Frame of Reference Relativity
Preface:

Are simultaneous events simultaneous?  That is the issue of the train experiment.  An experiment must be repeatable and verifiable.
The setup for the experiment specifies that the simultaneous events are simultaneous. Therefore, when we begin the repeat of the
experiment,  we have simultaneous light events happen.  When the events happen,  there are valid xyzt values for the simultaneous
events for all  frames.  Those event time xyzt values don't change over time. Therefore; the experiment to prove simultaneous
events are simultaneous is over at the event time. That is because all frames have valid simultaneous xyzt values for the
simultaneous events. However; some are intrigued with the conduct of the experiment as an example of how relativity works.    

Remember, an experiment must be repeatable and verifiable. When an experiment is repeated, from any frame of reference,  
coordinates of any object or event exists at a moment in time.  As space time advances, new xyzt space time coordinates exist for all
objects or events.  Any frame of reference observer can use a series of xyzt space time values to projected a path forward and back.
If a glass is being filled by a flight attendant on an airplane, the instant the water hits the glass, it becomes a glass of water GW.  If
the flight attendant is moving the glass as it is being filled, the movement of the GW and the airplane are 2 motions. The additive
motions don’t change the actual motion of the GW.  Any observer in any frame of reference has the GW space time xyzt values for
the GW from the instant the water hits the glass until it is spilled on a passenger.  If 2 flight attendants simultaneously fill glasses
then simultaneously spill the water, those events have valid xyzt values that can be used to project forward and back.  If an observer
has just some of the values, they can still project forward and back.  If they project back to the time before the water hit the glass,
the projection is only valid in that it shows where the GW would be if the water had been inside the glass.  

Nobody doubts that projections of the GW path can be made if the observer has 2 or more of the historical xyzt space time values.  If
the observer only has 1 set of xyzt values and the speed of the GW, the person can’t calculate the path back to when the water hit
the glass making it a GW.  

We can setup an experiment to have 2 or more observers plot the xyzt values for 2 glasses of water from time the water hits the
glasses until the water is spilled from the glasses as they move on an airplane. We substitute 2 Glasses of water for 2 lightning
strikes.  

Remember, an experiment must be repeatable and verifiable.  We follow the specifications in section 9 of Einstein’s paper. We begin
recording data for all frames.  We have computers that record the xyzt values for the simultaneous lightning strikes.  The train frame
has the event time xyz values for both of the simultaneous lightning strikes along with a series of xyzt values until light has arrived
from both light events.   The embankment observer also has data in his computer.  

1 - When the events happen, they are simultaneous.  Any time after the simultaneous events doesn't change the event time
conditions.  Thus,  section 9 is wrong because it is dealing with post event time observations.

2 - Event time and post event time data shows train movement relative to the simultaneous light events.  

In in both frames the data also shows, relative to the train observer:
- a - the light from A and B travel at different speeds, or
- b - the train is moving between the lights.  

Thus, section 9 is wrong because the post simultaneous event time data shows that the observer can determine the reason the lights
arrived at different times.  

3 - Without repeating the experiment to get the series of xyzt values, could the train observer determine that he is moving between
the lights?  Yes, just as people found that the earth is moving around the sun, the train observer could determine that he is moving
between the lights. Thus, section 9 is wrong.  

4 - Without repeating the experiment and without the train passenger being intelligent enough to determine his movement, the xyzt
values at event times have the events occurring simultaneously.  The validity of those event time xyzt values don’t change just
because someone doesn’t know the values.   The events occurred simultaneously but the observer just doesn’t know they occurred
simultaneously. Thus, section 9 is wrong.  



Dual frame of reference relativity experiment.  


This examination makes use of an example that represents the train and embankment thought experiment in the
theory of relativity.  This example has two frames of reference that serve as the train and the embankment.  One
or both are moving in opposite directions relative to the other. The frames are named 1 and A.  They both have a
front, back and middle point.  Lightning simultaneously strikes at a common point in both frames at their front and
back.  

