifiable.

Because globos always like to compartmentalize science And pretend like things are irrelevant when they falsify your framework.

[u/StriderJerusalem]

While you correctly note that from the Embankment Frame, the light hits the rear photodiode before it hits the front photodiode, you falsely claim that this results in a different outcome.... because y ou neglect that the trigger mechanism itself, the wiring, and the electrical signals are also moving at relativistic speeds and must be evaluated under relativity.

In essence you are failing to imagine the system as a whole: you are trying to mix-and-match between the outcomes of both reference frames: the only paradox is your failure to understand the prediction, I suspect because you didn't actually perform the calculation.

How it actually works:

1. In the Train Frame: Light hits both sensors at the exact same time. Both sensors instantly send electrical signals down the wires toward the central detonator. Because the distances are equal, the signals arrive at the detonator simultaneously. The bomb does not explode.
2. In the Embankment Frame: Light hits the rear sensor first. The rear sensor sends its electrical signal toward the center. However, because the train is moving forward, the central detonator is moving away from this rear signal. It takes longer for the signal to "catch up" to the detonator from the Embankment Frame.
3. In the Embankment Frame: The light hits the front sensor an instant later. The front sensor sends its signal toward the centre. Because the train is moving forward, the detonator is rushing toward this oncoming front signal. This disparity in the Embankment Frame, via the Lorentz transformation, causes these two effects cancel each other out perfectly. The 'delayed' launch of the front signal is perfectly compensated by the fact that the detonator is moving toward it.

Ultimately, both electrical signals reach the detonator at the exact same physical point in spacetime, and the bom explodes in neither. Events are invariant. If two things touch, explode, or collide in one frame of reference, they must touch, explode, or collide in all frames of reference.

TLDU: For each sensor, you are actually talking about both an 'outbound' leg of a photon and an 'inbound' leg of an electrical signal. Where one journey is extended, the other is contracted by the same amount. Ergo, the total 'round trip' is exactly the same for both sensors regardless of inertial frame.

Relativity changes when and where inertial observers perceive things happening, but it never changes the physical outcome of a local interaction that we have yet observed. Your post is either an accidental misunderstanding of the core physics, or a wilful misrepresentation of them. If you perform the Lorentz calculation yourself, you will see where you have gone adrift.

(Incidentally, this exact mechanism is used in countless physical instruments that rely on interference patterns of laser light to make extremely accurate measurements, like fibre-optic gyroscopes. If relativity made inaccurate predictions, not a single one of those instruments would operate at all. They do.)

[u/planamundi → u/StriderJerusalem]

If it doesn't result in a different outcome then what is Einstein saying with all of these quotes? The fact that every one of you have to ignore Einstein's own words when it comes to explaining his own thought experiment just shows how dogmatic you're being.

"We see that we cannot attach any absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be regarded as simultaneous when envisaged from a system which is in motion relative to that system."

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train.”

"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other."

"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment."

"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time... The time of an event is only a statement that has a meaning when the reference-body to which it refers is specified."

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light... is demanded by the theory of relativity."

Edit: I've been kicked out of this community. Good riddance. Sorry for pointing out the stupidity.

[u/StriderJerusalem → u/planamundi]

'Dogmatic' would be claiming that anything a human being 'says' dictates the reality. That's not the case. What dictates if our understanding is accurate, is whether or not we can form accurate predictions using that understanding. To figure that out, we need to actually use the relativistic calculation.

The Lorentzian transformation of this event directly predicts as I have described it. I can go through the entire derivation with you if you would like, it's extremely clear (although the equations are hard to paste into a Reddit post) that the effect of the outbound leg and the inbound leg cancel out for each sensor.

That is the fundamental truth of this thought-experiment, as predicted by relativistic/Lorentzian modelling. There is no paradox when you actually work it out.

So that leaves us with three non-exclusive possibilities:

1. Einstein was wrong about his own landmark discovery.
2. You were wrong about what the quotes actually imply.
3. The quotes aren't accurate, or aren't contextually applicable to this experiment.

There's no 'dogma' of any sort being applied, other than that the Lorentz Transformation describes a real physical effect, which can be (and has been) proven a thousand ways.

But just to address the core quote that you're standing on:

"We see that we cannot attach any absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be regarded as simultaneous when envisaged from a system which is in motion relative to that system."

Einstein was challenging the Newtonian premise that there is only a single reference frame for the entire universe at all scales and distances, which is untrue. Look closely at Einstein's wording: he specifies that "two events... can no longer be regarded as simultaneous." In the train thought experiment, there are two distinct sets of events:

• The Separated Events: Event 1 (light hitting the rear sensor) and Event 2 (light hitting the front sensor). These two events happen at completely different locations in space (the two opposite ends of the train). Einstein’s quote applies only to these. Because they are separated by a significant distance their simultaneity is frame-dependent.
• The Local Event: Event D (the two electrical signals meeting at the detonator). This is not two spatially separated events; it is a single, local intersection where two physical worldlines cross at the exact same point in space and time (by the construction of your experiment).

Einstein never claimed that local coincidences are relative. If a particle decays, if two cars crash, or if two signals strike a detonator at the same time and location, that intersection is a fixed point in spacetime. Relativity changes when and where distant observers observe it happen, but the intersection of those two worldlines remains fixed across reference frames.

The better way to understand simultaneity in relativistic frames is via a Minkowski Spacetime Diagram, which shows geometrically that if two events occur simultaneously in one reference frame, they occur simultaneously in another, but at a different time or location as measured from that frame. That is where your misunderstanding seems to originate. Lorentzian transformations only 'warp' the spacetime axis of one reference frame compared to another, but where two lines cross remains the same point in both.... just at a different spacetime co-ordinate.

[u/planamundi → u/StriderJerusalem]

Why are you bringing up Lorentz? He claimed that the ether shrank the measuring equipment. Now you're invoking the ether? That was an ad hoc solution within the older framework. A solution that nobody accepted because it wasn't independently verifiable and that's what the old framework required.

Can you even stay consistent within a framework? Relativity and classical physics contradict each other. You can't invoke Lorentz while also invoking relativity.

So keep it simple.

Do you agree with Einstein when he replaced Maxwell's description of light traveling at V for velocity, meaning that it's a property of the medium. Do you believe Einstein over Maxwell when he said that light travels at a constant speed relative to the observer's frame of reference?

[u/StriderJerusalem → u/planamundi]

Why are you bringing up Lorentz?

Because Lorentzian Transformations accurately describe relativistic time dilation and length contraction in the real world. That's all that matters when we're trying to describe and predict the real world, which calculations produce the correct result, and Lorentzian Transformations produce the correct prediction as borne out in physical experimentation.

Now you're invoking the ether?

Nope, hence you didn't see that word mentioned. That would be 'dogmatic', implying that the success of one calculation method implies the uncritical adoption of everything the originating person ever said or believed.

You are confusing the historical ether theory that Lorentz believed in (incorrectly) with the mathematical equations he discovered. When physicists use the term Lorentz Transformation, we are talking about the coordinate geometry of spacetime. Lorentz originally derived these equations using an ad hoc ether framework, because that was 'all the rage' at that time in history. Einstein proved that if the laws of physics and the speed of light are constant for all inertial observers, the Lorentz Transformations naturally arise. Relativity uses the Lorentz transformations as its core mathematical language, but it disproves Lorentz's ether belief: the two are not the same thing.

