Why is simultaneity relative?

[Ron-boy]

The direct physical cause of relative simultaneity is the use of

--------------------
**bad clocks**
--------------------

(just those two simple words can fully explain "relative
simultaneity")

"bad clocks" = "clocks that are not absolutely synchronous"

Yes, I know that some dummy is going to complain "Hey, you cannot talk
about absolutely synchronous clocks without telling us how to get them
in real life," but this is pure BS because Einstein himself talked
about them without telling how to get them.

Here is Einstein's description of good (or absolutely synchronous)
clocks:

"The simultaneity of two definite events with reference to one
inertial system involves the simultaneity of these events in reference
to all inertial systems. This is what is meant when we say that the
time of classical mechanics is absolute. According to the special
theory of relativity it is otherwise."

Here is a picture of SR's (Einstein's) bad clocks being used to time
two definite events E1 & E2:

[3]------Frame A------[1]
E1---------------------E2
[2]------Frame B------[5]
[4]------Frame C------[4]

(The frames are shown passing the events whilst the former are moving
at different velocities of course.)

Note that the observers disagree regarding "simultaneity"; i.e., one
set of observers "sees" the events occur "simultaneously," but the
others do not.

But this is *wrong* because events actually occur in only one way,
either simultaneously or not. Period.

Here's how to fix relative simultaneity:

Take away the bad clocks, and replace them with good clocks.

It's that simple.

Here is a picture of good clocks being used to time two definite
events E1 & E2:

[3]------Frame A------[3]
E1---------------------E2
[2]------Frame B------[2]
[5]------Frame C------[5]

(I have deliberately given the clock pairs different times to reflect
the fact that clocks moving at different speeds slow differently, but
the clocks in each frame are truly synchronous, and that is all that
matters here.)

As Einstein said, all observers in all frames now agree on the
simultaneity of two definite events.

~RA~

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Ron-boy" <ron_...@hotmail.com>
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
and former reviewer of http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka Da Doo Ron Ron
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kingston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka SRdude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth
aka delta-T
wrote --AGAIN-- in message
news:d0ac328f-aca4-469d...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com

> The direct physical cause of relative simultaneity is the use of
>
> --------------------
> **bad clocks**
> --------------------
>
> (just those two simple words can fully explain "relative
> simultaneity")
>
> "bad clocks" = "clocks that are not absolutely synchronous"
>
> Yes, I know that some dummy is going to complain "Hey, you cannot talk
> about absolutely synchronous clocks without telling us how to get them
> in real life," but this is pure BS because Einstein himself talked
> about them without telling how to get them.

Hey, you cannot talk about absolutely synchronous clocks without

telling us how to get them in real life. Einstein gave a watertight
rationale why we can't have absolutely synchronous clocks when we
(1) demand that the laws of physics be formulated so that they are
independent of inertial observers, and we (2) assume per experiment
that local lightspeed is independent of the source.

You have been squirting BS for decades and with a bit of luck and
a dozain of false identities you will keep on squirting BS for another
decade. Enjoy!

Dirk Vdm

[Ron-boy]

On Aug 11, 10:02 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
<<snip>>

> Hey, you cannot talk about absolutely synchronous clocks without
> telling us how to get them in real life. Einstein gave a watertight
> rationale why we can't have absolutely synchronous clocks when we
> (1) demand that the laws of physics be formulated so that they are
> independent of inertial observers, and we (2) assume per experiment
> that local lightspeed is independent of the source.

Try again.

No one has any proof of (1), and (2) (as Einstein said) assures that
light's speed through space is constant. (He referred to this as "the
law of the transmission of light in vacuo," meaning the absolute speed
of light through empty space.) As Einstein went on to say, this very
constancy of light's through-space speed makes it certain that its
measured speed will VARY with frame velocity IF truly synchronous
clocks are used. And, as I have said, but as you have stupidly
ignored, this variance was the CAUSE of SR.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

On top of this, as I have tried to get you to understand, it is not
possible to prove a negative, the negative in this case being "One
cannot truly synchronize clocks."

>
> You have been squirting BS for decades and with a bit of luck and
> a dozain of false identities you will keep on squirting BS for another
> decade. Enjoy!
>
> Dirk Vdm

Compared to the over-a-century spewing of SR's BS, I am way, way
behind.

And Einstein was not the only one who talked about absolutely
asynchronous clocks.

Take a look at this from a certified SR book:

"Different observers at rest in their respective frames disagree over
the time interval between two events because they calculate the
different in the readings of two clocks at rest relative to
themselves. THE LACK OF AN ABSOLUTE SYNCHRONIZATION for these clocks
causes the variation in delta-t from observer to observer."
['introduction to the theory of relativity' by Sears & Brehme, Addison-
Wesley, p. 87]

The above proves that you are a partially-educated dummy.

Heck, for all of your bluster, you cannot even tell us what is the
cause of the relativity of simultaneity. Ignorance is not always so
damn blissful!

~RA~
PS please try to remember that we are NOT posting to alt.morons
(I realize that this may be difficult, but give it a shot)

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Ron-boy" <ron_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33cc652c-a335-4b0c...@i6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com

> On Aug 11, 10:02 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
> <<snip>>
>
>> Hey, you cannot talk about absolutely synchronous clocks without
>> telling us how to get them in real life. Einstein gave a watertight
>> rationale why we can't have absolutely synchronous clocks when we
>> (1) demand that the laws of physics be formulated so that they are
>> independent of inertial observers, and we (2) assume per experiment
>> that local lightspeed is independent of the source.
>
> Try again.
>
> No one has any proof of (1)

Idiot. We don't need proof for a DESIRE to formulate laws
in a useful way.