NOTE:  THE SIMULTANEOUS EVENTS ARE SIMULTANEOUS.  FURTHER WORK DOESN'T ALTER THE EVENT TIME
CONDITIONS.  FURTHER WORK JUST SHOWS HOW RELATIVITY WORKS.  


Frame 1    >>>>                  Back---------------------------m1-------------------------------Front

Frame A    <<<<                  Front--------------------------MA--------------------------------Back

Quote from the theory of relativity:

Returning to the illustration we have frequently used of the embankment and the railway carriage, we can express the fact of the
motion here taking place in the following two forms, both of which are equally justifiable :

(a) The carriage is in motion relative to the embankment,
(b) The embankment is in motion relative to the carriage.

In (a) the embankment, in (b) the carriage, serves as the body of reference in our statement of the motion taking place.

End quote from the theory of relativity:


Since "both of which are equally justifiable", either frame 1 or frame A can take the place of either the train or the
embankment.  Think of them as
"both of which are equally justifiable" as specified in the theory of relativity. The
experiment will be conducted twice.  First this experiment will use 1 as the frame of reference. Then the
experiment will be preformed a second time using A as the frame of reference.  


Two lightning strikes simultaneously strike the common points at the front and back of both frames.  An arbitrary
selection gave us frame 1 as the frame of reference.  As a result,  frame A is moving relative to frame 1.  
According to the theory of relativity, the observer on frame 1 will see simultaneous lightning strikes.  According
to the theory of relativity,  the person on frame A won't see simultaneous lightning strikes.   


Frame 1    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    Back---------------------------m1-------------------------------Front

Frame A    <<<<                  Front--------------------------MA--------------------------------Back

In the above diagram:  
- simultaneous lightning strikes at front and back of both frames when they were aligned,  
- one frame moved,  
- according to the theory of relativity,  it does not matter which moved,  
- frame 1 is frame of reference so the other frame is considered to be moving,
- observer on frame 1 saw simultaneous lightning strikes.

Quote from the theory of relativity:

If it is simply a question of detecting or of describing the motion involved, it is in principle immaterial to what reference-body we
refer the motion. As already mentioned, this is self-evident, but it must not be confused with the much more comprehensive
statement called "the principle of relativity," which we have taken as the basis of our investigations.

End quote from the theory of relativity:

The experiment is conduced a second time with A as the frame of reference.  This time, the other observer sees
simultaneous lightning strikes.  


Frame 1    >>>>                 Back---------------------------m1-------------------------------Front

Frame A    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<           Front--------------------------MA--------------------------------Back

Remember, according to the theory of relativity:
both of which are equally justifiable.

This time the same experiment uses A as the frame of reference and the results switch to be the opposite of the
first experiment, that is: according to the theory of relativity the results switch.

In the above diagram:  
- simultaneous lightning strikes at front and back of both frames when they were aligned,  
- one frame moved,  
- according to the theory of relativity,  it does not matter which moved,  
- frame A is frame of reference so the other frame is considered to be moving,
- observer on frame A saw simultaneous lightning strikes.


Quote from the theory of relativity

People travelling in this train will with a vantage view 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.

End quote from the theory of relativity

According to the theory of relativity,  the observation of the simultaneous events can be equally observed by
either frame 1 or A but not both at the same time.  According to the theory of relativity,  the definition of
simultaneous is relative to the arbitrarily selected frame of reference.   

Quote from the theory of relativity:  

Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa
(relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time ; unless we are told the
reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.

End quote from the theory of relativity:

Logically the moving observer will move from the mid point between two simultaneous events.  Logically, the
moving observer will not observe simultaneous events.  Using the conditions specified by the theory of relativity,
logic does not apply.  According to the theory of relativity, either one can be the frame of reference and either  
observer in either frame can observe simultaneous events but not both at one time.  According to the theory of
relativity,  time has no meaning unless it is tied to an arbitrarily selected frame of reference.  


Quote from the theory of relativity:

Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an
absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this
assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between
the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears.

