To address the problem more specifically, t=1 and t=2 must be tied to location, the same t at different locations means different absolute time. In the top diagram, t is tied to the train, in the bottom diagram, time is tied to the ground. Because the train moves relative to the ground, so t=1 on the train is absolutely different from t=1 on the ground due to the spatial distance moved between the train and the ground. Of course, t=2 will be absolutely different on the train than that t=2 on the ground. Because the absolute time of emittance is different, the top and bottom diagrams actually describe two different events, therefore they naturally look different.

Preprint Yet further Animadversions upon the wiki figure purporting t...

Apropos : The "tilting mirror" proof above, that the Relativity of Simultaneity is untenable, is one of the simplest.

It is stronger than an experimental proof, to my mind, because it demonstrates something that cannot possibly be. An experimental proof, such as the Michelson Morley experiment, -- might be subject to an amendment, or alteration, an improved result might conceivably come along and replace the older one.

cf. Preprint Animadversions upon the wiki figure purporting to demonstrat...

The above is not subject to amendment. The Relativity of Simultaneity is simply a logical impossibility.

And so we have an Absolute character to breadth and an Absolute chracter to time, as described by Newton in his General Scholium.

Preprint Precis of the proof we have an Absolute character to time an...

Dear Gary Stephens

Let me give a step-by-step logical analysis of your example as Einstein and relativists understand the thought experiment you propose to conclude that "if we accept that light speed is invariant", simultaneity cannot be absolute.

Assumptions:

1) We have an observer O in the embankment and an observer O' on the train.

2)The train is moving with a finite speed v

Justo Pastor Lambare

Dear Professor Lambare,

Thank you for your logical analysis.

The first thing to realise, is that, irrespective of the logical reasoning-- or the ratiocination, the "Relativity of Simultaneity" is shown to be impossible by the tilting mirror demonstration.

What this demonstrates is that the location of the rays in the top figure -have to be- the same as the location of the rays (with respect to the carriage) in the bottom figure, throughout the whole trajectory of these rays.

Returning to your ratiocination.

The other thing to realise, is that the solution that is forced upon us, is the one in which the rays arrive to the middle of the embankment simultaneously and to the middle of the carriage simultaneity. What forces this upon us is :

1. The logic of Relative Motion, and

2. What the observers -must witness- (they cannot witness two realities).

Consider :

"1') To analyze what O' in the train observes it is convenient to consider him as stationary and forget that he is moving w.r.t. the embankment. Since he is at the midpoint, he sees that the light beams hit points A and B simultaneously."

This is correct.

"2') To analyze what O in the embankment observes, it is convenient to consider him stationary in the embankment. Since for both observers O and O', the light beams are emitted in a single event (same time, same place means a single event)"

This is also correct.

What should have been said here, is exactly what was said in 1'). ie. "Since he is at the midpoint, he sees that the light beams hit points A and B simultaneously."

Because of the logic of Relative Motion, we have a completely symmetrical situation.

When you went on to say :

3 "but for O point A is going to the encounter of the left light beam while point B is receding from the right light beam, the necessary consequence is that for O, EventA happens before Event B, therefore they cannot be simultaneous."

What you are thinking of here, is how the light is progressing in the other frame-- the moving carriage, and how it impacts in the frame you are in-- the stationary embankment.

But this contradicts your previous statement about you being stationary upon the embankment, and the light rays being issued from the middle, proceeding to the ends (at A and B) and arriving simultaneously.

So your statement 3 then contradicts the above statement, in which the rays arrive simultaneously to the ends at A and B.

In other words you end up with two realities on the embankment. Viz : The rays arrive one after the other at A and B, on the one hand, and the same rays arrive simultaneously at A and B, on the other.

This is impossible.

We cannot have the man on the platform or the man on the carriage witness two different realities-- we can't have him witnessing the rays arriving "simultaneously" to A and B and also "one after the other" to A and B.

So, what is happening here, is the -logic of Relative Motion- (together with what the observers must witness) is forcing us to conclude, the rays -have to- arrive simultaneously for -both observers-.

Now the statement "Light speed invariance" ---> "Simultaneity cannot be an absolute concept"

Is what Einstein co. would have you to believe, but this statement is too vague, and hides the truth.