Dirk Vdm

[space...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 11, 2012 10:04:11 AM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Ron-boy" <ron_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:33cc652c-a335-4b0c...@i6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
>
> > On Aug 11, 10:02 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
>
> > <<snip>>
>

Clocks everywhere are ticking away in a kind of universal instant.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Ron-boy]

On Aug 11, 1:04 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
<<snip>>
> >> Hey, you cannot talk about absolutely synchronous clocks without
> >> telling us how to get them in real life. Einstein gave a watertight
> >> rationale why we can't have absolutely synchronous clocks when we
> >> (1) demand that the laws of physics be formulated so that they are
> >> independent of inertial observers, and we (2) assume per experiment
> >> that local lightspeed is independent of the source.
>
> > Try again.
>
> > No one has any proof of (1)
>
> Idiot. We don't need proof for a DESIRE to formulate laws
> in a useful way.
>
> Dirk Vdm

However, you do need proof that such a desire somehow precludes
absolute synchronization.

And yet, as I said, no such proof is possible.

So who's the real idiot?

And, again, why can't you explain the cause of relative simultaneity?
I have done it, but you cannot. So who's the idiot?

~RA~

[xxein]

xxein: The physic explains itself. Look for it instead of making up
fairy tales about it.

To date, all we have are the fairy tales.

[Ron-boy]

On Aug 11, 9:11 pm, xxein wrote:

> xxein: The physic explains itself. Look for it instead of making up
> fairy tales about it.
>
> To date, all we have are the fairy tales.

You are borderline incoherent, but I will risk a reply anyway (since
Dirk is still trying to come up with an explanation of relative
simultaneity).

Why would you call the following a fairy tale?

From my prior post:

"Different observers at rest in their respective frames disagree over
the time interval between two events because they calculate the
different in the readings of two clocks at rest relative to
themselves. THE LACK OF AN ABSOLUTE SYNCHRONIZATION for these clocks
causes the variation in delta-t from observer to observer."
['introduction to the theory of relativity' by Sears & Brehme,
Addison-
Wesley, p. 87]

~RA~

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Ron-boy" <ron_...@hotmail.com>
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
and former reviewer of http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka Da Doo Ron Ron
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kingston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka SRdude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth
aka delta-T

wrote in message
news:5e99ab6a-cb77-4a83...@e5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com

> On Aug 11, 1:04 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
> <<snip>>
>>>> Hey, you cannot talk about absolutely synchronous clocks without
>>>> telling us how to get them in real life. Einstein gave a watertight
>>>> rationale why we can't have absolutely synchronous clocks when we
>>>> (1) demand that the laws of physics be formulated so that they are
>>>> independent of inertial observers, and we (2) assume per experiment
>>>> that local lightspeed is independent of the source.
>>
>>> Try again.
>>
>>> No one has any proof of (1)
>>
>> Idiot. We don't need proof for a DESIRE to formulate laws
>> in a useful way.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> However, you do need proof that such a desire somehow precludes
> absolute synchronization.

Idiot. In (2) we ASSUME PER EXPERIMENT that local lightspeed
is independent of the source. The combination of (1) and (2)
precludes absolute synchronization. It's not our fault that you are
allergic to a desire to formulate laws in a useful way and to
an assumption spawned by experiment.

Dirk Vdm

[Androcles]

Faggot "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
news:k07ptc$3ik$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Idiot. In (2) we ASSUME PER EXPERIMENT that local lightspeed
is independent of the source.

====================================================
Bwhahahahaha!

Why tie yourself in knots assuming something that MMX clearly disproves?
We assume per idiot that local idiots are independent idiots.
Idiot. Ridiculous Idiot. Fucking ridiculous idiot.

-- Lord Androcles

[Poutnik]

Ron-boy from ron_...@hotmail.com
posted Sat, 11 Aug 2012 06:38:08 -0700 (PDT)

>
> The direct physical cause of relative simultaneity is

validity of physical laws in all inertial frames,
so does property of light having there
the same and isotropical speed..

--
Poutnik

[Ron-boy]

On Aug 12, 4:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
> Idiot. In (2) we ASSUME PER EXPERIMENT that local lightspeed
> is independent of the source. The combination of (1) and (2)
> precludes absolute synchronization. It's not our fault that you are
> allergic to a desire to formulate laws in a useful way and to
> an assumption spawned by experiment.
>
> Dirk Vdm

You overlooked only two things:

On the one hand -
[A] One cannot prove a negative.

On the other hand -
[B] You cannot prove that SR's clocks are valid.

Re my [A], your (1) & (2) do not and cannot prove that clocks cannot
be truly synchronized.

In fact, light's source-independency (your (2)) HELPS when it comes to
true synchronization because it allows us to rely on light's speed not
to vary in vacuo.

As for your (1), which is really the principle of relativity of
course, this principle does not preclude a variable light speed
because all the PR says is that all observers find the same general
laws, and in the case of a variable one-way speed this general law
would be c±v, and would be the same for all inertial frames.

Therefore, since a variable light speed is allowed, so are the clocks
that would detect it, namely, truly synchronous clocks.

You are too dumb to understand the fact that no principle, no desire,
no experiment, nor anything else can prove a negative. (And the
negative here, as I have said, is the belief that clocks cannot be
truly synchronized.)