End quote from the  theory of relativity:

The the arbitrary selection of a point of reference doesn't change when two events occurred. The simultaneous
events will only be observed as simultaneous by an observer who remains at the mid point between the events.  
Obviously a moving person will not remain an equal distance from both events and obviously won't observe
simultaneous events. There is nothing in this experiment or in Einstein's train thought experiment that changes
the meaning of simultaneity. There is nothing that eliminates the absolute significance of time.

When Einstein says
"before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the
statement of time had an absolute significance"
he was correct.  Einstein constructed a convoluted thought experiment.  
It's results were distorted to deliver an illogical false conclusion.  Simultaneous events remain simultaneous
when observed from a mid point. Einstein had to change the appearance of simultaneous events and eliminate the
meaning of time.  Time does have meaning but Einstein said: "  
 if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between
the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears.


The problem in section 7 was less than Einstein thought.  He thought there was a problem when he said w=c-v
which means he knew the speed of light is additive to the frame of reference. That is not a problem. That is
relativity.

Quote from the theory of relativity:

The velocity w of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the
required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have

w = c-v.

The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes cut smaller than c.

But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V. For, like every other general law of nature,
the law of the transmission of light in vacuum must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as
reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference. But, from our above consideration, this would appear to be impossible.
If every ray of light is propagated relative to the embankment with the velocity c, then for this reason it would appear that another
law of propagation of light must necessarily hold with respect to the carriage -- a result contradictory to the principle of relativity.

End of quote from the theory of relativity:


It is clear that Einstein knew the speed of light is relative to a frame of reference and that it is additive.  His
formula w=c-v shows that he considered the speed of light to be additive.  When Einstein said
If every ray of light is
propagated relative to the embankment with the velocity c, then for this reason it would appear that another law of propagation of
light must necessarily hold with respect to the carriage -- a result contradictory to the principle of relativity."
he made it obvious
that he thought he had a problem with his theory and the constant speed of light.  

Section V is where we now go.

Quote from section V of the theory of relativity:


If, relative to K, K1 is a uniformly moving co-ordinate system devoid of rotation, then natural phenomena run their course with
respect to K1 according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K. This statement is called the principle of relativity (in
the restricted sense).


End quote from the theory of relativity:

Here we see that the train and the embankment are replacements for K and K1.  This shows that an arbitrary
selection of a point of reference is the basis for the theory of relativity.
   


Quote from the theory of relativity:

The  the law of the transmission of light in a vacuum must, according to the principle of relativity, be the
same for the railway
carriage as reference-body
as when the rails are the body of reference.

End quote from the theory of relativity:

The problem goes back to the above statement and Einstein's w=c-v confusion. He knew the speed of light was
additive. Einstein had it correct when he said:
"The  the law of the transmission of light in a vacuum must, according to the
principle of relativity, be the
same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference."

It is correct to say that the speed of light must be the same for both frames of reference. The speed of light is
relative to the frame of reference. Time does have meaning. Consider a person fighting a speeding ticket.  Well
your honor, according to the theory of relativity, the cop was in a different time than I.

Unfortunately, for the theory of relativity,  the experiment does not deliver the results predicted by the theory.

The actual results are as shown in a typical animation about the theory.  If the lightning strikes just the ground
points A and B, only the ground observer will see simultaneous events. The train observer will move away from
the midpoint.  Naturally the train observer won't see simultaneous events. The ground observer is the only
observer who could see simultaneous events. However; the typical animation only shows half the theory.  The
animations don't show the relativity portion.  They don't show the same thing from the train observer point of
view as specified in the theory of relativity.


For the theory to apply to the train observer,  the lightning strikes must occur in both the train and ground frames
of reference.  

Conclusions from the Simultaneous Relativity Experiment:

Einstein's formula w=c-v is correct. The speed of light is relative and additive to the frame of reference as
Einstein said.  

For the speed of light to be relative (additive) to a frame of referenced,  the light event must occur inside or
relative to the frame of reference.  

