Maybe you should try reading it more slowly. All it means is that when an object is in motion and two light beams are sent to the same location, then they will arrive at the same time. That was the discovery that was made in the MME.
You still aren't setting this up correctly. You continue to ignore that the light flashes are
simultaneous on the platform, but the train's motion excludes it from that frame.
Did you miss the whole point of the thought experiment?
The point was that simultaneity is relative. That's your stumbling block, not mine.
The thought experiment shows that two beams of light do not arrive at the same time to the observer on the train.
Because the train is in motion relative to the inertial reference frame centered at the platform observation point. You keep ignoring this crucial fact.
In the MME is considered to be in motion, the beams of light reach the detector at the same time.
There is no "considered to be in motion". You need to shake yourself of that nasty habit. There is only relative motion. And it has nothing to do with MME.
Einstein like many other scientist, didn't know what the results of the MME would be.
As I said before, he was a child when MME took place. But it's all moot, since MME has nothing to do with relativity.
Everyone was surprised that they arrived at the same time.
Because they expected to detect the ether wind. (Also irrelevant.)
When confronted about this issue, he claimed that he wasn't aware of the results of the experiment
Moot, irrelevant and at least partly false. Give it up.
and published theories in contrary to what the experiment said.
Hah! I gave you the link to the paper where he denounces ether. More BS.
It doesn't mean relativity is false, I didn't say that it was false.
As soon as you deny the relativity of simultaneity you are denying SR. You can't have one without the other.
Relativity isn't ever explained in any books as being caused by simultaneity,
More absurd pontificating. No one ever said simultaneity "causes" relativity. You continue to ignore what Einstein actually said.
except in Einsteins own publishings.
More BS. Contrast your bombastic opinions of what Einstein published vs the Einstein's own introductory definition of the term. One thing you can learn from him is the importance of
defining terms before you start piling on the assumptions, convolutions and manglings.
If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.” We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.”
It is explained as the light clock example, that isn't entirely correct either.
Right. After the massacre of the principle of relativity of simultaneity, let's attack another basic concept. All while claiming you're neither anti-science nor anti-SR. That pretty well clinches it.
This is because the light clock example doesn't produce the correct equation.
That's to Einstein’s credit, since all of your reasoning is at best pseudoscience.
This is why I have shown how an example close to the light clock can produce the same equation for the proper time.
You don't do math. You don't comprehend relativity. You haven't shown anything except your laundry list of defective reasoning. That really doesn't leave you any chops, does it?
It is only a simple shortcut that doesn't use a lot of the more complex mathmatics that Einstein used.
That sounds like an admission of guilt.
So then I agree, that the equation for the proper time is correct, but it doesn't say anything about when beams of light arrive at locations. The correct interpretation of that is always described as the MME experiment.
MME doesn't involve two reference frames. You're losing miserably. Give it up.
The reason why they did away with classical mechanics is because no description of classical mechanics produce the results found in experiments on particles.
No one did away with anything. You just don't get it, do you? The Maxwell-Einstein era was a transitional period that ushered in new discoveries. Science is a living document, a work in progress. Relativity is an update, a refinement, to Newtonian kinematics. Quantum physics was emerging in parallel and brings further refinements (and opens new doors). But they all complement each other; the story could never have unfolded without the successive acts of nailing stakes in the ground and moving forward. You've completely twisted the synergy of human technological history into some insane personal vendetta against icons like Einstein.
It isn't because they could not figure out what classical mechanics describes particles, it is because classical mechanics actually does not and can not accuratly describe them.
That sounds like someone trying to explain what I just said to a 3rd-grader. You still seem to have no clue what science is and what drives discovery.
It means that when they discovered quantum mechanics that the behaivor of particles was so different that normal everyday physics,
Suffice it to say that particles were discovered to have certain quantum states.
that they had to invent new mathmatics and physics in order to be able to describe the results that they got from experiments.
Your oversimplifications are really tiring.
The physics of the time of Newton just wasn't good enough in order to descibe particle nature.
Which is why quantum physics didn't exist in Newton's era.
The final conclusion of the thought experiment is that the beams do not arrive at the same time.
In the reference frame of the moving train. You keep ignoring that.
This is not the result found by experiment.
Presumably you mean MME, which has been shown to be nonsense. So when are you going to update yourself with the new information?
I was talking about the flashes of light being particles, that scientist call photons.
Photons are understood to propagate as waves, not particles, so be careful. You're about to step in another cartload of your own BS.
I was saying that the arrival time of the photons inside of the train would have to be descibed by quantum mechanics, not that the train itself would have to be described by quantum mechanics.
They don't arrive as particles, but as waves.
Quantum Mechanics would tell you when those particles arrive at the same location, and then since it is based on the MME, then they would arrive at the same time.
According to your diatribe to this point, that's nothing more than classical kinematics. It was superseded by the discovery of relativity. When are you going to update yourself?