What is true, is there is "Light speed invariance" in any "stationary frame". ie. on the carriage (if you deem that stationary) or on the embankment (if you deem that stationary).

However, going between frames, the light necessarily has to traverse a greater or lesser distance in the same time, in order to arrive simultaneously at A and B, as it must in the "really moving frame".

I say "really moving" because an observer traveling to the left of the "stationary" carriage is equivalent to the carriage "really moving" to the right (and so the space having to be traversed expanding as it were for one ray, and contracting for the other ray).

Ultimately we are dealing with the very origin of motion itself, and we find it is intimately connected with the the logic of Relative motion, and what the observers -must witness-.

Dear Gary Stephens

The problem is that you consider that we have two different realities because you are "assuming" that distant simultaneity is one reality.

That is the whole problem with your rational thinking.

As I always try in vain to explain to many relativist deniers: You can reject relativity in a logically consistent way:

Just exclude "by definition" that distant simultaneity can be relative. Once that becomes an axiom there is nothing that can be criticized from a purely logical standpoint.

The problem with you, and many others, is that you try to prove an inconsistency that does not exist unless you "by definition" declare that the relative character of distant simultaneity is impossible and contradictory.

In summary, your argument is circular. You indeed are proving nothing but just declaring what you believe how reality should be.

Anyway, thank you for your answer, and I apologize for having insisted.

Justo Pastor Lambare

Dear Professor Lambare,

I merely pointed out that your reasoning led again to "two realities."

This is also what the tilting-mirror demonstration reveals.

The tilting-mirror demonstration is so simple, it is not subject to BS, or muddle or confusion. I did notice you, as an ardent spacetime apparatchik, did not, have not, and never will, discuss it.

Dear Gary

Thank you for your answer and for teaching me a new word "apparatchick".

I wish you all the success in your endeavor of improving science and dump all its apparatchicks like me.

I promise this is the last time I try to obnubilate with BS your brilliant understanding of physics.

Justo Pastor Lambare

Dear Professor Lambare,

I also notice that when you and your fellow Einstein apparatchiks claim there are no "inconsistencies" --- and I point out the Lorentz relations are not utilized in wiki diagram purporting.. but are utilized in other experiments with two frames, and light rays ie. the Einstein Light Clock and the Michelson Morley experiment, you suddenly go blind, and mute.

You (and your fellow mesmerised) don't see this as an inconsistency, and claim, --- notwithstanding all of these experiments are dealing with a how light rays behave in a moving and a stationary frame,--- that these are totally different experiments. Nothing to see here.

When I point out that Einstein himself used the "moving carriage" to demonstrate his velocity addition formula, for light rays, in which he utilizes the Lorentz relations...

...you say "nothing to see here". The moving carriage is a totally different experiment and Lorentz relations should not be used-- er, okay well Einstein used them in his velocity addition formula, but he shouldn't have, well okay he should have, but it's okay to use them and not use them, anyway lets talk about something else.

To you and your fellow Einstein apparatchiks, there are never any "inconsistencies".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Mesmer

Dear Gary Stephens

Thank you for trying to illuminate me. Maybe someday I will break free from Einstein's mesmerizing effect on me.

Maybe I was not blessed with the deep insight and critical mind necessary to perform the original analysis required to realize that SRT is complete nonsense, so please forgive me.

Justo Pastor Lambare

Dear Professor Lambare,

To your great credit you are one of the very few mainstream academics that are prepared to look into these matters. I hope my frustration does not spill over overly into my posts.

Justo Pastor Lambare

Dear Professor Lambare,

And essentially here you are describing what might be called the standard view.

"Light speed invariance" ---> "Simultaneity cannot be an absolute concept"

And what you say is perfectly correct within this viewpoint.

My contention is that going between frames, light rays cannot travel at a fix rate. If they did, we wouldn't have the different optical lengths in the moving and stationary frames, and so we wouldn't have the Lorentz relations.

And of course, in the context of the AE train-embankment experiment, as described by Einstein, these the Lorentz relations don't exist. They are never mentioned and are not part of the thought experiment. And so within this context, your description was entirely accurate. (I didn't mean to say it wasn't).