Re my [B], even if we never find a way to truly synchronize clocks
(and this is a BIG if because I already have a way), this does not
prove that the clocks of Einstein are valid. In fact, since they are
admittedly not truly synchronous, they cannot be valid. Not to
mention the fact that they could be running slow in any given frame.

And you are too dumb to understand the relativity of simultaneity. You
cannot post an explanation for it.

You are also very childish since you keep redirecting posts to
"alt.morons," or is it that you just fit in much better there?

~RA~

[kenseto]

On Saturday, 11 August 2012 22:04:08 UTC-4, Ron-boy wrote:
> On Aug 11, 9:11 pm, xxein wrote:
>
>
>
> > xxein: The physic explains itself. Look for it instead of making up
>
> > fairy tales about it.
>
> >
>
> > To date, all we have are the fairy tales.
>
>
>
> You are borderline incoherent, but I will risk a reply anyway (since
>
> Dirk is still trying to come up with an explanation of relative
>
> simultaneity).
>
>
>
> Why would you call the following a fairy tale?
>
>
>
> From my prior post:
>
> "Different observers at rest in their respective frames disagree over
>
> the time interval between two events because they calculate the
>
> different in the readings of two clocks at rest relative to
>
> themselves.

That's not true....in terms of absolute time there is no difference between two relative clocks. But the clock second between two relative clocks represents a different amount of absolute time and thus the observed clock time dilation.

[kenseto]

You are wrong....clocks in relatve motion cannot be synchronized. Why? Because they are running at different intrinsic rates. That means that even if you have a way to synch them they will get out of synch immediately. This problem is derived from the fact that a clock second is not an interval of universal time (or absolute time). The purpose of SRT or IRT is to determine the clock time interval on an observed clock for an interval of clock time on the observer's clcok.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"kenseto" <set...@att.net> wrote in message
news:2f410ed2-7fd8-42b6...@googlegroups.com

> On Sunday, 12 August 2012 11:44:08 UTC-4, Ron-boy wrote:

[snip some crap]

>> You are too dumb to understand the fact that no principle, no desire,
>> no experiment, nor anything else can prove a negative. (And the
>> negative here, as I have said, is the belief that clocks cannot be
>> truly synchronized.)
>
> You are wrong....clocks in relatve motion cannot be synchronized.
> Why? Because they are running at different intrinsic rates. That
> means that even if you have a way to synch them they will get out of
> synch immediately. This problem is derived from the fact that a clock
> second is not an interval of universal time (or absolute time). The
> purpose of SRT or IRT is to determine the clock time interval on an
> observed clock for an interval of clock time on the observer's clcok.

This might become an interesting subthread.
At stake: who is the greatest imbecile and how will they interact?

Dirk Vdm

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Ron-boy" <ron_...@hotmail.com>
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
and former reviewer of http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka Da Doo Ron Ron
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kingston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka SRdude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth
aka delta-T
wrote in message

news:0b3d7804-5696-450c...@i11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com

> On Aug 12, 4:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
>> Idiot. In (2) we ASSUME PER EXPERIMENT that local lightspeed
>> is independent of the source. The combination of (1) and (2)
>> precludes absolute synchronization. It's not our fault that you are
>> allergic to a desire to formulate laws in a useful way and to
>> an assumption spawned by experiment.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> You overlooked only two things:

Yes. I overlooked that
(1) you are unable to understand what a DESIRE to formulate laws
in a useful way means, and that
(2) you are unable to understand what ASSUMING PER EXPERIMENT
means.
My mistake entirely.

Dirk Vdm

[Ron-boy]

Note to Dirk:

If you cannot explain the relativity of simultaneity, then you need to
leave this thread, if not the entire group.

~RA~
"explain" = "provide the physical cause" (this is physics, not
metaphyics)

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Ron-boy" <ron_...@hotmail.com>
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
and former reviewer of http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka Da Doo Ron Ron
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kingston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka SRdude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth
aka delta-T
wrote in message

news:8d2d2fe0-e160-4b1f...@r19g2000yqr.googlegroups.com

> Note to Dirk:
>
> If you cannot explain the relativity of simultaneity, then you need to
> leave this thread, if not the entire group.

I admit that I cannot explain the relativity of simultaneity to a
telephone pole, and I promise that as soon as the *entire* group
consists of telephone poles, I will gladly leave it.

Dirk Vdm

[Androcles]

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
news:k0974m$eou$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

"kenseto" <set...@att.net> wrote in message
news:2f410ed2-7fd8-42b6...@googlegroups.com
> On Sunday, 12 August 2012 11:44:08 UTC-4, Ron-boy wrote:

[snip some crap]

=====================================
Certainly, old faggot. Mission accomplished.

[kenseto]

There is no competition for imbecility....Vdm got the top prize.

[Ron-boy]

Take your complaint to Sears or his heirs.

~RA~

[kenseto]

You did not provide any explanation for RoS. You and Einstein made assertions and insisted that these assertions as explanations. For example: you claimed that M' has different closing velocities wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train.....such assertion contradicts that M' measures the speed of light to be isotropic. What this mean is that different closing velocities between M' and the light fronts do not exist. Gee you are stupid.

[Big Dog]

On 8/14/2012 10:22 AM, kenseto wrote:

>
> You did not provide any explanation for RoS.

You aren't owed an explanation on Usenet.

