Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member

[QUOTE=Neddy Bate;2852284]
Do you see the problem? [/QUOTE]

First of all, let me say that I do not have an agenda other than to discover the truth.
This should be clear from my postings. For example, I quoted the imminent Dr.
Wheeler, and no one even mentioned this in their reply [think "snipped], so I got no
credit for this credible citation. Instead, I get the reprimand that I "have an angenda."
To me, this is not playing fair. There are two sides to every story, even SR's, and both
should be heard if both are presented as credibly and as sincerely as possible, don't
you agree?

Before your [Neddy's] above, it may be helpful to clear up the "closing velocity" claim.

The first clue that the w = c - v case is not a closing velocity case lies in the simple
fact that Einstein stated explicitly that this was the speed of light relative to the
carriage.

Here is how Einstein put it:
"The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes
out smaller than c."

Here's another clue:
It is not a closing velocity because such velocities cannot conflict
(or even apparently conflict) with the principle of relativity.

And here is another clue:
The entire story takes place prior to special relativity and prior to
Einstein's definition of clock synchronization, and yet the embankment
observer got c for the speed of light. This cannot happen outside of
special relativity even with the use of closing velocities. Indeed, it
can only happen outside of SR if absolute time is involved (i.e. only
if truly or absolutely synchronous clocks are used).

Here is how Einstein put it:
"... the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment."
[_prior_ to Einstein synchronization, as I said]

Here is another clue:
No closing velocity case even apparently produces two laws. But Einstein
clearly stated that the observers found two different laws of physics.
(This was of course his reason for inventing relativity.)

Here is another clue:
No mere closing velocity could cause Einstein to discard absolute time.

Here is another clue:
No closing velocity case would require a complete revolution of physics,
with relative time replacing absolute time, but, as we saw, the final or
end result or conclusion of Einstein's story was the use of relative
simultaneity and the creation of relativity.

The only way to get rid of the (perceived) conflict with the principle of relativity
was to replace the absolutely synchronous clocks (on paper) with Einstein's
asynchronous clocks (relative time = relative simultaneity).

Here is how Einstein put this:
"... if we discard this assumption [absolute synchronization or absolute time],
then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the
principle of relativity disappears." http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

Now to address your above query:

[QUOTE=Neddy Bate;2852284]
The clocks in the embankment frame measure the speed of light relative to the train to be c+v in one direction, and c-v in the other direction. [/quote]

No. At no point did Einstein say anything about the embankment
observer measuring the speed of light relative to the train. The only
thing that these observers did was to measure the one-way speed of
light relative to them [i.e., relative to their embankment], and, as
Einstein clearly stated, their result was c. (Ask yourself how this
could happen prior to SR.)

[QUOTE=Neddy Bate;2852284]
But how did they come to be synchronized in exactly the way they are? They were set by sending a round-trip light signal, thus ensuring the speed of light would be c in both directions. [/quote]

No, at this pre-SR point in the game, there was no Einsteinian definition of clock synchronization. Einstein was still using classical clocks, those which are truly or absolutely synchronous (on paper). This is absolute time, and it is what Einstein specifically discarded at the very end of his tale. Since it was only on paper, Einstein called it an assumption.

[QUOTE=Neddy Bate;2852284]
But that same synchronization method could be used on the train, and then the train would measure the speed of light relative to the embankment to be c+v in one direction, and c-v in the other direction. So, by your definition, the clocks on the train would be absolutely synchronized in that case. So now you have "absolutely synchronized" clocks on both the train and the embankment, and yet those clocks do not agree with each other [/quote]

As I just noted, Einstein "synchronization" did not exist at this point. SR did
not exist. SR's closing velocities did not exist. It's classical physics. And the
train observers did not measure light's speed relative to the embankment.
They simply measured light's one-way speed relative to themselves. Did
you not notice Einstein's query suggestion "Let us inquire about the velocity
of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage."

I do not understand your statement that by my definition, the clocks on the
train would be absolutely synchronized when synchronized per Einstein's
definition. Everyone knows that Einstein does not have (because he flatly
rejected it) absolute synchronization.

Absolutely synchronous clocks do not disagree, but can of course obtain
different spedific results, just as Einstein told us. His train observers got
c - v for the one-way speed of light, whereas his embankment observers
got only c.

Since the only way to obtain c for light's one-way speed prior to SR was
to use absolutely synchronous clocks while being at absolute rest in space,
this tells us that whenever the embankment observers got v for the speed
of the train that this was the train's absolute velocity. This is why the train
observers got c - v for light's one-way speed.

But, as I said, mathematically speaking, there were not two different
general laws, but only two different specific results, so there was
never any conflict (apparent or otherwise) with the PoR.