Me vs. Orlando_Jordan

We're discussing Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Begin.

 

Imagine two observers, one seated in the center of a speeding train car, 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 at the same speed, the speed of light. He also predicts that his friend on the train will notice the front strike before the rear strike, because from her perspective on the platform the train is moving to meet the flash from the front, and moving away from the flash from 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 travels the same distance from each end of the train to the passenger, and because both pulses must move at the same speed, he can only conclude one thing: if he 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.

 

Very Nicely put there, I must agree.

Very well, you win. Case closed.

 

Are you supposed to copy and paste?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="But+what+does+the+passenger+see?"&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...e+center+of+a+speeding+train+car"&btnG=Search

etc

 

Pwnt.

 

all i can say is lol

 

I knew that it was plagiarized from the moment I saw his terminology. It's generally very crude and basic, but was surprisingly impressive this time.

 

^ That, and do you honestly think orlando_jordan, of all people would be able to write such a thing?

 

Fine you want my honest opinion.

O.K. this is a once in a lifetime answer. We exist within the perameters of our dimension as percieved by our normal senses. (Einstein also said that we live in the third dim. time is the fourth and God is the fifth). And it is also said that he would uncontrollably shiver when he referred to this Idea. That would be known as spiritual confirmation. As a mortal we can only percieve motion to the extreme of 186,000 mps. As a spirit we can experience superluminous speeds, which would be spontaneous between A and B no matter what the distance between the two points. There is a difference between speed and velocity. You are a spirit living in a earthen vessel, that earthen vessel can reach a speed that can destroy it unless it is protected within something else travelling the same speed. Your spirit can travel spontaneously from any point in time/space to any other existing point in time/space. There is a diminishing fine line between science and theological understanding, that is becoming thinner with the advancement of technology. God is timeless, when we are released from these perameters of existance in which our spirits are contained for the duration of this learning experience, (life). Then we shall exist in the dimension where God is. To be Holy is to be in the presence of God, whether that be here and now or in the hereafter. Think of life and perception (consciousness) as being in phases, 1energy2mass3space4time5God and the perception of all these is totally relevant to the existence of Consciousness and you shall understand the answer to the next question when you "exceed the speed of light". James Mark Platt.

 

Einstein was a hard Christian man, but his theories challenged him, and no matter how hard he tried, God was not accepted in his research.

 

As far as I can tell, God has nothing to do with relativity...

 

Coming from you, since I know your background, I can only respectfully agree.

 

I mean, I can't see how the idea of God conflicts with the theory of relativity.

 

He said he faced the issue of god not fitting in... it was because of that he abandoned it after much popularity.

 

Lol. I enjoy reading your posts

This topic really puzzles me, so I'll stay out :|

 

LOL @ orlando_jordan...funny guy.

 

k im confused now ill just stick to games than

 

Tbh, Orlando Jordan was just pwnt. Gf for plagerism(sp?) Witch is also against the law the last time I checked. Witch was never. I go by word of mouth.

 

I dont even no what that is lol

 

Erm... Thanks for telling us...