An explanation for RoS will require that you learn FIRST:
- what a reference frame is
- what acceleration is
- what relative velocity is
- what closing velocity is, and how it is different than relative velocity
- what the claim about the speed of light is, and how that is different
than closing speed

To do that, it would be good if you took a class or read some
recommended books. You won't get it on Usenet, as proven by the fact
that you haven't succeeded in getting that in the last 15 years on
Usenet. If you don't want to take a class or read a book, then you're
cooked by your own choices.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net posted Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:22:47 -0700
(PDT)

> You and Einstein made
> assertions and insisted that these assertions as explanations.

> For example: you claimed that M' has different closing velocities wrt
> the light fronts from the ends of the train...

Let us have 2 mutually moving observers M and M' by speed v,
and 2 opposite light fronts approaching toward them.

M sees both light fronts coming by speed c ( isotropy ),
and also sees M' with light closing speeds c+v and c-v.

at the same time....

M' sees both light fronts coming by speed c ( isotropy ),
and also sees M with light closing speeds c-v and c+v.

> ..such assertion
> contradicts that M' measures the speed of light to be isotropic.

This is your assertion and it is false.


If you are not able to understand term closing speed, why should
webelieve we would be successful in explaining to you RoS ?

> What
> this mean is that different closing velocities between M' and the
> light fronts do not exist. Gee you are stupid.

--
Poutnik

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"kenseto" <set...@att.net> wrote in message

news:6cdc36eb-2f69-4d4c...@googlegroups.com

Can't you read?
I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE RELATIVITY OF
SIMULTANEITY TO A TELEPHONE POLE.
Does that help?

Dirk Vdm

[Big Dog]

On 8/14/2012 12:00 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>>> I admit that I cannot explain the relativity of simultaneity to a
>>> telephone pole, and I promise that as soon as the *entire* group
>>> consists of telephone poles, I will gladly leave it.
>>
>> You did not provide any explanation for RoS.
>
> Can't you read?
> I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE RELATIVITY OF
> SIMULTANEITY TO A TELEPHONE POLE.
> Does that help?
>

No, it won't. You have to be blunt, as in "I cannot explain the
relativity of simultaneity to you, Seto, because you are a telephone
pole." At which point, Seto will type reflexively, without any signal
actually passing through his brain, "Pot. Kettle. Black."

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k0e0v2$5uu$2...@speranza.aioe.org

Yes, well... I had anticipated that. Really :-)
I prefer to keep some subtle level of abstraction in my answers to
telephone poles, as it seems to baffle them even more.

Dirk Vdm

[Big Dog]

It is an exercise to find how simple and obvious a sentence can be that
Seto still doesn't understand. The way you can tell the boundary line is
that when you finally get to a sentence he understands, you will get
back one of the following responses:
"No it is YOU that doesn't understand ...."
"Pot. Kettle. Black."
"Fucking idiot."

Then of course comes the realization that the only conversation possible
with Seto where there is some comprehension on both sides is the one
where he's only saying
"No it is YOU that doesn't understand ...."
"Pot. Kettle. Black."
"Fucking idiot."

[Poutnik]

Big Dog from big.fi...@gmail.com
posted Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:37:34 -0500

>
> On 8/14/2012 12:29 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:k0e0v2$5uu$2...@speranza.aioe.org
> >> On 8/14/2012 12:00 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >>> Can't you read?
> >>> I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE RELATIVITY OF
> >>> SIMULTANEITY TO A TELEPHONE POLE.
> >>> Does that help?
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, it won't. You have to be blunt, as in "I cannot explain the
> >> relativity of simultaneity to you, Seto, because you are a telephone
> >> pole." At which point, Seto will type reflexively, without any signal
> >> actually passing through his brain, "Pot. Kettle. Black."
> >
> > Yes, well... I had anticipated that. Really :-)
> > I prefer to keep some subtle level of abstraction in my answers to
> > telephone poles, as it seems to baffle them even more.
>
> It is an exercise to find how simple and obvious a sentence can be that
> Seto still doesn't understand.

Once it was said
"The perfectness does not mean there is nothing to add,
but there is nothing to omit".

He tries to make us perfect.


--
Poutnik

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Poutnik" <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.2a94b07...@news.eternal-september.org

That is *very* true indeed.

Dirk Vdm

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 12:11:41 UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> kenseto from set...@att.net posted Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:22:47 -0700
>
> (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>
> > You and Einstein made
>
> > assertions and insisted that these assertions as explanations.
>
>
>
> > For example: you claimed that M' has different closing velocities wrt
>
> > the light fronts from the ends of the train...
>
>
>
> Let us have 2 mutually moving observers M and M' by speed v,
>
> and 2 opposite light fronts approaching toward them.
>
>
>
> M sees both light fronts coming by speed c ( isotropy ),
>
> and also sees M' with light closing speeds c+v and c-v.

No idiot....M must agree that the speed of light in M' frame is isotropic and that relative velocity will have no effect on this isotropy. There is no difference in closing speeds between M' and light fronts from different directions....besides closing speed is not measurable. You allowed the dork Vdm warped your mind. Gee you are stupid.

>
>
>
> at the same time....
>
>
>
> M' sees both light fronts coming by speed c ( isotropy ),
>
> and also sees M with light closing speeds c-v and c+v.

No assertion is not a valid arguement.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 13:13:19 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/14/2012 12:00 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> I admit that I cannot explain the relativity of simultaneity to a
>
> >>> telephone pole, and I promise that as soon as the *entire* group
>
> >>> consists of telephone poles, I will gladly leave it.
>
> >>
>
> >> You did not provide any explanation for RoS.
>
> >
>
> > Can't you read?
>
> > I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE RELATIVITY OF
>
> > SIMULTANEITY TO A TELEPHONE POLE.
>
> > Does that help?
>
> >
>
>
>
> No, it won't. You have to be blunt, as in "I cannot explain the
>
> relativity of simultaneity to you, Seto, because you are a telephone
>
> pole."