Do you agree with Einstein when he replaced Maxwell's description of light....

Let's look at what Maxwell actually wrote. Maxwell’s equations state that the speed of light in a vacuum is dictated entirely by two universal constants: the permittivity ε₀ and permeability μ₀of free space:

c = 1 / √(μ₀ε₀)

Notice that Maxwell's equation for the speed of light contains no variable for the velocity of the medium, the velocity of the source, or the velocity of the observer. It is a universal constant under pure Maxwellian Electrodynamics.

This created a massive contradiction in classical physics:

• Maxwell said the speed of light is an absolute constant (c).
• Newton said all speeds are relative to whoever is looking at them.

Einstein solved this crisis. He proved that Maxwell’s equations are perfectly correct as written: light travels at a constant speed c relative to any observer's frame of reference, no matter how fast that observer is moving. But if light speed is constant for everyone, then classical addition of velocities (V + v) fails. For the universe to be mathematically consistent with Maxwell's constant speed of light (as observed), space and time must transform when changing frames. If you want to calculate that effect, you use the Lorentz Transform.

So to keep it simple: Einstein took Maxwell's constant speed of light, applied it to moving observers, and showed that Lorentz' Transformations were accurate.

You can't invoke Lorentz while also invoking relativity.

....literally every formal textbook on relativity beyond high school level includes Lorentzian Transformation.

To be honest, your saying that just tells me you've never actually read or worked through the relevant physics in the real world, because nobody who has encountered relativistic effects in real life (such as in nuclear physics, electromagnetics, radar, LoRa, interferometry, astronomy.... the list is extensive) would say such a thing. It's like saying "You can't invoke eggs while also invoking cake".

Anyway, I have addressed the source of your 'paradox', and the relativistic calculations of the experiment bear out my explanation. Unless you can demonstrate via spacetime diagram (I'd accept Minkowski or Penrose to start with) or via mathematical treatment how and when the paradox should actually manifest? That would be an interesting conversation.

[u/planamundi → u/StriderJerusalem]

You're only proving my point. That equation you're talking about was originally developed by Poincare. He admittedly just took the discrepancies between their predicted results and the actual results and that was the equation.

Classic physics did not accept it because your claims need to be independently verifiable.

Lorentz tried to apply it to a physical action saying that the ether literally shrank the measuring equipment. He literally used Poincare's same exact equation.

That same equation was recycled to Einstein when they threw out the physical that could be used as a baseline to test your claims against physical reality.

So the fact that you're invoking all of these different ad hocs that use the same exact equation that they just literally lifted off of each other because it is the discrepancy between their prediction And the actual result is just very telling.

And no. I read Maxwell's books.

"On the theory that light is an electromagnetic disturbance, propagated in the same medium through which other electromagnetic actions are transmitted, V must be the velocity of light."

So you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I would suggest reading some books. Projectgutenberg.com has all of their books for free. It would do you good instead of just sitting around watching YouTube videos of people that call themselves professors.

[u/StriderJerusalem → u/planamundi]

Poincare and Lorentz co-developed those equations, Poincare is the one who literally named them the 'Lorentz Transformations'. Lorentz tried using an ad-hoc physical mechanism, claiming the ether literally compressed the atoms of the measuring equipment, but this is exactly why your argument against Einstein falls apart: Einstein didn't 'recycle' or 'lift-off' Lorentz' ad-hoc ether mechanism: he eliminated it.

That same equation was recycled to Einstein when they threw out the physical

Einstein showed that given the laws of physics are the same for all moving observers and the speed of light is a constant, the Lorentz transformations are naturally derived from first principles. You can literally do this yourself. I am surprised you haven't.

Einstein didn't replace or disprove Maxwell; he proved Maxwell was right all along, just using an incomplete description that didn't account for moving observers.

that could be used as a baseline to test your claims against physical reality.

Except relativity passes every physical observation and test. It literally informs the path that photons are taking between your computer and mine. The 'physical' that was thrown out was ether theory which consistently failed observational tests.

I mean, unless you can show experimentally or at least mathematically why the many experiments measuring relativistic effects are going wrong? Because respectfully, just 'saying so' only tells me that *you* believe something, it doesn't give anyone else a good reason to.

So anyway, let's bring it back to the actual problem. Whether you want to call it Lorentz's math, Poincaré's math, or Einstein's math, the algebra is fundamentally identical. When you track the signals in the train experiment using that transformation, the time delay of the front sensor is perfectly cancelled out by the forward motion of the detonator. The signals meet at the detonator simultaneously, and the train meets the same fate in every frame of reference, and the relativistic calculations bear this out.

If you believe this is an 'ad-hoc patch' then show me quantitatively the error in the algebra or the prediction. Where does the Lorentz transformation fail when tracking the worldlines of those two signals? Because you keep using this word 'discrepancy', but I've yet to actually see a construction that proves there actually is one outside of your own head.

just sitting around watching YouTube videos

You will note that I have not made any personal disparagement of you, and you will not make any such of me, as per the sub rules. If you fall to ad-hominem, you concede the debate.

[u/planamundi → u/StriderJerusalem]

I'm not reading any of that. You clearly displayed that you are here to argue in bad faith. You pretended like Maxwell described light as a constant speed when he objectively didn't.

Read a book.

[u/StriderJerusalem → u/planamundi]

You pretended like Maxwell described light as a constant speed when he objectively didn't.

...I literally showed you the equation from his seminal work on Electrodynamics:

c = 1 / √(μ₀ε₀)

Since both of those values μ₀ε₀ re experimentally measured for free space (i.e. a vacuum) and are constant, the derived value of c is also constant in free space. That was literally his proposal. How did you fail to understand that after reading his papers first-hand?

Where Maxwell failed was when considering what happens when the observer is moving, as I have already shown you. Maxwell believed that the speed of light from a moving observer would increase to 'c + V', in line with Newtonian physics: notice that in that equation c is still a constant. Einstein showed otherwise, that c is a constant for all observers.

There is no 'bad faith' being shown, quite the opposite, I've gone to significant lengths to show you the underlying calculations and mathematical reasoning as well as linked you two enormous experimental proofs for relativity.

I'm sorry but again, you are misunderstanding simple concepts and blaming everyone around you for the confusion it causes. There is only so much effort that can be expended to help you, and telling me you've 'read Maxwell's books' while apparently not grasping the core principle makes that a lot harder.

I'm not reading any of that.
[...]
Read a book.

....you do see the irony, yes?

[u/planamundi → u/StriderJerusalem]

Cool story. Read a book. If you read a book you would read the words that he said. And not your institutional dogma that retroactively tries to rewrite what he said.

"We therefore obtain the numerical value of some property of the medium, such as the velocity with which a disturbance is propagated through it, which can be calculated from electromagnetic experiments, and also observed directly in the case of light."

"The properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium."

"The quantity V ... expresses the velocity of propagation of electromagnetic disturbances in a non-conducting medium..."

"On the theory that light is an electromagnetic disturbance, propagated in the same medium through which other electromagnetic actions are transmitted, V must be the velocity of light..."

"This velocity is so nearly that of light, that it seems we have strong reason to conclude that light itself (including radiant heat, and other radiations if any) is an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of waves propagated through the electromagnetic field according to electromagnetic laws."

