Re: The farce of relativity of simultaneity

On Mar 25, 1:24 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The relativity of simultaneity as explained in
SR is the greatest farce ever. The claim that
simultaneity is not absolute, but dependent on
the observer, is the biggest lie perpetrated on
science.

If you want to discuss SR's "simultaneity" then use *its* definitions;
do not use your definition (your concept).

SR defines "time" and "simultaneity" in a specific way. When you use
SR's definitions, SR *implies* that two events which are simultaneous
for an observer will not be simul. for another (moving) observer.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The relativity of simultaneity
    ... Would you like to talk about what SR says, Seto? ... simultaneous for one observer then they must be simultaneous for every ... He determined that the strikes occurred at equal distance away from ... Yes with the provision that this simultaneity is observer independent. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Non-Relativity of Simultaneity
    ... These are called physicists. ... ***{They are surely relativists. ... An observer is standing on the ... establish the relativism of simultaneity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Non-Relativity of Simultaneity
    ... An observer is standing on the ... The question asked by relativists is whether it is ... establish the relativism of simultaneity. ... "Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: relatively confusing
    ... ofcourse you will say simultaneity is a relative thing..but... ... and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. ... the flashes 1 of lightning occur, ... Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The relativity of simultaneity
    ... Would you like to talk about what SR says, Seto? ... simultaneous for one observer then they must be simultaneous for every ... the gedanken can be easily described without any mention of "closing speeds". ... Einstein's gedanken isn't trying to PROVE that simultaneity is relative in SR - that result follows directly from the postulates via the Lorentz Transformation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)