Trying to Understand Light in Motion: A Frustrating Puzzle

[Muphrid]

i choose the trains frame of reference at the point the lightning strikes ( there is no passenger on the train - the train is completely passengerless - there is no reason to mention when the light reaches the centre of the train because that is not the issue)

if the lightning hits the train simultaneously and the platform observer is equal distance from the two bolts will he see the strikes simultaneously

No, in the train's frame of reference, the person on the platform is moving backwards, and the light from the strike at the rear will reach him first because he's moving toward it.

Edit: what you're describing is emphatically not the situation presented in the video, which is from the platform's frame of reference.

Edit edit: here is a transcript of the video.

Imagine two observers, one seated in the center of a speeding traincar, and another standing on the platform as the train races by.

As the center of the car passes the observer on the platform, he sees two bolts of lightning strike the car, one on the front and one on the rear.

The flashes of light from each strike reach him at the same time, so he concludes that the bolts were simultaneous since he knows that the light from both strikes traveled the same distance to his eyes at the same speed of light. He also predicts that his friend on the train will notice the front strike before the rear strike because from his perspective, the train is moving to meet the flash from the front and moving away from the flash at the rear.

But what does the passenger see? As her friend on the platform predicted, the passenger does notice the flash from the front before the flash from the rear, but her conclusion is very different. As Einstein showed, the speed of the flashes as measured in the reference frame of the train must also be the speed of light. So, because each light pulse traveles the same distance from each end of the train to the passenger, she can only conclude one thing: if she sees the front strike first, it actually happened first.

Whose interpretation is correct? The observer on the platform, who claims that the strikes happened simultaneously, or the observer on the train, who claims that the front strike happened before the rear strike? Einstein tells us that both are correct within their own frame of reference. This is a fundamental result of special relativity: from different reference frames, there can never be agreement on the simultaneity of events.

There is nothing wrong with this video. The person on the platform draws a reasonable conclusion: the flashes reach him at the same time, he was an equal distance from both ends, so the strikes must've occurred at the same time. The person on the train also draws a reasonable conclusion: the forward flash reaches her first, and the distances between both ends are the same, so the forward strike must've been first. There is no contradiction here with the theory. They necessarily disagree on whether the strikes were simultaneous, and the theory of special relativity explains why.

 

[cepheid]

you keep talking about the train observer seeing the light

im talking about when the train get hits by the lightening. the observers cannot see light that has not yet been emitted

I don't know if you are responding to the preceding post (which was my #94) here, but if you are, then it means that you failed to read anything that I said in it, which is frustrating and unfortunate.

I was NOT talking just about when the flashes arrived at the train observer. In fact, I spent the vast majority of my post talking about when they occurred (i.e. when they hit the rails), according to the train observer, and explaining that the diagram clearly showed that they did not occur at the same time in the train's reference frame. The forward flash hit the ground first, and the rear flash didn't hit until later. They may have both occurred at points along the track that were equidistant from the position of both observers at t = t' = 0, but according to the train observer, one occurred first, and then the second one occurred later.

I've updated my diagram (with the stuff in red) to show what I was trying to explain verbally in post #94:

The red dashed lines project the flash events onto the t' axis, so that we can see what their time coordinates are in the primed (') coordinate system. You can also think of these lines as the lines of constant t' that pass through each of the flash events. CLEARLY THE FLASH EVENTS DO NOT LIE ALONG THE SAME LINES OF CONSTANT t', WHICH MEANS THAT THEY OCCURRED AT DIFFERENT VALUES OF t'.

This will be my last attempt to explain this.

 

[Doc Al]

im saying that the lightning strikes on the train - that happen before the platform observer sees them - must happen simultaneously in order for him to see them simultaneously in his frame of reference. how can he be equal distance from them but but they do not happen at the same time. forget the passenger on the train and go step by step

first the cause then the effect

the cause is lightning strikes
the effect is the observer on the platform seeing the strikes when the light reaches him

he cannot see them if they did not happen - if he was not equal distance he could see two strikes that occurred at different times but because he is equal distance they must happen at

So far, all is correct.

the strikes happen simultaneously in the trains frame (at the time of the strikes)

You just ASSUME this is true, but it's not.

the strikes happen simultaneously in the platform observers frame ( after the light from the strikes move to meet his eyes)

The strikes happen simultaneously in the platform frame before the light meets the platform observers eyes.