Obviously an observer moving away from a midpoint won't remain at the  midpoint.

Einstein's thought that the definition of simultaneous is relative to an arbitrarily selected frame of reference is
wrong.

Einstein's  claim that time and space have no meaning is not valid.

If you still have doubt, remember this.  A
ccording to the theory of relativity,  the train observer can't know they
are moving. Suppose the train observer does know they are moving.  If nothing else,  we will tell the train
observer that they are moving. We will tell them the speed or velocity.  The train observer will them be able to
calculate the distance traveled and determine the distance they are from the mid point.  Therefore, they will
determine, through use of all the facts, the events are simultaneous.  

We all know the train is moving and simultaneous events are simultaneous. It's a matter of “when and how” the
physics world will reject a known “false perception”.


The train is simply another part of a compound or complex relative frame. Click here to see more about compound
or complex relativity.

This update entry made on 14 January 2010:

The convolution of the train problem is resolved by dismissing the supposed benefit of an arbitrary selection of a
frame of reference and thereby working within the complete relationship of events and observers. Following is
an inclusive scenario.

Instead of using a train observer, we substitute or switch to a spacecraft. Instead of relying on just our eyes, we
rely on advanced technology and computers.  A spacecraft moving past or around earth with sensing technology
and computers can be used to specify very detailed information about the timing and location of various lightning
strikes as well as providing detailed information about all sorts of weather conditions including but not limited to
wind speed and direction.  The hard facts don’t change just because an observer’s position or point of reference
changes from any one of many ground based or space based observations points.  






This update entry made on 12 February 2010:

After reviewing various experiments to measure the speed of light,  I wasn't able to find  any that weren't round trip measurement
relative to the moving earth.  That is;  None of the experiments were on another platform that isn't riding on earth or has a fixed
relationship relative to earth.  Thus,  All round trip measurements of the speed of light only confirm that the speed of light is c
relative to earth.  None show the speed of a round trip for light relative to a train going some speed on earth.  None show the speed
of a round trip of light on a spacecraft.  

Thus,  we only have experimental evidence that the speed of light is c relative to earth.  We assume, without experimental proof,
that the speed of light is c relative to the train.  

End update:






Copyright © 2007 2008 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved.
An examination of

THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY

train and embankment experiment
problem



Updated: Preface added 07 May 2010
Updated: Two short paragraphs added to the end on 14 January 2010.
Updated: 12, February, 2010, at the end.
An open air and enclosed experiment.  

16, July, 2010

A train can have both an open air setup and a contained setup. The open air is to eliminate or reduce the impact of the
motion of the train on the light.  When the train has both open air and enclosed,  the light inside the train frame will go c
inside the train.  That is, a light fixed at the mid point in the moving or stationary train will move c inside the train and will
arrive simultaneously at both ends of the train car.  The light in the open air setup will g c as compared to the ground and
will not arrive simultaneously.

Setup:

A very long train car, 2 lights, 4 detectors, 3 poles 100 foot long.  

One light fixed at the middle of the enclosed train car.  
One light fixed 100 feet above the middle of the train car.  
1 detector fixed at the front of the enclosed train car.  
1 detector fixed at the back of the enclosed train
1 detector fixed 100 feet above the front of the train car.
1 detector fixed 100 feet above the back of train car.  

The train is moving when the lights simultaneously pulse.

The light in the open air portion travels c as compared to the ground.  The front detector races away from the light event
location.  The back detector races toward the light event location.  Thus, the open air arrival times won’t be simultaneous.  

The light inside the enclosed portion travels c as compared to the train.  The light arrives at both the front and back
detectors simultaneously.

Thus, since light travels c relative to the frame, it is additive across frames.

The open air portion shows that the train is moving.  