Basically that the observer on the station, and the observer on the train would measure the beam in front of the train and the beam behind the train to travel at the same speed.
Since c is constant in all frames, that's moot.
So take a look at the diagrams in the thought experiment, their is a difference in how much the beam approuches the train from the front and the back relative to the observer on the train. There cannot be this difference in motion, since the observer on the train will measure both beams to travel the same speed at the same time.
How many times are you going to rehash this? Once again you are ignoring the basic principles of relativity. The only diagram you need to understand is the spacetime diagram for what happened on the train as seen from the platform point of view:
If the observer on the train could measure a difference in how much closer or further away it got from each beam, then the observer on the train wouldn't acctually measure both beams to be the same speed at the same time.
Translation: you haven't understood one iota of relativity.
The theory doesn't actually describe particles themselves, it is more like a description of how the speed of light plays a role in other objects that are not particles.
Actually, the in 1905 ED paper AE does devote some explanation to the consequences of relativity for particles. But since this is about waves, not particles, you need to shift your focus away from the nutty idea that QM refutes the train example. Again, you still are in denial -- and/or refuse to and/or are incapable of -- learning the basics of SR starting with the diagram immediately above.
The actual theories that describe the actual particles are not exactly what is in his 1905 paper.
Yes he does treat particles to the extent it's pertinent to his thesis. Of course this is more BS.
You wouldn't check his paper in order to figure out how particles behave for instance.
Except in matters of propagation, which he explores meticulously by associating Lorentz with Maxwell.
In a lot of books it says that Einsteins theories are not used in quantum mechanics.
A lot of books are written by people like you.
Einsteins theories describe the macroscale, like normal everyday sizes, and quantum theory is used to describe the microscopic scale.
More BS. Einstein specifically addressed particle and wave phenomena under application of Lorentz's updates to electromagnetics. You need to analyze relativity under the lens of the laws that describe relativity, not some imaginary system you've invented in your mind which purports to be QM but is nothing more than an oversimplification of classical kinematics.
His theories and quantum theory apply to different things, and these two theories have not been combined into one theory that can describe both. They are not compatable.
In your mind, which is not compatible with reality.
I didn't develop these opinions on my own,
No doubt you lifted them from some pseudoscience sites.
most of the time Einsteins 1905 paper is ever mentioned is when someone is writing about SR, they just don't ever refer to it in quantum atheory.
That's worth several cartloads of BS. Rather than worrying about how you think other people treat Einstein's paper, you need to be able to digest it yourself. You're deliberately ignoring the content of what he said and talking about what some imaginary group of people are saying -- apparently pseudoscience crackpots.
Quantum theory that scientist use was developed by different people. No scientist uses his work in quantum theory.
As long as you continue to pontificate and refuse to investigate, analyze and rebut the issues, this is just pile after pile of BS.
If you wanted to describe the actual photons on the train that would be a better choice.
Except they don't exist as material particles but as waves. Another act of pontification crashes and burns.
If you wanted to describe the time dilation of the train itself, then Einsteins theory would be the better choice.
Since the whole subject is relativity, and since you alone seem to be opposing Einstein, that leaves us inside the actual language and the actual principles of relativity, which, to date, you refuse to address. The crux of your error is that you don't understand the diagram above. The rest is Styrofoam/BS/bluster.
all I am saying is that in Einsteins thought experiment, the conclusion is wrong about the arrival time of the photons, and his theories are not descriptions of photons themselves.
Still wrong. Arrival of waves, not photons. In any case, apply the diagram.
They already have proved over and over with experiments that an object in motion will have two beams traveling the same distance reach the same point at the same time.
Who's this "they"? That's absurd. We're talking about relativity, in which case the paths are not equal from the platform point of view. Among other things.
I am just repeating the words of science writters.
Well that's a relief. At least they weren't writers. Einstein was a prolific writer, and right now he's the one on the carpet. You've proven that you cannot even parrot what he said. So your point is . . . ?
Really, you can't spell at the elementary school level? Look, dude, this is really like trolling. You seem determined to pretend you've got the IQ of an ant while pretending to know advanced physics. Regardless, it's evident that you can't understand what you're reading, so what diff does it make if you ever read a science article or not?
They all cannot be wrong, but I think you can.
Considering you process information like a paper shredder, I take that as a compliment.
You will never convince me otherwise because I have already read the same thing being put out as scientific fact from dozens of different science writters.
No, you will never be able to convince yourself of what people are actually writing (here or elsewhere) because of your learning issues. You simply can't repeat back fundamental ideas. Worse, you fill in the deficit with pontification.
So either they are all wrong, or you are wrong,
Or you are wrong. Which wins by a landslide.
I will always pick you are wrong.
Which evidences pseudoscience and denial, your two greatest stumbling blocks.