 

[Doc Al]

if the lightning hits the train simultaneously and the platform observer is equal distance from the two bolts will he see the strikes simultaneously

Once again, you insist on mixing up scenarios, rendering this whole exercise rather pointless.

You haven't grasped the point--the entire point of Einstein's train example--that if the lightning strikes are simultaneous in one frame they cannot be simultaneous in the other.

Once again, I urge you to stick to one scenario: The one in the video, in which the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the platform frame. Follow the simple logic that leads to the inevitable conclusion that those strikes must occur at different times in the train frame.

 

[solarflare]

No, in the train's frame of reference, the person on the platform is moving backwards, and the light from the strike at the rear will reach him first because he's moving toward it.

Edit: what you're describing is emphatically not the situation presented in the video, which is from the platform's frame of reference.

Edit edit: here is a transcript of the video.


There is nothing wrong with this video. The person on the platform draws a reasonable conclusion: the flashes reach him at the same time, he was an equal distance from both ends, so the strikes must've occurred at the same time. The person on the train also draws a reasonable conclusion: the forward flash reaches her first, and the distances between both ends are the same, so the forward strike must've been first. There is no contradiction here with the theory. They necessarily disagree on whether the strikes were simultaneous, and the theory of special relativity explains why.

The person on the platform draws a reasonable conclusion: the flashes reach him at the same time, he was an equal distance from both ends, so the strikes must've occurred at the same time.

yes they occurred simultaneously in the frame of the train when the bolts hit - and they occur simultaneously when the platform observer sees them in his frame

 

[solarflare]

what any observer thinks about what happened in another frame does not matter.

what einstein meant is that they will not agree on the time that the event occurred becaue the platform observer will see the light after the event.

so in the trains frames at the time of the bolts hitting will be t=0
and the platform frame will be if he was 1 light second away t=1

that is the disagreement - not wether they hit simultaneously

 

[solarflare]

so why can't the observer on the train see the light and think that because she saw light hit at different times and she is moving towards one that the flashes could have happened simultaneously - just like the observer on the platform predicts that the passenger will see them seperately

 

[Doc Al]

so why can't the observer on the train see the light and think that because she saw light hit at different times and she is moving towards one that the flashes could have happened simultaneously - just like the observer on the platform predicts that the passenger will see them seperately

She knows she's exactly in the middle of the train, equidistant from the lightning strikes. So when she sees the light arrive at different times, she must conclude that the strikes occurred at different times. Simple as that.

 

[Doc Al]

The person on the platform draws a reasonable conclusion: the flashes reach him at the same time, he was an equal distance from both ends, so the strikes must've occurred at the same time.

That's true. The situation was arranged so that the lightning strikes occurred at the same time according to the platform observer.

yes they occurred simultaneously in the frame of the train when the bolts hit - and they occur simultaneously when the platform observer sees them in his frame

No, you cannot simply assume that the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously in the frame of the train. In fact, you can prove that they did not.

 

[Muphrid]

yes they occurred simultaneously in the frame of the train when the bolts hit - and they occur simultaneously when the platform observer sees them in his frame

Saying this repeatedly does not make it true.

what any observer thinks about what happened in another frame does not matter.

what einstein meant is that they will not agree on the time that the event occurred becaue the platform observer will see the light after the event.

so in the trains frames at the time of the bolts hitting will be t=0
and the platform frame will be if he was 1 light second away t=1

that is the disagreement - not wether they hit simultaneously

Both observers use the time when the light reaches them to infer something about when the event that generated that light actually occurred.


You keep talking about the platform being some distance away. I think you're getting too hung up on the metaphor, thinking that there must be some real separation between the person on the platform and the train and that that comes into play. As far as our math cares, the person "on the platform" could be inside the train, flying backwards with respect to the train and right next to the person sitting inside the train.

Saying that what observers think happened in another frame doesn't matter is missing the point. Saying what happens according to another observer is not guessing. As long as you know their velocity, you know how they will measure things. It is entirely correct for the platform observer to say that the train observer will detect the flash from the foward strike first because he knows something about the train observer's velocity.

so why can't the observer on the train see the light and think that because she saw light hit at different times and she is moving towards one that the flashes could have happened simultaneously - just like the observer on the platform predicts that the passenger will see them seperately

The reason she doesn't think she is moving toward the strike is because this is a light pulse, and its invariant speed doesn't tell her anything about whether she's moving toward it or away from it. That is the point of saying all observers measure the same speed of light. As far as the train observer is concerned, she's still and the world is moving. It makes little sense to say this on earth, but put the situation into space, and you see why it makes no sense to say one person is moving and the other isn't. The same situation with two spacecraft makes it clear.

