> On May 6, 4:11 pm, PD gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> On May 6, 2:45 pm, kenseto erinet.com> wrote:

>

>>> On May 6, 11:18 am, PD gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> [Not going to respond to the rest of this, since it is clear that Ken
>> is completely and utterly beyond hope. But I'll focus on one point
>> that appears to be new.]

>
> ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
> argument.

> I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
> admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
> simultaneously

>> On May 6, 11:00 am, rbwinn juno.com> wrote:

>>> On May 6, 7:58 am, jem wrote:

>

>>>> kenseto wrote:

>>>>> On May 5, 10:46 am, "papar...@gmail.com" gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>> This is what Einstein exactly said in "Albert Einstein (1879-1955).
>>>>>> Relativity: The Special and General Theory.  1920.", chapter 9.
>>>>>> "Up to now our considerations have been referred to a particular body
>>>>>> of reference, which we have styled a "railway embankment." We suppose
>>>>>> a very long train travelling along the rails with the constant
>>>>>> velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig. 1. People travelling
>>>>>> in this train will with advantage use the train as a rigid reference-
>>>>>> body (co-ordinate system); they regard all events in reference to the
>>>>>> train. Then every event which takes place along the line also takes
>>>>>> place at a particular point of the train. Also the definition of
>>>>>> simultaneity can be given relative to the train in exactly the same
>>>>>> way as with respect to the embankment. As a natural consequence,
>>>>>> however, the following question arises:
>>>>>> Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are ...

>
>
> ROTFLOL...this runt of the SRians failed to come up with a valid
> argument so he back paddled.

> kenseto a �crit :
>

>> ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
>> argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
>> admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
>> simultaneously and that:
>> 1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
>> moving wrt the light fronts.
>> 2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
>> moving wrt the light fronts.

>
> In SR, "not moving with respect to a light front" makes no sense.

> [complete nonsense]
> Don't you think it might
> be time to think about it?

> rbwinn a �crit :
>

>> [complete nonsense]
>> Don't you think it might
>> be time to think about it?

>
> It definitely is... for you.

> On May 7, 6:48�am, YBM wrote:
>

>> kenseto a �crit :

>

>>> ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
>>> argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
>>> admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
>>> simultaneously and that:
>>> 1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
>>> moving wrt the light fronts.
>>> 2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
>>> moving wrt the light fronts.

>

>> In SR, "not moving with respect to a light front" makes no sense.

>
> I have a question, YBM.  Whether you talk about photons or light
> fronts, in the frame of reference of the train, the light is traveling
> at a speed of c from the two points where light was emitted in the
> frame of reference of the train.  Those two points remain exactly ...

> On May 7, 6:48�am, YBM wrote:
>

>> kenseto a �crit :

>

>>> ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
>>> argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
>>> admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
>>> simultaneously and that:
>>> 1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
>>> moving wrt the light fronts.
>>> 2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
>>> moving wrt the light fronts.

>

>> In SR, "not moving with respect to a light front" makes no sense.

>
> I have a question, YBM. Whether you talk about photons or light
> fronts, in the frame of reference of the train, the light is traveling
> at a speed of c from the two points where light was emitted in the
> frame of reference of the train. Those two points remain exactly ...

> On 7 mayo, 10:28, rbwinn juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On May 7, 6:48�am, YBM wrote:

>

>>> kenseto a �crit :

>

>>>> ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
>>>> argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
>>>> admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
>>>> simultaneously and that:
>>>> 1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
>>>> moving wrt the light fronts.
>>>> 2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
>>>> moving wrt the light fronts.

> ...

> On May 7, 8:42 am, "papar...@gmail.com" gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On 7 mayo, 10:28, rbwinn juno.com> wrote:

>

>>> On May 7, 6:48�am, YBM wrote:

>

>>>> kenseto a �crit :

>

>>>>> ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
>>>>> argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
>>>>> admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
>>>>> simultaneously and that:
>>>>> 1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
>>>>> moving wrt the light fronts.
>>>>> 2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
>>>>> moving wrt the light fronts.

> ...