Addendum:

In a discussion with others, A comment was made about Galilean velocity transformation not working with the 100 foot
pole example.  

http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/p200/str/str1.html

[quote]In mathematical terms, if all the velocities are in the same direction (say, along x), we just add relative velocities: if
v is the velocity of the wave relative to the water and u is my velocity relative to the water, then v', the velocity of the
wave relative to me, is given by v' = v - u. This common sense equation is known as the Galilean velocity transformation --
a big name for a little idea, it would seem. [/quote]

http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/p200/str/str2.html

[quote]
The problem is, it doesn't work for light. Without any stuff with respect to which to measure relative velocity, one person's
vacuum looks exactly the same as another's, even though they may be moving past each other at enormous velocity! If so,
then the Maxwell equations tell both observers that they should ``see" the light go past them at c, even though one
observer might be moving at ½c relative to the other!
[/quote]

The problem with the above is the concept that both people will see the light go past them at c regardless of the frame
where the light is traveling. That conclusion is based on the known fact that every measurement of the speed of light in a
vacuum gives c.  Since every measurement shows constant speed of light, then light is considered to be a constant
regardless of the frame velocity.  

Just suppose it is c but only when compared to the frame where it is measured.  Then the observer in a moving frame
wouldn’t see the light in an adjoining frame as going past him at c. After all, an observer in frame A can’t easily or perhaps
can’t actually see or measure the speed of light in frame B.  The A observer can see the results or data that B provided.  
Thus, the speed of light in frame B can be c when compared to frame B and additive with B when considered from frame A.

With relative c, the maxwell work doesn’t cause a problem with Galilean Transformations

Copyright © 2010 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved.

Don Edward Sprague

23 Dec, 2010


There are several steps that happen at different times.  Each step is a unique set of conditions.  Each step must be considered
individually.  Once all of the individual steps are clear, then we can consider their combined results.  The combined results provide a
conclusion that is different from Einstein.   

To keep it clean.  We have ONE set of event time conditions.  We have several different observations times.

We have Einstein setup conditions.  


- We use Einstein description in section 9 and
- We use Einstein approved synchronized clocks
— Clocks at both A locations and
— Clocks at both B locations and
— Clocks at both M locations.
- We plan the train velocity so it aligns with the ground when the lights simultaneously flash.
- Train M is the mid point between train A and B.  This condition
doesn’t change.
- Earth M is the mid point between earth A and B.  This condition
doesn’t change
- The train is an IRF in uniform motion along the tracks.  
- The train M, A, and B points align with the earth points.  This condition
DOES change.
- The train M point is an equal distance from earth A and B. This condition
DOES change.


Each step is unique.  Consider each step individually. Once each step is understood, then consider them in entirety.

1 - At event time; only as in Einstein section 9 with 6 Einstein synchronized clocks added

Location;
- Train A aligns with earth A
- Train B aligns with earth B
- Train M aligns with earth M

The lights simultaneously flash at earth A and B.

End of conditions:

2 - At FIRST arrival time; only as in Einstein section 9 with 6 Einstein synchronized clocks added  

Location;
- Train A aligns with earth A
- Train B aligns with earth B
- Train M aligns with earth M
- Train M is still the mid point between train A and B
- Earth M is still the mid point between earth A and B

Travel distance of train = extremely small as to almost not exists.
Travel distance of light = The light travels an extremely small distance to the 2 earth and train A clocks and to the 2 earth and train B
clocks.  

The lights simultaneously arrive at Both A and B locations.  

The Einstein approved synchronized clocks record the same reading meaning:
- The lights simultaneously arrive at all 4 points (2 in each frame)

End of conditions:  

That is the end of it.  Both observers in their own frame have the Einstein approved synchronized clock record of the lights that
simultaneously flashed as planned.  Thus, simultaneous is simultaneous in both frames.


3- At SECOND arrival time; only as in Einstein section 9 with 6 Einstein synchronized clocks added  

Location;
- Train A is some distance from earth A
- Train B is some distance from earth B
- Train M is some distance from earth M
- Train M is still the mid point between train A and B
- Earth M is still the mid point between earth A and B

Travel distance of train = very small but is real
Travel distance of light = almost the entire distance from ground A and B to ground M.  