 

[Dale]

so your saying it takes light longer to travel from one end of the train to the platform observer than the other? even though light travels at the same speed over the same distance.

No, I am saying that IF the strikes are simultaneous in one frame then they cannot be simultaneous in the other. See the math above, it is unambiguous on this point.

 

[Chestermiller]

so why can't the observer on the train see the light and think that because she saw light hit at different times and she is moving towards one that the flashes could have happened simultaneously - just like the observer on the platform predicts that the passenger will see them seperately

Because there is no measurement she can make that can convince her that she is moving toward one flash and away from the other flash. As far she is concerned, she is stationary, and it is the platform and the landscape that are moving (backwards).

 

[ghwellsjr]

Solarflare, I have been studying your posts and have come to the conclusion that your idea of frames includes the following:

1) There are multiple frames in the scenario.

2) There are separate and multiple frames for the train and for the platform.

3) A frame for the train does not include the platform and a frame for the platform does not include the train.

4) The platform frame at the time when the lightning bolts strike is a different frame for the time when the flashes reach the platform observer.

5) The train frame at the time when the lightning bolts strike is a different frame for the time when the flashes reach the train observer.

6) Although the platform frame and the train frame at the time when the lightning bolts strike are different frames, if the lightning bolts are simultaneous in one, then they are simultaneous in the other one.

7) What the platform observer sees in the platform frame has no bearing on what the train observer sees in the train frame and vice versa.

Have I pretty much summarized your ideas of frames? Please respond with which ones you agree with and which ones you disagree with.

 

[solarflare]

1)

But what does the passenger see? As her friend on the platform predicted, the passenger does notice the flash from the front before the flash from the rear, but her conclusion is very different. As Einstein showed, the speed of the flashes as measured in the reference frame of the train must also be the speed of light. So, because each light pulse traveles the same distance from each end of the train to the passenger, she can only conclude one thing: if she sees the front strike first, it actually happened first.

Whose interpretation is correct? The observer on the platform, who claims that the strikes happened simultaneously, or the observer on the train, who claims that the front strike happened before the rear strike? Einstein tells us that both are correct within their own frame of reference. This is a fundamental result of special relativity: from different reference frames, there can never be agreement on the simultaneity of events.

this part of the video is in the trains frame of reference - therefore the video is talking about two different frames of reference not just the one of the observer on the platform.

the video is saying that what the passenger sees is dependent on what the observer on the platform sees

what the observer on the platform sees is dependent on the fact that the strikes happen simultaneously in the trains frame.

there has to be at least two frames of reference or there would be no need to make any transformations.

2) the train has its own frame - of which the passenger is a part of - the platform observer has his own frame.

3) no both frames depend on the train - the trains frame with the passenger does not depend on the observer in the platform frame. she would still see 2 strikes even if the man on the platform was not there - and the man on the platform would also see two strikes even if there was no passenger on the train.

4) unless the light hits him at exactly the same time as the strikes happen yes - there must be a time delay between the strikes happening in the trains frame and the strikes happening in the platform observers frame. if you do not think that then you are saying light moves instantly between two places. the distance given in the video is r1 = r2 - this means that the time between the two will be how long it takes light to travel the distance r1.

5) no - what the woman in the trains frame sees is dependent on what happened in the trains frame not what happens in the platform observers frame.

6) r1 = r2 tells you that the strikes must happen simultaneously in both frames. the motion of the train does not affect the motion of the light that heads to the observeron the platform.

7) yes

 

[ghwellsjr]

Thanks for your answers. I just have one more question:

In your mind, is it always a requirement when defining, describing and analyzing scenarios like this to use multiple frames or can it all be done with just one frame?

 

[Muphrid]

4) unless the light hits him at exactly the same time as the strikes happen yes - there must be a time delay between the strikes happening in the trains frame and the strikes happening in the platform observers frame. if you do not think that then you are saying light moves instantly between two places. the distance given in the video is r1 = r2 - this means that the time between the two will be how long it takes light to travel the distance r1.

