Re: [Phys-l] Re. Simultaneity

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>]

I can't make unambiguous sense of your phrase "equivalent observer"  
and I suspect that your phrase "observe simultaneity" reveals some  
fundamental confusion, but the facts are simple:  EVERY observer  
moving with the train, regardless of position, will conclude that the  
flashes were simultaneous and EVERY observer in the frame of the  
track, regardless of position, will conclude that the flash at the  
rear of the train preceded the flash at the front of the train by the  
same specific amount of time.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

On May 20, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Eric Lane, Lane wrote:

> Re. Simultaneity: With reference to the train/platform thought  
> problem, suppose a mid-point observer in the train frame S-prime  
> confirms simultaneity when two light sources flash at the ends of  
> his train of length L. Then an equivalent observer (equivalent in  
> the sense that he is situated at the mid point of the platform) in  
> frame S, also of length L, will not observe simultaneity. However,  
> a non-equivalent observer in the platform frame S located (beta)L/2  
> to the right of the mid-point observer, will observe simultaneity.  
> We derived this result from our Equation of Light, and the same  
> result can be obtained by the usual Lorentz transformation  
> procedure. Why restrict considerations of simultaneity to  
> equivalent observers?
>
> Tom-Orofino@UTC.edu
> Prof. Eric T. Lane   eric-lane@utc.edu
> Physics Dept. 2352  423-265-7804
> The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga  37403-2409
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l