Re: The farce of relativity of simultaneity

On Mar 26, 4:44 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 25, 12:24 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. Of course, you can see event S
happening before event S', and another observer
can see event S' hapenning before event S.
What you observe is not the event itself, but
the light or other kind of information some material
systems emitted in that event. The whole universe is
happening at once. So, the whole matter and energy
in the universe are existing in absolute simultaneous
events. Nothing remains in a past time and nothing
exists in a future time yet. The universe needs to exist
at once in order to preserve the principle of causality.

What "principle of causality"?

Although a material system may be unobservable now
by you, at distance R, because its light has not still arrived
to you, that doesn't mean that system do not exist now.
In fact, that system can only exist now, simultaneously
to your existence. You can't travel to the past because
there is no past already. You can't travel to the future
because there is no future, yet.

This has been explained to you before. You appear to be dense.

Here's what you need to determine simultaneity or nonsimultaneity:
1. You determine that you are midway between two events -- the
distance between you and the two events is equal.
2. You determine that the speed of the signal from each of the two
events to you is equal.
3a. If you have the above information in (1) and (2) AND the signals
arrive at you at the same time, then you KNOW the original events were
simultaneous.
3b. If you have the above information in (1) and (2) AND the signals
arrive at you NOT at the same time, then you KNOW the original events
were NOT simultaneous.

So you see, the above prescription takes into account the delay time.

Now, here is the part that is experimentally verified:
For the SAME two events and two observers moving relative to each
other,
Observer A confirms conditions 1 and 2 and 3a.
Observer B confirms conditions 1 and 2 and 3b.
Thus Observer A *correctly* concludes that the original events are
simultaneous, and Observer B *correctly* concludes that the original
events are nonsimultaneous.
Keep in mind that the above observations (1, 2, 3a by one observer; 1,
2, 3b by the other observer) are *confirmed* results. They really do
happen in nature.

You may find this to be totally perplexing and you may ask, "But how
can that BE?" Get over it. It IS, regardless of your shock.

PD

Unfortunately for the orthodoxy, 'getting over it' is not the
only possible answer. There is no proof that the supposed
'two events' really are only two. It is merely grandly assumed,
without proof, that no more than two events are involved.
The fact that there are only two physical ends to the railway
carriage, for example, is no proof that there are also only two
events relating to those two ends.

The sublime certainty, and grandiose instructions to the
always supposed 'novices' to study the matter 'properly' next
time, typically displayed in orthodox answers, cannot be
credibly substituted for the lack of proof of the existence of
only two events.

Alen
.

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)
  • The farce of relativity of simultaneity
    ... simultaneity is not absolute, but dependent on ... the observer, is the biggest lie perpetrated on ... in the universe are existing in absolute simultaneous ...
    (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 farce of relativity of simultaneity
    ... the observer, is the biggest lie perpetrated on ... and the relativity of simultaneity *never* reverses ... arrive at you at the same time, then you KNOW the original events were ... Then that is exactly what relativity of simultaneity means. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • 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)