There is a train frame, but the train itself is an extended object, and the only reasons there should be any difference in how the observers see the strikes' flashes are

a) there is a distance difference, and the observer is closer to a strike than the other
b) there is a time difference, meaning one of the strikes themselves happens before the other

Both of these explanations apply in the same frame as an observer's velocity--i.e. these are how an observer may describe the difference in what he himself sees. To describe what another observer sees (again, this is valid), there is a third explanation:

c) there is a velocity difference, and the other observer is moving toward or away from the light of each flash.

This is still a valid thing to say for a chosen frame.

5) no - what the woman in the trains frame sees is dependent on what happened in the trains frame not what happens in the platform observers frame.

That may be literally true, but what happens in another frame can be used to gain some information about what must happen in the first frame for things to be consistent.

Simple analogy: you're facing north and there's a building 3 miles east. Now turn to face the west. That building must be 3 miles behind you. Different frames in spacetime are mathematically the same as choosing a different direction to face on a North-South-East-West plane than due north. You can always describe locations in terms of ahead or behind, left or right, no matter how you rotate the coordinate system, and information for one orientation is entirely valid to tell you how another orientation must look. Spacetime is the same way for frames.

6) r1 = r2 tells you that the strikes must happen simultaneously in both frames. the motion of the train does not affect the motion of the light that heads to the observeron the platform.

No, the same distance does not tell you that the strikes are simultaneous. If just tells you that if the train observer perceives both flashes at the same time, then she will conclude that both strikes are simultaneous. It is not a complete argument in and of itself that the strikes themselves are simultaneous. You need some argument to say that she will perceive both flashes at the same time in the first place. See what I mean?

 

[solarflare]

you say the platform observer must conclude that the flashes were simultaneous

but then you say he can use his knowledge of light and the fact the train is moving to predict that she will see them seperately. so why can't he use his knowledge - if what you say is true - to conlude that because he saw them simultaneously that they couldn't have been simultaneous. and then because he knows that they can't be simultaneous because he saw them simultaneously and he predicts that the passenger will also see them seperatley then they will both agree that they were not simultaneous

 

[Muphrid]

you say the platform observer must conclude that the flashes were simultaneous

but then you say he can use his knowledge of light and the fact the train is moving to predict that she will see them seperately. so why can't he use his knowledge - if what you say is true - to conlude that because he saw them simultaneously that they couldn't have been simultaneous. and then because he knows that they can't be simultaneous because he saw them simultaneously and he predicts that the passenger will also see them seperatley then they will both agree that they were not simultaneous

Let's be precise: it's a given that the platform observer sees the flashes at the same time. What he must conclude from there is that the lightning strikes themselves (which we all agree happened before those flashes reach him) both occurred at the same moment, again because he believes that both strikes were equidistant from him. Why he believes this (and what tools he would need to be certain of this) I can't say. Really, how he determines this distance is beyond the scope of the problem; let's just assume he can determine distances accurately (there are enough ways you can do this that I certainly don't see the need to worry about it).

Him saying the strikes are simultaneous in his frame is really inescapable with all the information given. That's not to say he concludes everyone must believe the strikes were simultaneous. Just from the train observer's velocity, he can conclude that (a) she will see the forward flash before the rear flash and that (b) based on her position on the train, she would conclude that the forward strike hit before the rear strike. He can figure all of this out just by geometry, really. It's no different than drawing a couple lines on a graph and seeing where they intersect, exactly as cepheid did.

He knows that saying these two events were simultaneous to him is as meaningful to someone else moving relative to him as me saying I'm standing between two buildings and they're exactly lined up with the way I'm pointing. It may be true for me, and anyone else looking at me can verify this is what I see, but anyone else pointed in any other direction will not say they're aligned with the buildings.

 

[Dale]

But what does the passenger see? As her friend on the platform predicted, the passenger does notice the flash from the front before the flash from the rear, but her conclusion is very different. As Einstein showed, the speed of the flashes as measured in the reference frame of the train must also be the speed of light. So, because each light pulse traveles the same distance from each end of the train to the passenger, she can only conclude one thing: if she sees the front strike first, it actually happened first.

This is exactly correct. Similarly, the platform observer notices the flashes from both sides at the same time. Again, because each light pulse travels the same distance at the same speed the platform observer must conclude that the strikes actually happened at the same time.

Whose interpretation is correct? The observer on the platform, who claims that the strikes happened simultaneously, or the observer on the train, who claims that the front strike happened before the rear strike? Einstein tells us that both are correct within their own frame of reference. This is a fundamental result of special relativity: from different reference frames, there can never be agreement on the simultaneity of events.