The light B arrives at the train M observer.

The Einstein approved synchronized clocks records the single arrival time of the B light at Train M observer.

End of conditions:  

That is another end of it. The single light arrival time re-confirms the train has motion as planned between the light events.  The motion
matches Einstein specification that the train observer is moving toward light B with respect to the ground.  This means his form of frame
neutrality has a problem.

4- At THIRD arrival time; only as in Einstein section 9 with 6 Einstein synchronized clocks added

Location;
- Train A is some further distance from earth A
- Train B is some further distance from earth B
- Train M is some further distance from earth M
- Train M is still the mid point between train A and B
- Earth M is still the mid point between earth A and B

Travel distance of train = very small but is slightly further than before.   
Travel distance of light = the entire distance from ground A and B to ground M.  

The light A and B arrives at the EARTH M observer.

The Einstein approved synchronized clocks records the simultaneous arrival time of the A and B At EARTH M observer.

End of conditions:


4 - At FOURTH arrival time; only as in Einstein section 9 with 6 Einstein synchronized clocks added

Location;
- Train A is some further distance from earth A
- Train B is some further distance from earth B
- Train M is some further distance from earth M
- Train M is still the mid point between train A and B
- Earth M is still the mid point between earth A and B

Travel distance of train = very small but further than before.
Travel distance of light = greater than the entire distance from ground A to ground M.  

The light A arrives at the train M observer.  

The Einstein approved synchronized clocks records the single arrival time of the A light at Train M observer.

End of conditions:  

That is another end of it. The single light arrival time re-confirms the train has motion as planned between the light events.  The motion
matches Einstein specification that the train observer is moving away from light A with respect to the ground.  This reconfirms his form of
frame neutrality has a problem.

The different A and B light arrival times at the train clock re-confirm the planned train velocity.


In conclusion:  

A stationary train argument is tied to a stationary earth argument. That is the nemesis for Einstein.  He is burdened with the absurd
position about a flat earth with the sun moving around.  We aren't engaged in a discussion to determine if the earth or the train is moving.
Those facts are well known. Every discussion about the train test shows the train is moving.  The issues of the discussion address the
validity of Einstein’s claimed conclusion about the arrival times of the lights at the train observer.  

When we isolate steps with event times and conditions considered individually, the results refute Einstein’s claim that the train observer
must be ignorant and make a mistaken conclusion.  

Simultaneous is simultaneous.  Time is constant.  Light speed is relative.

Einstein relativity is known to have a fundamental flaw that ends in singularity with time ending and gravity going to infinity.  The
fundamental time flaw has it’s beginning in section 9 with the visual observation of time instead of a scientific determination of time.  The
gravity flaw has it’s beginning in section 20 with another uninformed thought observer who doesn’t use science.  

Classical relativity 100% accurately predicts the motion of stellar objects including planet orbits like that of Mercury.  It 100% accurately
predicts the location to place cameras to take pictures of stellar events with light going through a gravitational lense. The Lorentz
mistaken interpretation that light is constant regardless is wrong.  The proof is that light is relative to the frame where it is measured just
as sound and a ball is relative to the frame.  I simply add explanation to Classical Mechanics resulting in Classical hierarchy Relativity.
Using Einstein relativity,  the observations from frame to frame don't match. Using Classical Mechanics with constant space time and
relative light every observation from any frame accurately match the observations from any frame.  The laws of physics really are the same
everyplace all the time.  

The proof is there.  You and others see the data and aren’t forced to come to an incorrect conclusion.  The detail data shows why the
lights arrived at different times for the train observer.

Thus, Einstein section 9 is wrong.  Simultaneous is simultaneous and time has meaning.  


Review

We have 2 inertial frames.  That is, we have two frames that are in uniform motion in a straight line.  They might be tied together or they
might not.  The observers in each frame might know of each other and they might not.  Each frame has things inside the boundary of the
trains in that there are things inside the front and back and sided and bottom of the trains.  Each frame is boundless in that the observers
can see beyond the sides and ends and top and bottom of the train.   