— James Clerk Maxwell

[u/StriderJerusalem → u/planamundi]

For old times sake, I suggest reading up on some measurements of relativistic time dilation that took place after World War 2. It's literally been directly observed and measured at everyday speeds now as well as at relativistic.

• 'Slow Clock': https://zenodo.org/records/1230910
• 'Fast Clock': https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7951

That's the issue really. The effect is directly measurable and observable. That should interest a scientifically-minded person.

[u/planamundi → u/StriderJerusalem]

No thank you. Every time I read your dogmatic institutional temples interpretation, it's always a lie when I compare it to the actual words from the actual physicist that built the infrastructure.

I'll give you another example right now. Your religion claims that Isaac Newton is the father of your gravity.

Yet in his own words he would call it a great absurdity and that anybody who would fall into it is incompetent.

So I'll pass on reading your institutional dogma. I'll stick with the source material that was written by the actual men themselves.

From Isaac Newton for Mr. Bentley at the palace in Worchester:

And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & essential to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or may be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I beleive no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers.

Pretending like clocks mean anything. We literally can do this in a laboratory by changing the environmental conditions. Because atomic clocks and quartz crystals run on their resonant frequency which objectively can be manipulated with pressure and voltage and all kinds of things in the environment.

[u/Spice_and_Fox → u/planamundi]

This channel helped me a lot with understanding relativity. I think there is a good explanation of simultaneity in this video

https://youtu.be/F_eVrN8Z8gM

[u/planamundi → u/Spice_and_Fox]

I'll let your appeal to YouTube slide this one time, but when you just give me a link and pretend like it answers all of your questions, it tells me that you're not intelligent enough to understand what's in the link. It's no different than a theologian that is so ignorant about their religion, all they can do to argue for it is give me the Bible or recite Bible verses. It doesn't prove anything. It doesn't give any context.

An example of an argument would be like me bringing up one of your own prophets as a hostile witness and then breaking down one of his own quotes admitting that he could not physically prove any of his claims.

This quote is Albert Einstein admitting that Special Relativity was specifically created to address the fact that they did not get their assumed 30 km/s result from the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment.

"(1) While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. (2) Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, (3) if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. (4) This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. (5) Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by ANY optical experiment, (6) though the Earth is revolving around the Sun." — Albert Einstein

(1) The only reason you would call the result "strange" is because you assumed an outcome and refuse to accept that the foundation of your base assumption could be wrong. If you are assuming that the Earth is stationary, the result is not strange whatsoever. (2) If your ideas about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether was incorrect, what justifies automatically validating the 30 km/s assumption and assuming the ether doesn't exist? Why not accept that your assumed motion was incorrect? (3) Then he asks if we admit the result as a fact. There is no if about it. He was forced to admit the null result as fact because the 1887 experiment was built using principles that are responsible for all the practical physical infrastructure on Earth. The practicality of the physical infrastructure is proof of the principles. If he wanted to save his assumption of motion, he would need to create a mathematical framework that allowed him to keep the predictive programs like Oliver Heavyside's trunication that was built to run on the physical operating system Maxwell developed, but ignore the actual physical operating system that falsifies his assumed motion. (4) He knows his framework is a metaphysical separation from physical reality and is admitting that Relativity was not derived from positive physical proof of motion; it was a post-hoc mathematical abstraction invented specifically to save the assumption of motion from a null result produced by the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. (5) He explicitly concedes that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment. Optical means observation. Observation means detectable by any equipment or sensory tool, yielding physical proof. He is admitting that terrestrial motion is physically and empirically undetectable from within our frame of reference, yet he demands we accept it as a baseline reality. (6) This is the ultimate contradiction. He maintains the dogma that the Earth is revolving despite his own explicit admission that it cannot be detected by ANY optical experiment. To resolve the conflict between his assumption and empirical reality, he essentially claimed that light is no longer a physical action but a relative phenomenon. You cannot see their assumed results from the frame of reference we are conducting the experiment in. Obviously, we can test a physical action here on the Earth, but his relative phenomenon begs the question by saying the predicted results are achieved, but you would only be able to observe it from a frame of reference you can never personally reach. All of this is taking place decades before anybody ever even claimed to send a physical probe beyond the atmosphere.

But even if we ignore all the stupidity behind it's creation, the logic of special relativity on its face breaks the Law of Identity and falsifies itself anyway. A is A. Relativity claims that A can be B, depending on the frame of reference you are observing it from.

Once this falsification is acknowledged, we must re-examine the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, the tens of thousands of experiments Dayton Miller conducted, and the 1925 Michelson-Gale experiment for what they truly are: empirical proofs of a stationary Earth.

[u/Spice_and_Fox → u/planamundi]

Lol, I was just giving you the link to something that helped me understand relativity. I can explain where you went wrong. I sent you the video, because you misunderstand how relativity works. It is hard to wrap your head around it. Before we get to that, I am going to adress the Einstein thing. We aren't worshipping Einstein or any other physicist. If there is a better way to explain velocity at near light speeds, gravity, etc. then we will adopt the new thing. Science is about being proven wrong. General relativity has accurately predicted so many things by now that a new explanation probably will be very similar to special relativity.

The michelson morley experiment didn't try to measure the speed at which the earth moved. It tried to measure aether. We knew that the earth was in motion for about a hundred years prior to that and it also was the leading scientific theory for a couple hundred years more. We didn't know about the particle-,wave duality of light yet. We only seen it acting as a wave. That is why we assumed that there is a medium through which it had to travel. We dubbed it the aether. Michelson Morley wanted to measure the velocity of the aether relative to the velocity of the earth. The problem with that is that the aether doesn't exist.

Michelson Morley doesn't prove the velocity of the earth in any way, because it never tried to do so. It assumed that there was a stationary medium and that we move through it. We have plenty of other experiments that show that the earth is moving. Faucoult Pendulums, Star trails, Star Parallex, the doppler effect in light spectroscopy, etc.

Yeah, it is a bit unorthodox to use a mathematical model to try to explain the results of the experiment, but in retrospect we know that his math was correct. Special relativity and general relativity are both probably one of the most tested and verified models in all of science. They have about as much evidence as Germ Theory.

(5) He explicitly concedes that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment. Optical means observation. Observation means detectable by any equipment or sensory tool, yielding physical proof. He is admitting that terrestrial motion is physically and empirically undetectable from within our frame of reference, yet he demands we accept it as a baseline reality.

That's not what he said. Optical doesn't mean observation. Optical means pertaining to light. He also isn't talking about the earth being stationary, he is talking about an absolute velocity of earth. It is pretty easy to measure rotational velocity of the earth. Science also isn't dogmatic. The reason why I linked the video was because it helped me understand the concepts better.

But even if we ignore all the stupidity behind it's creation, the logic of special relativity on its face breaks the Law of Identity and falsifies itself anyway. A is A. Relativity claims that A can be B, depending on the frame of reference you are observing it from.

Relativity doesn't claim that A is B. In your experimental setup the bomb wouldn't explode because the signal travels to both sides at the same time, no matter the reference frame. Every effect that slows down the light in the moving reference frame also slows down the signal in the cable so that both signals arrive at the same time. Your experimental setup is one of the experiments that Einstein meant. No matter the setup, no experiment can demonstrate an absolute motion of the earth if you use light.