Hey Dog shit you are the telephone pole....you and Vdm said that the higher pitch of an approaching siren is due to increasing in amplitude....not due to increasing frequency.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:12:32 -0700 (PDT)

>
> On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 12:11:41 UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> > kenseto from set...@att.net posted Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:22:47 -0700
> >
> > (PDT)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > You and Einstein made
> >
> > > assertions and insisted that these assertions as explanations.
> >
> >
> >
> > > For example: you claimed that M' has different closing velocities wrt
> >
> > > the light fronts from the ends of the train...
> >
> >
> >
> > Let us have 2 mutually moving observers M and M' by speed v,
> >
> > and 2 opposite light fronts approaching toward them.
> >
> >
> >
> > M sees both light fronts coming by speed c ( isotropy ),
> >
> > and also sees M' with light closing speeds c+v and c-v.
>
> No idiot....

Who have been teaching you quoting, Kenseto ?
Was he stupid idiot either ?

> M must agree that the speed of light in M' frame is isotropic and
> that relative velocity will have no effect on this isotropy.

M agree with fact all inertial frames are equivalent.

As there was not yet found any inertial frame
within mutually moving inertial frames,
where anisotropy of light was found.

> There is no difference in closing speeds between M' and light fronts
> from different directions....besides closing speed is not measurable.

Closing speed is measureable very well.

If one car goes 100 km/h from left
and another 100 km/h from right,
their closing speed is 200 km/s.

If one particle beam flies by 0.9c from left
and another 0.9c from right,
their closing speed is 1.8 c.

If one light beam flies by c from left
and particle beam 0.9c from right,
their closing speed is 1.9 c.

If one light beam flies by c from left
and another light beam c from right,
their closing speed is 2 c.

You can all that measure easily, if you can measure c.

> You allowed the dork Vdm warped your mind. Gee you are stupid.

You really need to call other stupid to feel clever.

--
Poutnik

[Big Dog]

On 8/14/2012 1:26 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 13:13:19 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:

>> No, it won't. You have to be blunt, as in "I cannot explain the
>> relativity of simultaneity to you, Seto, because you are a telephone
>> pole."
>
> Hey Dog shit you are the telephone pole....you and Vdm said that the higher pitch of an approaching
> siren is due to increasing in amplitude....not due to increasing frequency.

I guess my sentence was above the threshold of sentences that Seto can
understand. Oh well.

Pointless to write anything to someone who can't read.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:26:37 -0700 (PDT)

> Hey Dog shit you are the telephone pole....you and Vdm said that the
> higher pitch of an approaching siren is due to increasing in
> amplitude....not due to increasing frequency.
>

I remember it was you in past who was claiming that.

--
Poutnik

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"kenseto" <set...@att.net> wrote in message

news:111a9656-12c5-4c35...@googlegroups.com

[snip]

> Hey Dog shit you are the telephone pole....you and Vdm said that the
> higher pitch of an approaching siren is due to increasing in
> amplitude....not due to increasing frequency.

If you can point to the place where we said that, I will create
an entry for myself or for Big Dog in
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
If you cannot point to the place where we said that, we will
have a big laugh over your apology :-)
Fair enough?

Dirk Vdm

[kenseto]

You made assertions and call them explanatons.....M cannot claim that M' is moving with different closing velocities wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. Why? Because M' MEASURES the closing speeds for light fronts from different directions to be isotropic. Gee you are stupid.

[Big Dog]

On 8/14/2012 1:20 PM, kenseto wrote:

>>
>> Can't you read?
>>
>> I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE RELATIVITY OF
>> SIMULTANEITY TO A TELEPHONE POLE.
>>
>> Does that help?
>
> You made assertions and call them explanatons.

I'm pretty sure that's not what he just said. I'm pretty sure you just
proved you can't read.

[Big Dog]

I'm pretty sure he can't understand that sentence.

[Big Dog]

On 8/14/2012 1:34 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "kenseto" <set...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:111a9656-12c5-4c35...@googlegroups.com
> [snip]
>
>> Hey Dog shit you are the telephone pole....you and Vdm said that the
>> higher pitch of an approaching siren is due to increasing in
>> amplitude....not due to increasing frequency.
>
> If you can point to the place where we said that,

Seto has no interest in things he knows he cannot do.
He cannot read.
He cannot look anything up.
He cannot divide -12 by -6.

Don't even bother making a conditional offer that depends on him doing
anything, because he can't do it.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:20:35 -0700 (PDT)

This is called quoting.
Try to understand it.

> You made assertions and call them explanatons.....

> M cannot claim that M' is moving with different closing velocities
> wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train.

M can claim that, because M's closing speed wrt light
are observations made by M, not observations of M's.

For M' himself, his closing speed wrt light is always c.
But M's observes M closing speed wrt light is not c.

> Why? Because M'
> MEASURES the closing speeds for light fronts from different
> directions to be isotropic. Gee you are stupid.

--
Poutnik

[kenseto]

You remember wrong. You must be senile.

[Poutnik]

Big Dog from big.fi...@gmail.com posted Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:41:24
-0500

I am trying to persuade myself that what you say is really true.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:55:06 -0700 (PDT)

>
> >
> > > Hey Dog shit you are the telephone pole....you and Vdm said that the
> > > higher pitch of an approaching siren is due to increasing in
> > > amplitude....not due to increasing frequency.
> >
> > I remember it was you in past who was claiming that.
>
> You remember wrong. You must be senile.