Each IRF has a master clock and two other clocks that are fixed inside the boundaries of the respective train IRFs  Each frame observer
uses the telegraph type synchronization process Einstein copied.   Each frame observer arbitrarily determined when they begin their
synchronization. The clocks inside the bounds of the train frames click off a second that is equal in all parts of the respective train. Each
observer periodically repeats their synchronization process.

Prior to observation time both observers began their synchronization process.  

At observation time:

On Don train, since Don began his synchronization process some time ago, the number of clock clicks shows a duration of time identified as
232001 time increments from initial synchronization.

On Einstein train, Since Einstein began his synchronization process some time ago, the number of clock clicks shows a duration of time
identified as 34001 time increments from initial synchronization.

We don’t have a second observation time yet and might not have another observation time.  We just have the one observation time and
conditions at that observation time.   We can calculate the conditions at later observations times if we were to ever have additional
observations.    

- Don train has it’s A, B and M points aligned with the earth A, B and M points,
- Einstein train has it’s A, B and M points aligned with the earth A, B and M points,
- The lights won’t flash unless and until there is contact between both train and earth A and B points,
- When contact was made AT OBSERVATION TIME at the trains and earth A and B points, the clock readings are recorded in the clocks in
both trains.

The trains may have the same or different velocities.
As specified above, the lights won’t flash unless and until the trains and earth A and B points align.  

Since the points align, the earth lights are triggered and do flash.  

The flash of lights from earth A and B arrive at:
- Don train A and B points at  232001 time increments from initial synchronization.
- Einstein train A and B points at 34001 time increments from initial synchronization.

That is the end of it.   Both observers in both frames observe the simultaneous arrival of the lights in both frames.  


There were questions are about observation of simultaneous in both IRFs.

1 - What if the train wasn’t moving is a question Einstein asked and answered.  The lights would arrive simultaneously in his train IRF.  

2 - What if the train passenger knew the train is moving him between the lights.  The answer is obvious.  He would know why the lights
arrived at different times.

That leave us with the supposition that the train passenger supposedly doesn’t know he is moving.   Using the clocks that are in the
immediate vicinity of the events addresses the supposition of an ignorant train observer is invalidated.  He can determine through
observation that the lights flashed simultaneously.  He can determine he is moving.  Thus, we return to question 2 with it’s answer.  It is
obvious that he can and does know the train moved the passenger from the midpoint so he won’t see simultaneous.  


Copyright © Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved.


In Einstein relativity, observers in each frame uses different conditions for the same events.

That is:
- The earth observer says the train observer moved between the lights.
- The train observer says the earth observer moved between the lights.  

In Classical Mechanics and Classical hierarchy Relativity:
- Both observers say the train observer moved between the lights.

The laws of physics can’t be the same in all frames and also allow the conditions for events to be different in each frame.  
- The Lorentz transformation gives infinite different values across frames.  
- The Galilean Transformation gives 100% same conditions across frames.

The words and concept are clear.  Einstein says: “As long as it is moving uniformly, the occupant of the carriage is not
sensible of its motion, and it is for this reason that he can unreluctantly interpret the facts of the case as indicating that the
carriage is at rest, but the embankment in motion."

The concept Einstein advances is that the train observer can be fooled as long as the train is moving smooth enough.  He
overlooks the concept that the being fooled doesn’t transform to reality. He claims to switch an observer who is not
sensible of its motion to become an observer who isn’t moving.  An illusion isn’t a basis for variable time.  

The laws of physics are the same in all frame all the time. Any observer in any frame might be able to determine the motion
of the frame from within the frame.  People on earth where able to prove the earth isn't flat and it is moving around the sun
and the sun is moving and so on.

Classical hierarchy Relativity is based on Classical Mechanics. The only thing that supposedly causes a problem for CM and
ChR is Lorentz contraction-Contradiction and Einstein relativity.  Since they are wrong, then there is no problem with CM
and ChR.

Copyright Don E. Sprague 2011