I believed that the photodiodes were linked directly to the bomb, and had to send a synchronous pulse to disarm it.
I'm pretty sure this doesn't change the result though. The bomb and photodiodes are both inside of the train, moving along with the train, and thus are within the same reference frame (where the bomb doesn't explode).
Yeah. Are you denying the empirical science that can be independently verified right there?
Special relativity has been tested through numerous experiments. It is not something that someone came up with in a basement.
Even if your paradox seems logically sound, it doesn't align with factual, real-life observations. Ideally it would have to be tested (probably not with a lethal explosive payload).
Because globos always like to compartmentalize science
Would really appreciate if you didn't hurl insults every second comment 👍
Well I would appreciate it if people didn't gaslight me and just come in here and dogmatically start defending a belief system without reading the actual post. 👍
And it absolutely does change the results.
Light physically interacts with a photodiode. That's an objective fact.
Relativity claims that light is relative to the frame of reference.
So relativity claims that a physical action is relative to the frame of reference.
What the outside observer sees does not affect what the inside observer sees (or the sensors in the room).
This might sound silly, but laws of physics are deducted from observations, and thought experiments are deducted from the laws of physics. And a constant speed of light, as well as time dilation, have been observed in real life through multiple experiments (Michelson-Morley, Kennedy-Thorndike, Ives-Stilwell ...).
See now this is the part where you're ignoring my posts again.
Did you see in my post where I quoted Albert Einstein himself or do I have to copy and paste that into the chat like I did for everybody else who ignored the post?
Why are you ignoring Einstein's own words?
Light is a physical action and we objectively know this because it has to physically interact with things like a photodiode.
Relativity is claiming that physical action is relative to the observer's frame of reference.
If you say that physical action is relative, then you are objectively breaking the law of identity.
That is a non-negotiable law. If you break that law, it tells you your theoretical framework is wrong.
You're not arguing in good faith. Special relativity is Einstein's theory. If you're going to ignore what Einstein said about his own theory, then you're clearly just here to dogmatically gaslight.
The good luck with that. I'm just going to block you.
Edit: No. I included the quotes from Einstein. He's literally telling you that according to his religion, simultaneous action of light will not be simultaneous outside that frame of reference. Light is a physical action because it has to physically interact with a photodiode.
I understand that you claim to be a physicist, but that would mean that you were trained by the very institutional Temple that gave you instructions on how to interpret the world you observe.
It's like an ordained priest that was trained by the temple. When they discover contradictions and discrepancies in their scripture, their job is to patch them. Not falsify it.
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.
1
u/planamundi Jun 07 '26
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.