While your neurons were not born yet.

--
Poutnik

[Big Dog]

See what he says. If he says, "No, it was YOU in the past who was
claiming that," or "Pot, kettle, black," or "Fucking idiot," then he
understood the sentence. If he doesn't, then he didn't understand it.

[kenseto]

Well you, rotchm and dog shit claim that radio signal becomes weaker with increasing distance is due to decrease in amplitude not due to decrease in frequency arrive per unit area. That claim corresponds to the claim that the higher pitch of an approaching siren is due to increasing in amplitude....not due to increasing frequency. So I guess you will put youself,Dog shit and Rotchm into your immortal fumble page....right?
>


>
> Fair enough?
>
>
>
> Dirk Vdm

[YBM]

Le 14.08.2012 21:10, kenseto a �crit :

Confusing speed with increesing distance, this is a new one, even for
an dumbass like Seto...

[Big Dog]

On 8/14/2012 2:10 PM, kenseto wrote:

>> If you can point to the place where we said that, I will create
>>
>> an entry for myself or for Big Dog in
>>
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>>
>> If you cannot point to the place where we said that, we will
>>
>> have a big laugh over your apology :-)
>
> Well you, rotchm and dog shit claim that radio signal becomes weaker with increasing distance
> is due to decrease in amplitude not due to decrease in frequency arrive per unit area. That
> claim corresponds to the claim that the higher pitch of an approaching siren is due to
> increasing in amplitude....not due to increasing frequency. So I guess you will put youself,
> Dog shit and Rotchm into your immortal fumble page....right?

LOL.
"You say that humans have two legs, and this corresponds to the claim
that whales eat canned tuna. So I guess you're wrong, right?"

Seto, you've seen someone play the trumpet, right? When the trumpeter
moves his fingers on the finger buttons, what changes: the pitch or the
volume?

Never mind. You can't read the sentence to know what I'm asking.

[Big Dog]

On 8/14/2012 2:13 PM, YBM wrote:

>
> Confusing speed with increesing distance, this is a new one, even for
> an dumbass like Seto...

No, it's worse that that. He reads "an approaching siren increases in
pitch" and he mentally thinks to himself, "an approaching siren gets
louder" and so he thinks "increasing pitch <==> louder".

He does not know the meanings of the words.

He cannot read because he does not know the meanings of words.

It does no good to write to someone who cannot read.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net posted Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:10:32 -0700
(PDT)

>
> Well you, rotchm and dog shit claim that radio signal becomes weaker
> with increasing distance is due to decrease in amplitude not due to
> decrease in frequency arrive per unit area.

The signal became weaker due decreasing amplitude and decreasing
frequency of signal photon arrival.

Not due decreasing frequency of the wave.

Try uneasy task to distiguish these 2 different kinds of frequences.

I have said it to you at least once before.

--
Poutnik

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"kenseto" <set...@att.net> wrote in message

news:541e85bc-ef23-4ee4...@googlegroups.com

> On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 14:34:37 UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> "kenseto" <set...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:111a9656-12c5-4c35...@googlegroups.com
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Hey Dog shit you are the telephone pole....you and Vdm said that the
>>> higher pitch of an approaching siren is due to increasing in
>>> amplitude....not due to increasing frequency.
>>
>> If you can point to the place where we said that, I will create
>> an entry for myself or for Big Dog in
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>> If you cannot point to the place where we said that, we will
>> have a big laugh over your apology :-)
>
> Well you, rotchm and dog shit claim that radio signal becomes weaker
> with increasing distance is due to decrease in amplitude not due to
> decrease in frequency arrive per unit area.

"frequency arrive per unit area" :-)

> That claim corresponds to
> the claim that the higher pitch of an approaching siren is due to
> increasing in amplitude....not due to increasing frequency.

Super Idiot.
Amazing.
Try http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pitch (number 29)
Be careful, it's in hard English!

> So I
> guess you will put youself,Dog shit and Rotchm into your immortal
> fumble page....right?

Right:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WavesTelephonePole.html

And while you're at it:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apology (numbers 1 and 4)
Be careful, it's in serious English!

Dirk Vdm

[kenseto]

I am pretty sure that's what he said. He said that M claims that M' have different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. That's pure assertion....different closing speeds in the M' frame is not measureable and that means that it does not exist. It was made up by Einstein and Vdm to get RoS.

[Big Dog]

On 8/15/2012 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 14:40:22 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 8/14/2012 1:20 PM, kenseto wrote:

>>
>>>> Can't you read?
>>
>>>> I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE RELATIVITY OF
>>>> SIMULTANEITY TO A TELEPHONE POLE.
>>
>>>> Does that help?
>>
>>> You made assertions and call them explanatons.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that's not what he just said. I'm pretty sure you just
>> proved you can't read.
>
> I am pretty sure that's what he said.

He said "I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY TO A TELEPHONE
POLE."

That is not the same as making assertions and calling them explanations.

It has nothing to do with closing speeds, for either M or M'.

