Re: The farce of relativity of simultaneity

On Mar 26, 8:30 am, Alen <al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

Oh my. So now you are prepared to suppose that there were not just two
lightning strikes that left marks on rails and on the cars, you are
supposing that there *MUST* have been four strikes, two of which where
simultaneous (and seen by the track observer) and two of which were
not simultaneous (and seen by the train observer).

I see.

And so what was the mechanism that prevented the train observer from
seeing the light from the simultaneous strikes, and that prevented the
track observer from seeing the light from the nonsimultaneous strikes?

Please return to brow-furrowing and digging up another intricate
artifice to protect against admitting that relativity might just be
right.


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: simultaneity
    ... The speed of light is isotropic in the train. ... At the time the strikes occur simultaneously ... observer or the train observer) at equal distance from the strikes can ... Simultaneity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Query about simultaneous events..
    ... >>places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the ... > What I do not understand, is that when the lightning strikes point A, ... > Now, according to what has already been said, relative to the observer ... concept of relativity of simultaneity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How cranks maintain their delusions
    ... the Relativity of Simultaneity as a consequence of his Special ... Suppose, he says, that the conductor of the train is standing in its ... Right....the strikes happened simultaneously at the ends of the train ... The track observer also sees the strikes to be simultaneous because he ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Little guy on the train
    ... >> | the guy on the train. ... >> | one observer and not for another. ... >> | strikes as coming at different times, ... >> | simultaneity of two events in different places is something that will ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • 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)