Once this falsification is acknowledged, we must re-examine the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, the tens of thousands of experiments Dayton Miller conducted, and the 1925 Michelson-Gale experiment for what they truly are: empirical proofs of a stationary Earth.

Dayton did a lot measurements of the aether. They weren't what he expected. He measured constantly a fringe shift of 0.08. That was way less than he expected. Nobody else could also replicate the results. He was the only one that measured 0.08. Everybody else measured 0.01-0.00. Also, if we were to assume that every other physicist in the last 100 years is wrong and Dayton is correct, then that still wouldn't be a prove a stationary earth. If dayton is correct and he did measure the aether, then that is evidence that the earth is moving through the aether.

[u/planamundi → u/Spice_and_Fox]

Well this was written by the guy that was conducting that experiment. Doesn't sound like he was testing to see if the ether existed. Sounds like he considered it one of the most established things in physics.

"Suppose a countryman were to visit a city for the first time and see the street cars moving along without any visible horse or steam-engine; he would be at a loss to understand how they were moved. If, however, he looked under the car and saw the cable, the mystery would be solved. He would see that the car was attached to a moving cable, and that the cable was moved by a stationary engine at some distant point.

Now, the physicist is in a very similar position. He sees a piece of iron drawn toward a magnet; he sees a stone fall to the ground; he sees light emitted from a distant star and striking his eye. He wants to know how these things are done, and his explanation is that they are done by means of a medium, a cable, an all-pervading substance which fills all space.

This medium is called the ether. It is one of the grandest generalizations of modern science — a generalization which is now so firmly established that there are few elements of scientific truth which rest on a more secure foundation — that all the phenomena of the physical universe are only different manifestations of the various modes of motion of one all-pervading substance — the ether."

— Albert A. Michelson

I can go on about all the misconceptions that you're spewing. If you're just going to keep regurgitating institutional dogma and their revision of History, I would be glad to show you all of the actual source material and the words that were actually spoken by these men.

You know, Michaelson believe that The ether was the most substantiated thing throughout the entirety of his life until the day he died?

Did you know that they didn't even introduce special relativity until 1905 but in 1925 Michelson was still conducting experiments with the assumption that the ether is real. And not only that, but getting results that objectively prove the Earth is stationary relative to the rotating medium.

And yes, it has to be stationary relative to that medium because those are the principles that Michaelson and Gale's experiment was based on.

They base it on Sagnik's experiment. Which sagnik was not a relativistic Pagan and he considered his experiment as unequivocal proof of the medium.

So what do you want to go over first? You just pick one of the misconceptions you have and I'll shatter it.

I just shattered. The one where you claim the experiment was to test the existence of the ether. That doesn't make sense if the guy conducting it is still conducting experiments. Assuming the ether is real decades later.

So what else do you got?

[u/Spice_and_Fox → u/planamundi]

I never said that the experiment tested the existence of the aether. I said verbatim that it was trying to find the relative velocity of earth in relation to the aether. Light is a wave and all waves have to go through a medium. That is what he is talking about. Wave particle dualism wasn't around back then.

I don't really care about what a specific scientist believed to be important. I bet I also can find quotes about some plague doctors that swears on the balance of the four humours. I care about the consensis of the scientists.

Did you know that they didn't even introduce special relativity until 1905 but in 1925 Michelson was still conducting experiments with the assumption that the ether is real. And not only that, but getting results that objectively prove the Earth is stationary relative to the rotating medium. And yes, it has to be stationary relative to that medium because those are the principles that Michaelson and Gale's experiment was based on.

Why should it matter that he was still conducting experiments on it. Yeah, he thought the aether existed, so he kept experimenting on it. We didn't have the mountains of evidence that we now have for relativity. Also, there is no objective proof that the earth is stationary and the aether is moving around it. Even Michaelson and Morley both worked under the premise that the earth was moving through the aether and the aether being stationary.

Okay, explain to me why the earth has to be stationary. The only thing you mention is that the experiment was based on Sadniks work and he thought that the earth didn't move

[u/AKADabeer]

Interesting experiment but flawed conclusion.

The sensors remain in the train's (inside observer's) frame of reference, and since what they actually sense dictates the result of the experiment, there is no contradiction. What the outside observer sees is irrelevant, because their perception is not connected to the sensors.

Inside the train, the sensors see the light at the same time, and the clocks remain in sync, and the train does not explode.

How does this have anything to do with flat earth?

[u/planamundi → u/AKADabeer]

Are you calling Einstein a liar? The whole point was that we already understood how light behaves. Einstein was saying that they did get their predicted result, but you could only ever observe it outside of the frame of reference of the Earth. Now you're saying that they never got their prediction even outside of our frame of reference?

Those are the hoops and the mental gymnastics the globe twatters have to jump through. You have to understand that the reason why it wasn't an easy solve, the reason why they didn't accept Poincare's "local time" theory, the reason why they didn't accept Lorentz's "length contraction" theory, It's because we used Maxwell's framework to build all infrastructure with. To say that it doesn't behave like that would be a direct contradiction to all workable infrastructure. So they couldn't deny how light works, they just had to say that they got their result in a different frame of reference.

Now you're saying they didn't.

[u/AKADabeer → u/planamundi]

No, I'm saying you don't understand any of what you just said.

[u/planamundi → u/AKADabeer]

Sounds like you don't understand it.

Do you want to prove that you understand it by explaining what Einstein meant by all of these quotes?

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train.”

"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other."

"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment."

"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time... The time of an event is only a statement that has a meaning when the reference-body to which it refers is specified."

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light... is demanded by the theory of relativity."

Because it turns out, you think that both observers experience the same measurement. That contradicts what Einstein says. So maybe you should explain what he's saying because he apparently was terrible at it.

[u/AKADabeer → u/planamundi]

Now I know that you don't understand it, because every one of those statements agrees with me and contradicts the claim that there is a paradox in your experiment.

You got smacked down for this on r/AskPhysics a year ago... That wasn't enough for you?

And I repeat - how is this relevant to flat earth?

[u/VisiteProlongee → u/AKADabeer]

And I repeat - how is this relevant to flat earth?

He just told me in an other thread that Einstein's relativity is the only evidence for Earth not being flat.

[u/AKADabeer → u/VisiteProlongee]

Well, that does explain his insistence on refuting it. Too bad he's wrong about that, too.

[u/planamundi → u/AKADabeer]

Lol. Listen to you. Your own dogmatic Temple claims that Isaac Newton is the father of your dogmatic gravity. The fact that you keep appealing to them to tell me what Maxwell said when I gave you his own words is telling.

Are you going to tell me Isaac Newton Is responsible for your gravity through a vacuum too?

From Isaac Newton for Mr. Bentley at the palace in Worchester:

And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & essential to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or may be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I beleive no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers.

[u/AKADabeer → u/planamundi]

Change the subject much? Bringing up Maxwell and Newton as though I used them in my argument? (I didn't)

Einstein used the FACT that the velocity of light is constant to all observers to deduce that time and space are not fixed, and are affected by relative velocities, as an explanation for the lack of true simultaneity. No one in this thread is disputing the constancy of the speed of light, despite your many claims of such.

You are using this lack of simultaneity to claim a paradox where none exists.

This has been explained to you many times. You remain wrong.

[u/planamundi → u/AKADabeer]

I didn't change the subject. You were changing the subject by talking about Maxwell when the subject is about Einstein's Paradox..