You cannot read.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 15:56:55 UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "kenseto" <set...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:541e85bc-ef23-4ee4...@googlegroups.com
>
> > On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 14:34:37 UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> >> "kenseto" <set...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> >> news:111a9656-12c5-4c35...@googlegroups.com
>
> >>
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >>
>
> >>> Hey Dog shit you are the telephone pole....you and Vdm said that the
>
> >>> higher pitch of an approaching siren is due to increasing in
>
> >>> amplitude....not due to increasing frequency.
>
> >>
>
> >> If you can point to the place where we said that, I will create
>
> >> an entry for myself or for Big Dog in
>
> >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>
> >> If you cannot point to the place where we said that, we will
>
> >> have a big laugh over your apology :-)
>
> >
>
> > Well you, rotchm and dog shit claim that radio signal becomes weaker
>
> > with increasing distance is due to decrease in amplitude not due to
>
> > decrease in frequency arrive per unit area.
>
>
>
> "frequency arrive per unit area" :-)

Yes the number of waves arrive at a unit area per unit time is frequency. You seem to have the bone-headed idea that you can measure one wave follows another to get frequency...that's not feasible.

>
>
>
> > That claim corresponds to
>
> > the claim that the higher pitch of an approaching siren is due to
>
> > increasing in amplitude....not due to increasing frequency.
>
>
>
> Super Idiot.

I agree that you are the super idiot.

>
> Amazing.
>
> Try http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pitch (number 29)
>
> Be careful, it's in hard English!
>
>
>
> > So I
>
> > guess you will put youself,Dog shit and Rotchm into your immortal
>
> > fumble page....right?
>
>
>
> Right:
>
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WavesTelephonePole.html
>
>
>
> And while you're at it:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apology (numbers 1 and 4)
>
> Be careful, it's in serious English!
>
>
>
> Dirk Vdm

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 14:53:40 UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> kenseto from set...@att.net
>
> posted Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> This is called quoting.
>
> Try to understand it.
>
>
>
> > You made assertions and call them explanatons.....
>
>
>
> > M cannot claim that M' is moving with different closing velocities
>
> > wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train.
>
>
>
> M can claim that, because M's closing speed wrt light
>
> are observations made by M, not observations of M's.
>
>
>
> For M' himself, his closing speed wrt light is always c.
>
> But M's observes M closing speed wrt light is not c.

Sigh...there is no difference in closing speeds between M or M' wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. Vdm make this up to save RoS.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, 15 August 2012 10:40:14 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/15/2012 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 14:40:22 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> On 8/14/2012 1:20 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Can't you read?
>
> >>
>
> >>>> I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE RELATIVITY OF
>
> >>>> SIMULTANEITY TO A TELEPHONE POLE.
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Does that help?
>
> >>
>
> >>> You made assertions and call them explanatons.
>
> >>
>
> >> I'm pretty sure that's not what he just said. I'm pretty sure you just
>
> >> proved you can't read.
>
> >
>
> > I am pretty sure that's what he said.
>
>
>
> He said "I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY TO A TELEPHONE
>
> POLE."

Hey idiot dog shit....The reason why he couldn't explain RoS to a telephone pole is because he knew that it was derived from false premises.

[YBM]

Le 15.08.2012 21:05, kenseto a �crit :

> Hey idiot dog shit....The reason why he couldn't explain
> RoS to a telephone pole is because he knew that it was derived
> from false premises.

Well, Ken... So if a theory is derived from correct premises then
it could be explained to a telephone pole.

I would like to see you explain IRT to a telephone pole. Next time
you'll do this, can you take a picture of it, or a movie?

Thanks.

[Big Dog]

On 8/15/2012 2:05 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 August 2012 10:40:14 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:

>>
>> He said "I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY TO A TELEPHONE
>> POLE."
>
> Hey idiot dog shit....The reason why he couldn't explain RoS to a telephone
> pole is because he knew that it was derived from false premises.

So now you not only cannot read, but you claim to be a mind-reader.
There is no point in trying to explain anything to someone who cannot
read and who is insane.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:22:03 -0700 (PDT)

>
> > posted Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >
> >
> > This is called quoting.
> > Try to understand it.
> >

> > M can claim that, because M's closing speed wrt light
> > are observations made by M, not observations of M's.
> >
> > For M' himself, his closing speed wrt light is always c.
> > But M's observes M closing speed wrt light is not c.
>
> Sigh...there is no difference in closing speeds between M or M' wrt
> the light fronts from the ends of the train. Vdm make this up to save
> RoS.

Sigh, If you had understood closing speed,
you would have seen there IS difference.

But there is no hope for you to understand closing speed,
nor even quoting.

RoS need not to be saved,
it is direct consequence of light properties,
what you could se easily, if you would able to understand it.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:30:26 -0700 (PDT)

>
> I am pretty sure that's what he said. He said that M claims that M'
> have different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the ends of
> the train. That's pure assertion....different closing speeds in the
> M' frame is not measureable and that means that it does not exist. It
> was made up by Einstein and Vdm to get RoS.

Here you have proven yourself from ignorance,
not to know what is closing speed and how it is determined.



--
Poutnik

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/11/12 8/11/12 8:38 AM, Ron-boy wrote:
> The direct physical cause of relative simultaneity is the use of
> **bad clocks**

Well, so you claim. The problem is, every clock known to man is a "bad clock",
using your QUITE unusual meaning.

That most definitely is NOT what that phrase means when anybody
else uses it.


> Yes, I know that some dummy is going to complain "Hey, you cannot talk
> about absolutely synchronous clocks without telling us how to get them
> in real life," but this is pure BS because Einstein himself talked
> about them without telling how to get them.

