Replace the 2 sound fronts with the 2 light fronts present in the famous 1905 article and discover that the academic mathematician mentioned above is Albert Einstein.
It seems to me that it cannot be demonstrated more clearly than this what I have already demonstrated in the remote summer of 2019, and for the first time with other words, namely that Einstein's relative simultaneity is the consequence of an abnormal systematic error, and in by virtue of which it is also demonstrated that those resulting from the so-called relative simultaneity and the corresponding mathematical application of Lorentz transformations are not real physical phenomena, that is, they are not real physical phenomena: the kinematic dilation of time and the kinematic contraction of lengths.
Definition of systematic error (Treccani online encyclopedia): in physics, systematic errors are called those which, despite repeating the measurement several times, always occur in the same way, because they are due to imperfections of the instrument or incorrect measurement methods.
Shall we throw Einstein, finally in 2024, off the pedestal? Or how much longer do we have to wait to free the mental energies of many researchers so that a sensible physical kinematic theory can finally be created, and not a mathematical theory like Special Relativity?
It has been contested against me that systematic errors cannot exist in mental measurements. On the merits, my reply is just below.
The feasible effective measurement is the one with the 2 stones and the 2 sound wave sources.
The mental measurement, that of Einstein, is the well-known one with the 2 lightning bolts and the 2 luminous wave fronts.
Both measurements, the feasible one and the mental one, are practically identical, because to measure simultaneity, both use, systematically mistaken, the independence of the speed of a wave in general, from the speed of the source of the same wave.
Both measurements are systematically wrong because it is like trying to measure a person's height using a scale.
It has been contested against me that relativity has been confirmed by real experiments with real results and that there are no experiments that say the opposite, on the merits, just below, my reply.
Special relativity is a self-referential mathematical theory.
That is: special relativity refers exclusively to itself, losing any relationship with external reality and the complexity of the problems that characterize it.
In short: special relativity is correct just like a square root is correct, and there are no, because there cannot be, experiments that are able to demonstrate that the square root is wrong.
Only by getting out of the epic systematic error committed by Einstein in using a wave to measure simultaneity (which in fact turns out to be falsely relative), an epic systematic error which, I repeat, is like wanting to measure the height of a person using a scale, is it It is possible to demonstrate that simultaneity is absolute.
Just below is the feasible measurement without Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905.
The stationmaster Bob is stopped in the center of the station and the conductor Alice is stopped in the center of Einstein's famous train, a train in relative motion with respect to the station.
When Alice is exactly in front of Bob, for Bob, 2 stones, coming down from above, simultaneously hit the head and tail of the train.
Since 2 electronic devices are positioned at the head of the train and at the tail of the train which relaunch the 2 stones, which came down from above, towards Alice, the 2 relaunched stones end up reaching Alice simultaneously for both Alice and Bob.
The reason is because, according to universally recognized and shared physics, the stone relaunched and coming from the head of the train travels a shorter space at a speed reduced than that of the train, while the stone relaunched and coming from the tail of the train travels a space greater at a speed this time increased than that of the train.
Well: once Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905 has disappeared, simultaneity turns out to be what it really is, that is, absolute, and in fact the 2 stones that fell from above fall simultaneously at the head and tail of the train, not only for Bob, which is true by hypothesis, that is: which is true being a given of the problem, but the 2 stones, coming down from above, fall simultaneously at the head and tail of the train also for Alice, and in fact the same 2 stones and relaunched by the 2 electronic devices, touch Alice at the same instant, not only for Alice, but also for Bob.
Here is a numerical example that uses the single formula, and that both Alice and Bob apply, present in a previous file of mine, and which you can find attached at the end of this web page, file attached with obviously my physical-mathematical demonstration of everything that is.
Identical formula for both Alice and Bob, useful for calculating the simultaneous arrival time on Alice of the 2 stones relaunched by the 2 electronic devices.
The formula is "t=S/Vpa" where "S" is the length of half a train and where "Vpa" is the speed of one of the 2 stones relative to Alice.
For example, if we fix the train as long as "2 km" so that it is "S=1 km", and that "Vpa=1 km/sec" is:
t = S/Vpa = 1/1 = 1 sec
So Alice says, setting for example a train speed of "vt=0.5 km/sec":
- dear Bob, the 2 events relating to the 2 stones that came down from above and which you say hit the head and the tail of the train simultaneously, and I believe it (since it is a given fact of the problem and therefore true by hypothesis), are also simultaneous for me
*because from my point of view, according to universally recognized and shared physics, the two stones relaunched by the 2 electronic devices, having the same speed, both reach me, that is, they cross at the center of the train where I am, at "t=1 sec" and at a point distant from Bob equal to the aforementioned speed of the train "vt=0.5 km/sec" multiplied "t=1 sec", and therefore at a distance from Bob equal to "0.5 km"
*and because from your point of view, dear Bob, you identically obtain the same formula and therefore the same aforementioned numerical crossing time "t" equal to "1 sec" and the same numerical crossing distance from Bob of "0.5 km" because, according to universally recognized and shared physics, from your point of view, the stone thrown again and coming from the head of the train travels a space less than "S=1 km", i.e. the space "1 km - 0.5 km/ sec * 1 sec = 0.5 km" at a speed reduced by that of the train "vt=0.5 km/sec", i.e. the speed "1 km/sec - 0.5 km/sec = 0.5 km/ sec", while the relaunched stone coming from the tail of the train travels a space greater than "S=1 km", i.e. the space "1 km + 0.5 km/sec * 1 sec = 1.5 km" at a speed this time increased by that of the train "vt=0.5 km/sec", i.e. the speed "1 km/sec + 0.5 km/sec = 1.5 km/sec"