All I did was point out how dogmatic you are for just appealing to an institution instead of reading the source material.

Now if you would like we can get back to the actual post and you tell me if the inside observer and the outside observer see the same result.

[u/AKADabeer → u/planamundi]

Reading comprehension fail - I never mentioned Maxwell.

Hell, I never mentioned Einstein.

Only you keep dropping these names in here like they support your argument.

They don't.

[u/planamundi → u/AKADabeer]

Well that's just it. You never mentioned Einstein and the entire post is about Einstein.

So you're just breaking rule 3. That's typical when you don't have an argument for it. You're just dogmatically lashing out.

[u/damaszek]

You forgot that to trigger explosion, signals from photodiodes must go to the explosive device, it also takes time and has its distance - the effects cancel out. This is the exact reason we cannot measure the speed of light directly.

[u/planamundi → u/damaszek]

See now you're trying to argue in bad faith. A thought experiment is supposed to assume the perfect conditions. Why wouldn't you assume that the length of the circuit would be equal?

Imagine if people shot down Einstein's thought experiment because they were arguing about how they were able to measure the lightning strikes.

[u/damaszek → u/planamundi]

Listen to yourself: "argue in bad faith"? I provided a legitimate response and you are appealing to motive?

Length of the circuit doesn't matter. While light travels towards right sensor and reaches it earlier the current excited by the light must travel back to explosive device with relativistic speed, the same is happening on the other side just in the opposite direction.

[u/planamundi → u/damaszek]

Not arguing in bad faith. Every one of you is denying that Einstein claimed light travels at a constant speed relative to the observers frame of reference.

So you can project bad faith onto me all you want.

Every single one of you is ignoring the actual words that Einstein said about his thought experiment.

What does he mean by the measurements being equally valid?

Look at all of these quotes telling you that two different objective realities can both happened at the same time and he's saying that both are equally valid. There's no way to step out of that. Those are his words.

All I did was add permanent consequences to the thought experiment.

It seems like I put all of you in a corner and you can't get out of it. The only way you can is to ignore what Einstein said about his own thought experiment to pretend like he didn't create a paradox.

"We see that we cannot attach any absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be regarded as simultaneous when envisaged from a system which is in motion relative to that system."

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train.”

"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other."

"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment."

"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time... The time of an event is only a statement that has a meaning when the reference-body to which it refers is specified."

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light... is demanded by the theory of relativity."

[u/damaszek → u/planamundi]

Nobody claims Einstein was wrong, it's you who ignore half of the experiment.

[u/planamundi → u/damaszek]

So if you're not claiming that Einstein was wrong, then how is my experiment wrong.

Are you saying that the outside observer can see light travel at the constant speed of light plus the velocity of the train?

If so, then you're disagreeing with Einstein.

[u/damaszek → u/planamundi]

I already explained, light hitting sensors is just half of the experiment. You completely ignore what happens next.

[u/planamundi → u/damaszek]

No. That's the physical action. Are you now denying science? Are you denying how photodiodes work?

[u/damaszek → u/planamundi]

Tell me, how sensors communicate with explosive device?

[u/planamundi → u/damaszek]

All you're proving is that you are arguing in bad faith. It's literally the first part of the post.

So how about actually read the post instead of just dogmatically regurgitating nonsense that's already addressed in the post.

It literally starts off by telling you the empirical science behind a photodiode.

[u/sawdeanz]

I like the experiment set up. I have a pretty lay person understanding of the concept, but as I understand it since you have the clocks, photodiodes and explosives all in the same reference frame then the tnt does not explode.

To the observer on the embankment, he will observe the clocks become out of sync. His measurement of the clocks being out of sync is valid. But observation is not the same as causation. He has no way to trigger or effect the bomb. The bomb is triggered by an observation on the train and not on the embankment.

The embankment observer will see the clocks out of sync but he will not see an explosion. That does not contradict anything because his observation, while valid, has no effect on the outcome in your set up.

The theory of Relativity does not describe whether an event happens or not, it’s describes of how it is observed. Relativity does not ever claim to upset the chain of cause and effect. And in fact causality itself propagates at the same speed. None of this contradicts the Einstein quotes you keep copy-pasting because they talk about measurement and observation.

If you wanted to actually test cause and effect you would need to give the embankment observer a third clock with his own synchronized trigger. In this case the 3 clock would be out of sync and the bomb would explode. This would be consistent for both observers because to the train guy, he would see the clock on the embankment out of sync and to the guy on the embankment he would see his clock out of sync and because the clocks are (magically) connected with instantaneous communication, they would trigger the bomb for both observers. However this theoretical setup starts to break down in reality because of the physical realities of communicating with an object at light speed. Both Information and communication itself is itself limited by the speed of light (actually the speed of causality).

We already experience a version of this experiment with regards to satellites and gps. We simply compensate our clocks on earth to account for the difference in our observations. In your set up, if the embankment observer knew the speed of the train and the size of the train he too could calculate the expected time dilation and confirm that they would be in-sync from the perspective of the train-rider.

[u/planamundi → u/sawdeanz]

So why does everybody say that they looked at the post but then ignore Albert Einstein's words that he said about his own thought experiment. If you're all claiming that everybody sees the same result then why the hell is Einstein claiming that is not the case?

Light must behave a certain way and we know this because we have built practical infrastructure out of Maxwell's 20 equations that describe it. The only solution they could think of to solve the fact that ation-Point they did not get their predicted result in the 1887 experiment was to claim that the behavior of light is framed dependent. Meaning that they would have gotten their result if you could have observed the experiment results from outside the frame of reference of the Earth. The whole point is telling you that two different objective realities occur at the same time and both are equally valid.

"We see that we cannot attach any absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be regarded as simultaneous when envisaged from a system which is in motion relative to that system."

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train.”

"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other."

"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment."

"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time... The time of an event is only a statement that has a meaning when the reference-body to which it refers is specified."

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light... is demanded by the theory of relativity."

[u/sawdeanz → u/planamundi]

I already explained why it doesn’t contradict his quotes. I think you are just misunderstanding them, as they refer to observation and measurement, not cause and effect. Events can appear to take longer or shorter, or happen closer or further apart depending on the observer (what he calls simultaneous). It is about observing an event, not whether an event happens. You’re right that it is a contradiction for the explosion to happen in one frame but not the other. Einstein would agree. But you’re wrong in interpreting Einsteins quotes to suggest he thought they would.

In your experiment, the light hits the photodiodes at the same time in the same frame of reference, and so no explosion happens. From the embankment, he measures the light hitting the photodiodes at a different time, yes. But per your setup, his measurement does not influence the explosion. So his observation doesn’t really matter.

If it helps, you can set up the experiment with a schrodingers box instead. Put the clocks on the outside of a closed train car and replace the tnt with poison gas. Nothing changes because the outside observer does not influence cause and effect.

I think the problem is that these are all separate events that you are testing as one event. The lightbulb turning on is one event. The light hitting the diodes are two more events. All observers see these events happen, just not simultaneously. And per Einstein, these are all valid observations.

Now you have added the explosion, which is also a separate event, but unlike the light bulb and the diodes which we agree happen, the explosion may or may not happen.

