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.

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.

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.

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 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.
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.

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

On Mar 25, 1:24 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let's see what we misunderstood today.

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 we misunderstood is the meaning of "simultaneity".

Simultaneity does not refer to the times when
we see the signals, but the times when the event
themselves occurred in our time of reference.

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.
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.

None of this addresses the question of what time
coordinates you assign to distant events.

However, you seem to be under the impression that
SR is claiming distant events don't have times
assigned to them until the signal propagates.

That is your misunderstanding, not part of SR.

So you're railing against something you made up.

If you want to talk about simultaneity of relativity,
then first understand what it means. If event 1
happened at distance d1 and you receive the signal
at time s1, the time assigned to event 1 is
t1 = s1 - d1/c. If event 2 happened at distance d2
and you receive the signal at time s2, the time
assigned to event 2 is t2 = s2 - d2/c.

Relativity of simultaneity refers to the relationship
between t1 and t2 as measured by different observers,
not s1 and s2.

- Randy

On Mar 25, 6:48 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:



On Mar 25, 1:24 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let's see what we misunderstood today.

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 we misunderstood is the meaning of "simultaneity".

Simultaneity does not refer to the times when
we see the signals, but the times when the event
themselves occurred in our time of reference.

wrong,

nothen could be farther from tha truth

simultaneity is when to distinct objects
are in exactly same place, which is
imposible ta do

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.
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.

None of this addresses the question of what time
coordinates you assign to distant events.

However, you seem to be under the impression that
SR is claiming distant events don't have times
assigned to them until the signal propagates.

That is your misunderstanding, not part of SR.

So you're railing against something you made up.

If you want to talk about simultaneity of relativity,
then first understand what it means. If event 1
happened at distance d1 and you receive the signal
at time s1, the time assigned to event 1 is
t1 = s1 - d1/c. If event 2 happened at distance d2
and you receive the signal at time s2, the time
assigned to event 2 is t2 = s2 - d2/c.

Relativity of simultaneity refers to the relationship
between t1 and t2 as measured by different observers,
not s1 and s2.

- Randy

On Mar 25, 12:24 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> 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.

On Mar 25, 6:48 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:



On Mar 25, 1:24 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let's see what we misunderstood today.

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 we misunderstood is the meaning of "simultaneity".

Simultaneity does not refer to the times when
we see the signals, but the times when the event
themselves occurred in our time of reference.

wrong,

nothen could be farther from tha truth

simultaneity is when to distinct objects
are in exactly same place, which is
imposible ta do

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.
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.

None of this addresses the question of what time
coordinates you assign to distant events.

However, you seem to be under the impression that
SR is claiming distant events don't have times
assigned to them until the signal propagates.

That is your misunderstanding, not part of SR.

So you're railing against something you made up.

If you want to talk about simultaneity of relativity,
then first understand what it means. If event 1
happened at distance d1 and you receive the signal
at time s1, the time assigned to event 1 is
t1 = s1 - d1/c. If event 2 happened at distance d2
and you receive the signal at time s2, the time
assigned to event 2 is t2 = s2 - d2/c.

Relativity of simultaneity refers to the relationship
between t1 and t2 as measured by different observers,
not s1 and s2.

            - Randy

On Mar 25, 12:24 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> 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.

That is a major misconception on your part.

That two observers will SEE the events happening at different
times is a trivial point.

The important point is that even after taking into account their
differences in distance to events S and S' and subtracting the
time delay due to the finite speed of light, the two observers
cannot agree on the order of events.

Jerry

On Mar 25, 1:01 pm, tici viracocha <q2k...@execs.com> wrote:



On Mar 25, 6:48 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mar 25, 1:24 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let's see what we misunderstood today.

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 we misunderstood is the meaning of "simultaneity".

Simultaneity does not refer to the times when
we see the signals, but the times when the event
themselves occurred in our time of reference.

wrong,

nothen could be farther from tha truth

simultaneity is when to distinct objects
are in exactly same place, which is
imposible ta do

Well, if you want to make sure that you define words so that they
can't possibly mean anything coherent or physically possible (such as
your definition of "simultaneity"), then have at it. The rest of us
will go on talking about the real world.

What real world? Einstein's world is not the real world.

On Mar 25, 5:46 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:



On Mar 25, 12:24 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> 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.

That is a major misconception on your part.

That two observers will SEE the events happening at different
times is a trivial point.

The important point is that even after taking into account their
differences in distance to events S and S' and subtracting the
time delay due to the finite speed of light, the two observers
cannot agree on the order of events.

Nature don't bother whether two or more observers
agree or not. If event S is the cause of event S', but you
observe S' before S,

you should be aware the light you
see from S' have somewhat reached you before the light
from S.

On Mar 25, 2:18 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Mar 25, 5:46 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:

On Mar 25, 12:24 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> 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.

That is a major misconception on your part.

That two observers will SEE the events happening at different
times is a trivial point.

The important point is that even after taking into account their
differences in distance to events S and S' and subtracting the
time delay due to the finite speed of light, the two observers
cannot agree on the order of events.

Nature don't bother whether two or more observers
agree or not. If event S is the cause of event S', but you
observe S' before S,

Did you miss what every single respondent said?

The time assigned to an event is not the time
you observe the signal. It's the time it
occurred in your frame.

On Mar 25, 1:01�pm, tici viracocha <q2k...@execs.com> wrote:
On Mar 25, 6:48 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:



On Mar 25, 1:24 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let's see what we misunderstood today.

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 we misunderstood is the meaning of "simultaneity".

Simultaneity does not refer to the times when
we see the signals, but the times when the event
themselves occurred in our time of reference.

wrong,

nothen could be farther from tha truth

simultaneity is when to distinct objects
are in exactly same place, which is
imposible ta do

Well, if you want to make sure that you define words so that they
can't possibly mean anything coherent or physically possible (such as
your definition of "simultaneity"), then have at it. The rest of us
will go on talking about the real world.

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.
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.

None of this addresses the question of what time
coordinates you assign to distant events.

However, you seem to be under the impression that
SR is claiming distant events don't have times
assigned to them until the signal propagates.

That is your misunderstanding, not part of SR.

So you're railing against something you made up.

If you want to talk about simultaneity of relativity,
then first understand what it means. If event 1
happened at distance d1 and you receive the signal
at time s1, the time assigned to event 1 is
t1 = s1 - d1/c. If event 2 happened at distance d2
and you receive the signal at time s2, the time
assigned to event 2 is t2 = s2 - d2/c.

Relativity of simultaneity refers to the relationship
between t1 and t2 as measured by different observers,
not s1 and s2.

� � � � � � - Randy