Re: The Non-Relativity of Simultaneity


"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:AeydnWrVFLJmdAXYnZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
|
| "Mitchell Jones" <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:mjones-88E441.03262501012007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > Consider an example of a sort oft repeated by relativists,
|
| Who or what are 'relativists'?


A fuckhead like you.


| > wherein a
| > train is moving along an embankment. An observer is standing on the
| > train, moving past a second observer standing on the ground, and two
| > events occur. Each event acts as a source of constant-velocity...
|
| What do mean by 'constant-velocity' here?

One that doesn't change direction, fuckhead.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF


|
| > ...wavelike
| > emanations (light, sound, seismic waves, or whatever)
|
| Do you consider all of these to be 'constant-velocity'?

Yes, fuckhead.


|
| > that pass through space
|
| Seismic waves pass through space?

Nit picking moron.


|
| > from their sources to each of the two observers. One event, call
| > it A, is directly behind the train, and the other, call it B, is
| > directly ahead. The question asked by relativists is whether it is
| > possible to objectively determine if A and B are simultaneous. That is,
| > is there a method for determining simultaneity which ensures that all
| > observers who reason correctly will come to the same conclusion?
|
| That is not the question asked by physicists.

You are not a physicist, you are a fuckin' troll and a ***.

|
| > The
| > relativists say the answer is no, that simultaneity is relative; and I
| > say the answer is yes, when the determination is made using the method
| > explained below.
| >
| > Let the speed of travel of the emissions by which events A and B are
| > detected be represented by V. Let the distances from the locations of
| > the events to an observer's location(s) at the times of detection be
| > represented by Da and Db, respectively, and let the times of occurrence
| > be represented by Ta and Tb, respectively. Result: if an observer
| > detects an emanation from A at a time T1, he knows that A occurred at Ta
| > = T1 - Da/V, and if he detects an emanation from B at a time T2, he
| > knows that B occurred at Tb = T2 - Db/V. Hence the events are
| > simultaneous if Ta = Tb, and otherwise they are not simultaneous.
|
| None of the above makes any sense

Ok, so you are fucking senseless, you arsehole.

|
|
| > The method of determination of simultaneity, then, is as follows:
| >
| > (1) Each observer jots down the times T1 and T2 when he receives the
| > emanations.
| >
| > (2) Each observer determines the speed, V, of the emanations, by
| > consulting the appropriate reference materials, doing any needed
| > calculations, etc.
|
| On what basis does the observer do 'calculations etc.' ?

They take out a calculator, you dumb *** and fuckin' troll.


|
| You really need to try to understand whart relativity is all about
| before you try to criticise it.

You really need to try to understand what relativity is all about
before you try to support it, you fuckin' moron.

|
| > (3) Each observer measures the distances, Da and Db, between the
| > emissions locations and the reception locations. In the case of the
| > observer standing on the ground, there will be only one reception
| > location, whereas the moving observer on the train will be at one
| > location when he receives the emanations from A, and at another when he
| > receives the those from B. (Note: The moving observer could just as well
| > be two fixed observers, one observing A from location L1, the other
| > observing B from location L2, and, later, getting together to compare
| > notes. The two cases are equivalent because it is not the observer's
| > state of motion, but his location when he makes the observations, that
| > is of importance.)
| >
| > (4) Each observer calculates the values of Ta = T1 - Da/V and Tb = T2 -
| > Db/V, and sees if they are the same. If they are the same for one
| > observer, they will be the same for all observers.
| >
| > The key point here is that the measurement of simultaneity requires that
| > the observer determine not merely the time at which each emanation is
| > received, but also the distance between the location of the source when
| > the emissions were sent out, and his own location at the time when the
| > emissions were received. If that is done, simple mathematics will
| > suffice to decide whether the two events are simultaneous or not, and,
| > most importantly, such decisions about simultaneity will be the same for
| > all observers.
|
| It is simple pick an arbtrary basis for simultaneity that all observers
| could agree on, but what does this achieve?

Nothing to you, you are fuckin' senseless.

.

Quantcast