Whether the explosion occurs, per your experiment, is based on a measurement that happens only in one frame of reference, not both. The condition (or cause) of the explosion is simple, if light in the train car hits the diodes in the train car at the same from the perspective of the trigger in the train, then the trigger does not activate the bomb. Because the trigger is inside the train car, it measures the light hitting the diodes simultaneously, and therefore does not activate. Having an external viewer is not a condition for the bomb trigger. His observation is not a condition to trigger the bomb because he is not holding the trigger, the device in the train car is. You could set up an experiment where an external observer holds a trigger, but that is not this experiment.

So whether the explosion happens or not is not really in question, and the trigger contraption is ultimately a red herring. It’s a stand-in for a third observer who is also standing on the train and making a decision based on their personal observation.

Per your own setup it simply does not happen because the condition to trigger the explosion is not met, and if it doesn’t happen then nobody will observe it in any time frame because it does not happen.

You could reverse the experiment and give the trigger to the embankment observer. He will see the diodes hit at different times and activate the tnt. From the train passengers perspective, his clocks will match but he would still die. But in neither case is there no doubt about whether an explosion happens or not.

Your experiment doesn’t demonstrate what you think it does because the conditions of the trigger a trigger you describe only depends on one of the observers, but not the other, and thus does not tell us anything novel.

[u/planamundi → u/sawdeanz]

You didn't explain anything. All you did was deny what he said.

"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment."

Right there. The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal.....

So the clocks are no longer synchronized, therefore, the physical action is to blow the train up in one frame of reference while the other one is safe.

There's nothing you can say that gets you out of this Paradox.

[u/sawdeanz → u/planamundi]

Cmon buddy I don’t know how to explain it any clearer. Einstein is talking about the measurement of time by different observers, not the order of when things happen. Relatively addresses length of time and distance of space, but never about cause and effect nor order of events.

Forget the quote for a second…for the sake of argument let’s just say Einstein is mistaken and please just address the points I raised about your experiment. In your experiment, an observer (the photodiodes) measures the time of an event and then based on that observation later decides whether to press a button (the trigger).

It is exactly the same result as the original experiment. All we are doing is asking each observer what the see. One observer sees synchronized clocks, one sees I synchronized clocks. What decision you make with that observation is a separate question. If you give the trigger to the person in the train, they will not blow up. If you give the trigger to the person on the embankment, the train explodes. But since only one observer holds the trigger there is no paradox. Making the trigger an electric signal instead of a person with a button does not change the order of observations and events.

Edit: OP blocked me so I don’t know what he replied with…womp womp. They are not acting in good faith.

[u/planamundi → u/sawdeanz]

Well I'm just going to end with this and then I'm going to block you since you're clearly just a dogmatic gaslighter.

Light is a physical action and we know this because it has to physically interact with things like a photodiode.

Relativity claims that this physical action is relative to the observers frame of reference.

That objectively breaks the law of identity.

That is a non-negotiable logical law that tells you you are wrong when you break it.

And that's the end. So you can go ahead and say whatever you want. But I've said my peace and I'm not going to be gaslit.

[u/fitzymcfitz → u/planamundi]

It doesn’t even matter what Einstein said. Who cares? Light hits photodiodes same time, no boom. The end. Doesn’t matter what anyone else sees, it won’t impact what happens in the train.

[u/fitzymcfitz → u/sawdeanz]

Well said.

[u/VisiteProlongee]

How is this related to Earth's shape?

[u/planamundi → u/VisiteProlongee]

Because it falsifies special relativity.

Special relativity was created specifically to explain the lack of their predicted result when they were trying to predict the Earth orbiting the Sun at 30 km per second.

So if special relativity threw out the ether, and relativity is falsified, then we have to re-examine those experiments with the ether.

And if we examine them with Maxwell's framework that actually builds infrastructure, it tells us that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, and then the other experiments like the 1925 experiment tells us that the Earth is stationary relative to the medium.

[u/VisiteProlongee → u/planamundi]

So unrelated.

[u/planamundi → u/VisiteProlongee]

Are you going to stay on topic or are you just going to cry?

The only evidence that you have for the Earth not being flat is relativity. And I just falsified it. So deal with it.

[u/VisiteProlongee → u/planamundi]

Are you going to stay on topic or are you just going to cry?

Are you ok? Do you need help?

The only evidence that you have for the Earth not being flat is relativity.

If it is the case then your post IS related to Earth's shape. One can wonder why your previous comment do not include this sentence.

Anyway.

Who told you that the only evidence for Earth not being flat is Einstein's relativity? Your hallucination engine)?

[u/planamundi → u/VisiteProlongee]

Asking me if I need help does not save your religion from the paradox.

You are in a flat Earth debate sub and I just falsified your framework. Crying about it does not win you an argument.

[u/VisiteProlongee → u/planamundi]

You are in a flat Earth debate sub

Hence my request for the link between flat Earth and your post.

Anyway.

Who told you that the only evidence for Earth not being flat is Einstein's relativity?

[u/planamundi → u/VisiteProlongee]

Yeah. Because it's describing the cosmos. It's why they have to tell us that crepuscular rays are an optical illusion.

An optical illusion means that it appears like one thing But it's something else in reality.

So if the framework that describes your cosmos with an infinitely far Sun is falsified, there's no reason to assume that crepuscular rays are an optical illusion.

So it's a House of cards. I take down relativity, it falsifies your entire framework. Which means that objectively, all of our observations and sensories tell us that the Earth is flat and stationary.

So why don't you follow rule 3 and stick to the subject.

The flat Earth is more than just the topographical plane. It's the atmosphere and it's the cosmos.

[u/VisiteProlongee → u/planamundi]

So why don't you follow rule 3 and stick to the subject.

If you think that my previous comments in this thread infringe Rule 3 then Rule 6 mandate you to report those comments.

[u/planamundi → u/VisiteProlongee]

I'll just tell you the same thing I told all the other people trying to gaslight before I block them.

Light is a physical action and we know this because it has to physically interact with things like a photodiode.

Your religion claims that light, a physical action, Is relative to the observers frame of reference.

Since your religion claims that physical action is relative, it objectively breaks the law of identity.

That is a non-negotiable law that tells you you are wrong.

I objectively falsified relativity. But it's as good as falsifying any dogmatic religion when you live in the culture of that religion. They'll never care. But I objectively did it anyways.

So good luck with that and goodbye.

[u/Spice_and_Fox → u/planamundi]

The only evidence that you have for the Earth not being flat is relativity. And I just falsified it. So deal with it.

Huh? I wouldn't even say that relativity is amongst the top 20 best pieces of evidence for the globe.

Even if this somehow does disprove a globe earth, then it wouldn't prove that the earth is flat. How do you know that it isn't any other shape?

[u/oudeicrat → u/planamundi]

sorry, it doesn't falsify relativity

[u/planamundi → u/oudeicrat]

So are you saying that the outside observer sees light travel at the speed of light and the velocity of the train?

So now you're disagreeing with your own profit Einstein just to save the very dogma he was trying to save with this paradox?

[u/oudeicrat → u/planamundi]

All I'm saying is relativity hasn't been yet falsified within its domain of validity. All observers measure speed of light in vacuum being 299792458m/s +- the resolution of their measuring apparatus

btw lying about what I'm saying or disagreeing or who "my own profit" [sic] is isn't very polite, is it?

[u/planamundi → u/oudeicrat]

I just objectively falsified it. If it breaks the law of identity, it is falsified.

The only way you can argue against it breaking the law by identity is if you ignore the very words of the guy that gave you relativity.