Exactly. Simultaneity is relative. The platform observer is correct that the strikes happened simultaneously in the platform frame and the train observer is correct that the strikes happened at different times in the train frame.

6) r1 = r2 tells you that the strikes must happen simultaneously in both frames. the motion of the train does not affect the motion of the light that heads to the observeron the platform.

Again, please see the math above. This is impossible. The strikes cannot be simultaneous in both frames.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Solarflare, please don't ignore my question:

Thanks for your answers. I just have one more question:

In your mind, is it always a requirement when defining, describing and analyzing scenarios like this to use multiple frames or can it all be done with just one frame?

 

[solarflare]

Solarflare, please don't ignore my question:

this one requires more than one because it is talking about more than one

to ignore that is to pick and choose data that you want and that is not scientific

 

[Dale]

to ignore that is to pick and choose data that you want and that is not scientific

Well said. Let's make sure that we agree on the actual data:

1) A lightning flash strikes the front of the train, leaving a black mark on the front of the train and on the right end of the platform adjacent to the tracks.

2) A lightning flash strikes the rear of the train, leaving a black mark on the rear of the train and on the left end of the platform adjacent to the tracks.

3) A platform observer is located midway between the left and right platform marks, as measured by rods on the platform.

4) A train observer is located midway between the front and back train marks, as measured by rods on the train.

5) The platform observer receives the light from both flashes at the same time.

6) The train observer receives the light from the front flash before receiving the light from the rear flash.

7) The train is moving with velocity v to the right in the platform frame, and the platform is moving with velocity v to the back in the train frame.

Can you agree on all of those data points, even if you disagree on the interpretation?

 

[solarflare]

1) the lightning only hit the train - not the platform - the train is on tracks that are a distance from the platform r1

2) same as 1

3) the length of the platform is not an issue he could be 1/3rd from 1 end and 2/3rds from the other as long as he was midpoint along the train when he saw the flashes.

4) yes i agree

5) yes i agree

6) no i do not agree - you can not add velocity or subtract it from c if they hit the train simultaneously because the train observer considers herself stationay so the light must reach her at the same time. just as if the lightning struck the platform the platform guy would see them simultaneously because he is stationary in his frame.

7) yes i agree
the problem is simple - i say the strikes must happen simultaneously in both frames if r1 = r2 and others say that is not

 

[Muphrid]

1) the lightning only hit the train - not the platform - the train is on tracks that are a distance from the platform r1

No, there is no r1; the problem can be worked as if the man on the platform and the woman on the train could actually occupy the same space in 1 dimension.

6) no i do not agree - you can not add velocity or subtract it from c if they hit the train simultaneously because the train observer considers herself stationay so the light must reach her at the same time. just as if the lightning struck the platform the platform guy would see them simultaneously because he is stationary in his frame.

There is no reason for the flashes to reach her at the same time in her frame if the strikes themselves do not happen at the same time in her frame. Do you agree or disagree on this point?

7) yes i agree
the problem is simple - i say the strikes must happen simultaneously in both frames if r1 = r2 and others say that is not

What is r2?

 

[Dale]

1) the lightning only hit the train - not the platform - the train is on tracks that are a distance from the platform r1

2) same as 1

Sure, but for simplicity let's set r1 to some small value, say 1 cm. Then it is reasonable to neglect it and also to consider the lightning strikes to have marked both the train and the platform.

6) The train observer receives the light from the front flash before receiving the light from the rear flash.

6) no i do not agree -

You appear to be contradicting your previous statement where you explicitly and clearly said that the passenger does see the flash from the front before the flash from the rear. Please explain.

But what does the passenger see? As her friend on the platform predicted, the passenger does notice the flash from the front before the flash from the rear

 

[Jimmy]

You appear to be contradicting your previous statement where you explicitly and clearly said that the passenger does see the flash from the front before the flash from the rear. Please explain.

That quote is directly from the video which Solarflare doesn't agree with.

But what does the passenger see? As her friend on the platform predicted, the passenger does notice the flash from the front before the flash from the rear.​

He didn't mention that hence the confusion.

 

[Dale]

That quote is directly from the video which Solarflare doesn't agree with.

But what does the passenger see? As her friend on the platform predicted, the passenger does notice the flash from the front before the flash from the rear.​

He didn't mention that hence the confusion.

