> On Oct 6, 7:03 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> No, you have not read and understood what Einstein said.
> 
> Here is what the gedanken says:
> 
> 1. The three criteria of simultaneity (as we outlined them earlier) are
>    laid out.
> 
> 2. M and M' both agree that criteria 3 is not met for M', and is met for
>    M. There can be no disagreement about actual observations.
> 
> 3. For M, all three simultaneity criteria are met, and so the
>    *unambiguous* conclusion is that the flashes were simultaneous.
> 
> 4. For M' the first two simultaneity criteria are met, but the third one
>    is not, and so the *unambiguous* conclusion is that the flashes are not
>    simultaneous.
>    At this point Einstein pauses and points out that there is no priority
>    given to either frame, so it's impossible to point to either frame and
>    say that one is right and the other is wrong. So it is a simple fact
>    that simultaneity is frame-dependent.
> 
> 5. BUT, Einstein goes a step further and says, M and M' are both
>    thinking people, and they must be then puzzling over the result and they
>    go back to wondering how they go to this place. So they ask the
>    question, how is it that criteria 3 is met for M and not for M', which
>    leads to the inescapable conclusion?
> 
> 6. Einstein shows that this result is perfectly understandable. M looks
>    at what's happening for M' and sees that *of course* the signals do not
>    arrive at the same time at M', because condition 2 doesn't hold for M'
>    in K. M' disagrees, of course, and says that of course condition 2 holds
>    -- he can measure that he stood exactly midway between the lightning
>    flashes, as evidenced by later measurements to the scorch marks on the
>    train. So there is a source of disagreement.
> 
> 7. What Einstein did NOT talk about is how M' accounts for the fact that
>    M saw the signals at the same time, even though the flashes were not
>    simultaneous. This too is easy to understand, as M is not midway between
>    the two events in frame K', and it's easy to see how light from the
>    later lightning strike could arrive at M at the same time as light from
>    the earlier lightning strike. So this is how M' accounts for M receiving
>    the light at the same time.
> 
> 8. The two observers think about this some more and are still flummoxed
>    by the inescapable conclusions about simultaneity based on the three
>    criteria, and then they ask, how is it that criterion 1 is satisfied by
>    both observers? If the signal speed is identical from both flashes for
>    M, shouldn't it be nonidentical for M', or vice-versa? But here is where
>    experiment comes in and says, no, it is confirmed experimentally that
>    the signal speed is identical from both flashes for M and also identical
>    from both flashes for M'. So condition 1 is satisfied for both, and
>    there is no escape from the simultaneity conclusions they made earlier.
> 
> It's a pity that you have misunderstood this gedanken so badly. Who
> taught it to you? Or was it the case that no one taught it to you and
> you attempted to learn it yourself without assistance?

Are you paid by somebody or are you Jew? Was Einstein your grand
uncle? Why you are giving me a long rope to hang yourself? Or may be,
target of your message, written in a textbook fashion, is not me at
all. Who is your target? Faithfull followers?
Whatever might be the reason for your post, I suspect that you
realized immediately that a single question I raised is quite damaging
to the basic tenet of your loved scripture. And so these diversions.
Okay I presented the gedanken in a different setup, but the essence
was retained.
You know that lightning is not a single source of light and for that
matter not even a point source. A source of light in this gedanken has
to a laser pulse; shorter the better; and a single pulse cannot be
present in both the frames simultaneously. Another point is that, this
condition is not at all important to explain how two events which are
simultaneous in one frame are not so in the other frame. Root of this
proposition is to be found in the assumed nature of light which makes
it travel at a constant speed in all frames.
However this peculiar nature of light makes its velocity, source
independent. If velocity of light is source dependent then the whole
idea of SR is to be dumped in the garbage bin. But if it source
independent then we have no right to use it as a tool to derive some
strange results. Use mechanical objects as bullets and SR is gone
through the drain. Your repeating the gedanken, with all its commas
and full stops, is of no help.