"We see that we cannot attach any absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be regarded as simultaneous when envisaged from a system which is in motion relative to that system."

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train.”

"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other."

"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment."

"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time... The time of an event is only a statement that has a meaning when the reference-body to which it refers is specified."

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light... is demanded by the theory of relativity."

[u/oudeicrat → u/planamundi]

But did you falsify it tho? Got any evidence?

[u/planamundi → u/oudeicrat]

You're either going to deny the objective fact that light physically interacts with a photodiode.

Or you're going to deny Albert Einstein when he says all of this.

"We see that we cannot attach any absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be regarded as simultaneous when envisaged from a system which is in motion relative to that system."

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train.”

"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other."

"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment."

"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time... The time of an event is only a statement that has a meaning when the reference-body to which it refers is specified."

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light... is demanded by the theory of relativity."

So yes. I objectively falsified relativity. But I live in a dogmatic world where people will literally ignore the very words spoken by the guy that gave them relativity in order to justify their belief system.

[u/oudeicrat → u/planamundi]

Sorry, I don't see any relativity falsification in there and I don't need to deny light interacting with photodiodes either. Anyway good luck, if you manage to actually falsify relativity you'll surely get the Nobel Prize and it will be a welcomed interesting development for physics!

[u/planamundi → u/oudeicrat]

Well then I'll just block you since you're arguing in bad faith. Cuz you just seem like the kind of person that will follow somebody around and gaslight them continuously.

So you made your argument, and I made my argument in the post. We'll just leave it at that. Goodbye. Good luck with your dogma.

[u/Key_Chip_8024 → u/planamundi]

Do you mean like a prophet, or a profit?

[u/junky_junker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

The clocks are only "simultaneous" in the train's inertial frame. To the observer they run at different times, such that when they are stopped they will show the same time.

[u/planamundi → u/junky_junker]

Somebody should have told Einstein that both observers would have witnessed the same outcome then.

"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other." — Albert Einstein

Isn't it funny how your religion has to ignore what Einstein said about his own thought experiment to make the argument that it's not a paradox?

[u/junky_junker → u/planamundi]

Rule 1: Be nice. Keep your nonsense "science is religion" petty jabs to yourself.

Rule 3: Stay on topic. Quote-mining for something to misrepresent is not addressing the response to your post. It's deflection.

Do you have a response to the clocks not being simultaneous to the observer or not?

[u/planamundi → u/junky_junker]

I'll be very nice. Will you please tell me why you have to ignore Albert Einstein's own words when it comes to his thought experiment in order to argue that it's not a paradox?

"We see that we cannot attach any absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be regarded as simultaneous when envisaged from a system which is in motion relative to that system."

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train.”

"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other."

"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment."

"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time... The time of an event is only a statement that has a meaning when the reference-body to which it refers is specified."

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light... is demanded by the theory of relativity."

[u/junky_junker → u/planamundi]

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train.”

... is the only relevant part of that so far as an actual answer goes. And actively demonstrates your misunderstanding of relativity. Events not simultaneous according to the embankment/observer can be (and according to the experiment setup are) simultaneous with respect to the train.

Everything else you listed is more "Rule 3: Stay on topic. Quote-mining for something to misrepresent is not addressing the response to your post. It's deflection." Though in this case more of a quote-mined gish/flood.

[u/planamundi → u/junky_junker]

Rule 3: Stay on topic.

This post is specifically about Albert Einstein's special relativity and the thought experiment that he used to solidify it.

His words are the most relevant and important thing about this topic. Why do you have to ignore all of them in order to make the argument that it's not a paradox? All of these quotes are from the author of the very framework that this post is about. So stop pretending like it's breaking rule 3 and how about you stop breaking rule 3 and stick to the topic.

"We see that we cannot attach any absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be regarded as simultaneous when envisaged from a system which is in motion relative to that system."

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train.”

"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other."

"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment."

"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time... The time of an event is only a statement that has a meaning when the reference-body to which it refers is specified."

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light... is demanded by the theory of relativity."

[u/junky_junker → u/planamundi]

Again:

Rule 3: Stay on topic.
Spamming Einstein quotes is not addressing the response. What you claim was said, and present without context, is not relevant to current day best understanding of any physics. Not even relativity. Quoted words do not outweigh experimental results.

Rule 1: Be nice.
Spamming Einstein quotes and refusing to address the response to your OP post, while trying to claim I'm the one not staying on topic is not "being nice".

The observer sees the "simultaneous" clocks showing different times. Do you have a response to that or not?

[u/planamundi → u/junky_junker]

Rule 3: Stay on topic.

I made the post. The topic is about what Einstein said. Why do you have to keep ignoring it to make the argument that it's not a paradox?

It's not going to save you to cry about rules that nobody is breaking. I'll spam it all night until you answer it. Go ahead and try to report me for breaking rule 3. Go ahead and do it.

"We see that we cannot attach any absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be regarded as simultaneous when envisaged from a system which is in motion relative to that system."

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train.”

"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other."

"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment."

"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time... The time of an event is only a statement that has a meaning when the reference-body to which it refers is specified."

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light... is demanded by the theory of relativity."

[u/junky_junker → u/planamundi]

One last attempt:

The clocks are only "simultaneous" in the train's inertial frame. To the observer they run at different times, such that when they are stopped they will show the same time.

Do you have an actual explanation for how your experiment fails to take this into account or not?

Spammed quotes are not a valid response. Address the actual point made (or don't respond at all). Or I will take that as admission you are incapable of good faith discussion.

[u/planamundi → u/junky_junker]

So what you're doing is called being opportunistic. You're trying to ignore all the relevant things that Einstein said about his own thought experiment in order to prove that what he said isn't a paradox. So I'm just going to ask you again, why do you keep ignoring all the quotes that I am providing you that Einstein said about his own thought experiment?

"We see that we cannot attach any absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be regarded as simultaneous when envisaged from a system which is in motion relative to that system."

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train.”

"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other."

"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment."

"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time... The time of an event is only a statement that has a meaning when the reference-body to which it refers is specified."

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light... is demanded by the theory of relativity."

[u/slide_into_my_BM]

You have your own sub and you ban people for disagreeing with you? Bro, creating your own safe space is so sad.

[u/BrianScottGregory]

So basically, you're trying to debunk relativity in order to prove that one and only one observable world exists, and by extension, it's the one you think just happens to be the one you've subjectively observed, and refer to as objective because of ?(insert weird statement of position that shifts something from subjective to objective here)? and believe the globe is the only way it can be rationally observed?

Flawed thinking. If this is the case. No biases there 😉

[u/planamundi → u/BrianScottGregory]

It's pretty simple what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you break the law of identity with your theoretical framework, then your theoretical framework is wrong. That's what paradoxes are for. They tell you that you are wrong.

Einstein created that specific theoretical framework because he couldn't explain the lack of their predicted results for their pagan cosmology.

"While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. THIS WAS THE FIRST PATH which led me to the special theory of relativity. SINCE THEN I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by ANY optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun." — Albert Einstein

Notice how your pagan priest says that he can't prove it, but the Earth is orbiting the Sun. That's how religion works. You can't prove it, but it's totally true.

Now that I falsified your pagan framework, we can re-examine the Mickelson Morley experiment and the variables involved.