Ah, that makes sense.

solarflare, can you confirm that Jimmy is correct? If so, then I would remind you of your own comment:

to ignore that is to pick and choose data that you want and that is not scientific

You cannot simply ignore data that you disagree with. If one observer sees the light from the two flashes reach him at the same time then the other cannot. You are making stuff up and getting wrong conclusions as a result.

 

[Dale]

Let two flashes occur, one at t0 and x0 and the other at t1 and x1. The light from those flashes satisfies the following equations:$$c^2(t-t_0)^2=(x-x_0)^2$$$$c^2(t-t_1)^2=(x-x_1)^2$$
Where x0<x1 and t0<t and t1<t.

These two equations have at most one solution which satisfies the inequalities, which is:$$x = (c (-t_0 + t_1) + x_0 + x_1)/2$$$$t=(c (t_0 + t_1) - x_0 + x_1)/2c$$

So if anyone observer receives the signals at the same time then any other observer who is not co-located with the first observer at the time of the signal reception must receive them at different times.

Note, this proof does not require the flashes to be simultaneous nor does it require the observer to be equidistant between the flashes. It is a general proof for flashes with arbitrary timing and location. It is simply not possible for both the platform observer and the train observer to receive the light from both flashes at the same time since they are not co-located at the time that they receive the light.

 

[Muphrid]

In other words, all observers must agree on the invariant interval between two events. The platform observer sees the worldlines of the train observer and the forward flash intersect separately from when the train observer and the rear flash intersect. Since both observers must agree on the length of the invariant interval, and in the train observer's frame this interval is entirely a time duration and not a distance, the conclusion for the train observer is that the strikes were not simultaneous.

 

[solarflare]

Sure, but for simplicity let's set r1 to some small value, say 1 cm. Then it is reasonable to neglect it and also to consider the lightning strikes to have marked both the train and the platform.

this is a clear example of of picking and choosing data.

 

[solarflare]

No, there is no r1; the problem can be worked as if the man on the platform and the woman on the train could actually occupy the same space in 1 dimension.



There is no reason for the flashes to reach her at the same time in her frame if the strikes themselves do not happen at the same time in her frame. Do you agree or disagree on this point?



What is r2?

so your saying that the strikes do happen simultaneously in both frames but because she is moving towards 1 and away from the other she will say that the front one struck first and the rear one struck second

 

[Nugatory]

so your saying that the strikes do happen simultaneously in both frames but because she is moving towards 1 and away from the other she will say that the front one struck first and the rear one struck second

He is saying that the strikes do NOT happen simultaneously in both frames.

Let's say that train guy has set up a clock at each end of the train. He's set them so that both clocks read the same time in his frame. Platform guy also sets up two clocks, also reading the same in his frame, at the two points where the two lightning bolts will strike.

Let's say that these clocks are designed so that they will stop when they're hit by lightning.

After the lightning hits, if train guy's two stopped clocks both show the same time (lightning hit both clocks and stopped them at the same time in train guy's frame) then platform guy's two stopped clocks will not both show the same time (lightning hit platform guy's two clocks at different times in his frame).

 

[solarflare]

here is how i see the relativity of simultaneity

if a two bolts of lightning hit the platform equidistant from the observer on the platform he will see the flashes simultaneously.

if the passenger on the train was equidistant from the flashes when they occurred in the platform frame - then by the time the flashes moved from the source to her eyes she will have moved towards one and away from the other. so she will see two flashes but not simultaneously.

the amount of time between each flash from the passengers frame will depend on the speed that she is travelling.

the problem is that the video says the flashes occurred in her frame then moved to his frame and then moved again from his frame back to her frame.

 

[ghwellsjr]

and even in the video it says what I am saying - it freezes the train and shows the light leaving both ends and reaching the platform observer at the same time.

if you say I am wrong then you say the video is wrong - and as i am saying the video is wrong then you are agreeing with me

I took another close look at the video and you are correct, the video is wrong. In fact, it's pathetic. Even the audio is wrong. Whoever put that thing together doesn't know what they're talking about. I can see now why you are saying some of the things you are saying.

 

[solarflare]

i think the problem here is that when i said the video is wrong everyone thought i was saying the concept of relativity of simultanety was wrong.

its like a scoolboy pointing out the teachers error and the teacher instead of looking to see if he made a mistake just tells him he is wrong and continues to teach the wrong stuff