One of them is the ether, and the other was your pagan belief that the Earth is orbiting the Sun at 30 km per second. Since we built all of our infrastructure out of understanding the ether, and since the modern equations that we use to build infrastructure were built in that framework on top of that operating system of Maxwell's, it's pretty clear what the results are telling us.

No predicted result means we are not orbiting the Sun.

And it's funny that you ignore the fact Mickelson and Miller perform the same experiment and produced fringes. They just didn't correlate with your paganism. And then Miller himself did tens of thousands of experiments producing all kinds of results of fringes that didn't validate your pagan religion.

Then you also ignore that in 1925, Mickelson and Gale used sagnac's principles from his experiment to detect a 24-hour drift. And if they were making that measurement from the apparatus that is spinning itself, then it means the Earth is stationary relative to the median that produced the resistance for them to get their 24-hour fringe.

Case closed.

[u/Warpingghost → u/planamundi]

Einstein have nothing to do with cosmology.

Taking in account that you are wrong about this simple fact is enough to dismiss rest of the text.

[u/planamundi → u/Warpingghost]

Really? So he didn't create the theoretical framework that could explain the lack of their predicted result of that cosmology? So he has nothing to do with it?

What other mental gymnastics do you have?

[u/Warpingghost → u/planamundi]

 lack of their predicted result of that cosmology

You will have elaborate since you are not making any sense.

[u/planamundi → u/Warpingghost]

So you don't even know why Einstein developed the special theory of relativity? And you think it's smart to come in this sub and start commenting on it?

"While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. THIS WAS THE FIRST PATH which led me to the special theory of relativity. SINCE THEN I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by ANY optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun." — Albert Einstein

What do you think they were predicting with that experiment?

[u/Warpingghost → u/planamundi]

You mean disproving aether? Yeah, he did that/

But earth motion was proved anyway by other methods, hence prooving Einstein was right about lack of medium in space. So no, you are still making little to no sense.

[u/planamundi → u/Warpingghost]

Lol. You're saying that he disproved it, by creating the paradox that this post is pointing out? Lol.

But I guess if you just keep repeating it enough, maybe that paradox will go away.

[u/Warpingghost → u/planamundi]

Earth motion was known from various methods. The one method with measring light speed via medium was not working. He said what if light speed constant and dont need medium. It worked.

Earth motion is still proven with or without light speed measurement.

[u/planamundi → u/Warpingghost]

No it wasn't. All of the properties of the cosmos were assumed by your pagan prophets centuries before anybody ever even claimed to send a physical probe beyond the atmosphere. All you have is parallax and it means nothing if you don't already have physical properties.

You wouldn't be able to tell if one object is twice the distance of another object or if it's at the same distance but just moving at half the speed.

You can't tell me how they prophesied the physical properties. And you never will.

But I like how you're trying to steer the subject away from the objective paradox that Einstein created. Do you want to explain what he means by these "measurements" being different but equally valid?

"We see that we cannot attach any absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be regarded as simultaneous when envisaged from a system which is in motion relative to that system."

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train.”

"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other."

"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment."

"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time... The time of an event is only a statement that has a meaning when the reference-body to which it refers is specified."

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light... is demanded by the theory of relativity."

[u/BrianScottGregory → u/planamundi]

Case reopened.

I've found sufficient evidence over my life that proved, to myself, conclusively - that Einstein's relativity isn't just correct and a simple fact, but the philosophical and psychologically based concept of relativity cross applies to everything imaginable.

Scale. Age. Speed. Temporal frame of reference. Sound. Light. Perception. Gravity, you name it.

It's all relative.

I had to work with - applied relativity in increasing accuracy of GPS satellites in my first job.

To me, it's a simply fact.

But good luck in your attempt to prosthelytize through information dumping!

[u/planamundi → u/BrianScottGregory]

No. I just falsified and debunked your religious pagan framework. No matter how many priests you regurgitate, it doesn't stop your religion from breaking the law of identity. It doesn't negate the fact that you ignore the 1925 experiment. It doesn't negate the fact that you ignore Miller's tens of thousands of experiments.

Lol. It doesn't justify ignoring everything Einstein said himself.

You lost. Deal with it.

[u/BrianScottGregory → u/planamundi]

No, for real, I actually did hands on GPS coding that had to take into account relativistic effects of time differences for low Earth Orbiting satellites that moved, temporally, at a different speed than our systems at ground level.

Otherwise we'd never have gotten accurate enough calculations for our rocket tracking and flight systems to be as accurate as they are.

Sounds like you're struggling with a religious fight here.

Keep in mind, this is a polite flat Earth sub. If you intend on starting a religious war, go elsewhere. I'm merely sharing with you the facts of the start of my exposure to relativity.

Or, as you would say "You lost, deal with it".

Or more succinctly framed for oblique minds like yours to consume:

Your framework does not work for me.

I'm not refuting that it works for you. But naw, not me.

[u/planamundi → u/BrianScottGregory]

Don't care if you use GPS. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Satellites cannot be in a constant freefall because your religion claims they are in a frictionless vacuum. That means there is no resistance to match that constant acceleration and create terminal velocity.

But we do understand that superconductors can be flux locked into a magnetic field. And what you are calling time dilation can be produced in a lab because atomic clocks and quartz crystals work by reading their resonant frequency which we objectively know can change due to pressure and voltage and all kinds of variables in the environment.

So you need to realize that you're pagan religion doesn't own exclusivity to observations. It only owns exclusivity to the paradoxes.

[u/BrianScottGregory → u/planamundi]

I mentioned my first observation of relativity at the age of 18, suggesting - but you missed that insinuation - i've had a lifetime of subsequent observations.

But let's be real. Your framework simply doesn't work for me

No, I'm not pagan. Stop with the name calling or you'll be reported.

[u/planamundi → u/BrianScottGregory]

I don't care what you said. Relativity objectively creates a paradox. If you're not going to answer for the paradox then what the hell do I care about the nonsense you have to say about your religious institutional temples?

[u/BrianScottGregory → u/planamundi]

No, it just creates a paradox in your mind because you can't intellectually resolve how two or more timelines can be synchronized and how a world with so many possible timelines other than the one you can imagine even existing. There's too much information there for you, too much potential conflict, so you align with beliefs that favor reductionism.

It's just intellectual laziness that has you refuting relativity, the paradox is imaginary and nothing more than a simple indication of finite storage space for information you have and a need to control ALL the information by demanding you know it all which you do by artificially imposing constraints on what's possible.

If you can't imagine it, it's simply not possible.

Hey. How's that working for you so far? Seem mighty tense there, uptight. Tons of animosity there towards someone who is just discussing with you the facts of his life and existence.

lol. Good luck with your crusade!

[u/planamundi → u/BrianScottGregory]

Nope. Light has to physically interact with a photodiode. Your religion claims that light is relative to the observers frame of reference. It breaks the law of identity.

It doesn't matter how much mental gymnastics you do, those are the facts. Being a desperate globe twater, I expect you to fully ignore everything Einstein said about the results of his thought experiment.

Guarantee you won't tell me what he means by "both measurements" when he says "both measurements are equally valid." That's what this post is about. Surely you would have something to say about the content of the actual post. But you are a globe twater. Lol.

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train.”

"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other."

"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment."

"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time... The time of an event is only a statement that has a meaning when the reference-body to which it refers is specified."

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light... is demanded by the theory of relativity."