But Einstein mentioned them only in passing, in order to dismiss them, and he
did NOT base his worldview on them. Quite the contrary -- he based his theories
on the clocks we have. He quite clearly did not consider them to be "bad
clocks", he considered them to be clocks that measure "time":

"Time is what clocks measure" -- A. Einstein


> Here is Einstein's description of good (or absolutely synchronous)
> clocks:
>
> "The simultaneity of two definite events with reference to one
> inertial system involves the simultaneity of these events in reference
> to all inertial systems. This is what is meant when we say that the
> time of classical mechanics is absolute. According to the special
> theory of relativity it is otherwise."

If you had bothered to read this, with any knowledge of Einstein's worldview,
you would know that his last sentence means that he felt the previous sentences
were irrelevant, because classical mechanics is WRONG. Today, we KNOW this to be
the case.


> Here's how to fix relative simultaneity:
> Take away the bad clocks, and replace them with good clocks.
> It's that simple.

It is not "simple" at all. In actual fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Bottom line: in experimental physics the only way we have to measure "time" is
by using clocks. Real clocks. The clocks we have. You may think these are "bad
clocks", but they are the only ones we have. And to the rest of us, a "bad
clock" is one that does not keep good time in relation to other good clocks, not
your useless attempt to assign a different meaning to that phrase.

The world does not behave the way you wish it to behave. There exist no clocks
that do what you wish them to do. Live with it. After all, you have no choice.


Tom Roberts

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Tom, if you want to know what Ron-boy's (aka Brian Jones')
clocks really look like, here's the place:
http://d1002391.mydomainwebhost.com/JOT/Articles/1-1/jones-f1.html
It's just not clear why he has been using (at least) 15
different pseudonyms on Usenet to promote this.
Enjoy reading...

Dirk Vdm

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
news:5031ebd9$0$3104$ba62...@news.skynet.be...

============================================================
The babbling word salad above proves Roberts has never STUDIED
mathematics in his life. Relativity ACTUALLY SAYS
1/2[tau{0,0,0,t}+tau{0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)}] = tau{x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)}
which is far more than Roberts can chew so the stooopid lying bastard
spews hype and believes it himself instead.
I know of no mathematicians who believe such fucking bullshit
and Humpty Roberts knows of no mathematicians who do.
When you agree with a fool the guarantee is he's doing the same.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[kenseto]

On Sunday, August 19, 2012 1:26:58 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/11/12 8/11/12 8:38 AM, Ron-boy wrote:
>
> > The direct physical cause of relative simultaneity is the use of
>
> > **bad clocks**
>
>
>
> Well, so you claim. The problem is, every clock known to man is a "bad clock",
>
> using your QUITE unusual meaning.
>
>
>
> That most definitely is NOT what that phrase means when anybody
>
> else uses it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yes, I know that some dummy is going to complain "Hey, you cannot talk
>
> > about absolutely synchronous clocks without telling us how to get them
>
> > in real life," but this is pure BS because Einstein himself talked
>
> > about them without telling how to get them.
>
>
>
> But Einstein mentioned them only in passing, in order to dismiss them, and he
>
> did NOT base his worldview on them. Quite the contrary -- he based his theories
>
> on the clocks we have. He quite clearly did not consider them to be "bad
>
> clocks", he considered them to be clocks that measure "time":
>
>
>
> "Time is what clocks measure" -- A. Einstein

The problem with this definition is that he assumed that a clock second is a universal interval of time (absolute time).....it is not....the passage of a clock second in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. The purpose of SR or IRT math is to convert a clock time on the observer's clock (eg a clock second) to the clock reading on an observed clock.

[Big Dog]

On 8/22/2012 7:21 AM, kenseto wrote:

>> "Time is what clocks measure" -- A. Einstein
>
> The problem with this definition is that he assumed that a clock second is a universal
> interval of time (absolute time)

He assumed no such thing. There is nothing in that statement that
involves that assumption, and EVERYTHING that he said about time is
completely COUNTER to there being absolute time. You make shit up.

[kenseto]

If he didn't made that assumption then he cannot claim that time is what the clock measures. Gee you are stupid.

[Big Dog]

Bullshit. What is so FUCKING COMPLICATED about "Time is what a clock
measures, period, and there is nothing absolute about it" that you
cannot fathom it?

[kenseto]

Hey idiot....Einstein definition assumes that a unit clock time (a clock second) represents the same duration in different frames....it does not.

[kenseto]

Hey idiot Einstein's definition requires that a clock second represents the same duration in different frames....but it does not.

[Big Dog]

On 8/24/2012 8:43 AM, kenseto wrote:

>>
>> Bullshit. What is so FUCKING COMPLICATED about "Time is what a clock
>>
>> measures, period, and there is nothing absolute about it" that you
>>
>> cannot fathom it?
>
> Hey idiot....Einstein definition assumes that a unit clock time (a clock second)
> represents the same duration in different frames....it does not.

No, his definition does not make any such assumption. That is something
YOU added.

[kenseto]

If he didn't make such assumption then how can he claim that the speed of light is a universal constant?

[Ron-boy]

On Aug 19, 1:26 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 8/11/12 8/11/12 8:38 AM, Ron-boy wrote:

<<snip>>

>He quite clearly did not consider them to be "bad
> clocks", he considered them to be clocks that measure "time":
>
> "Time is what clocks measure" -- A. Einstein

Yes, but clocks that are admittedly slow and asynchronous cannot
*properly* or correctly measure time. Einstein admits that his clocks
run slow, and he admits that they are not truly synchronous, but are
merely "relatively synchronous," which is nothing but a pure oxymoron,
with emphasis on "moron."

<<snip>>

> ... because classical mechanics is WRONG. Today, we KNOW this to be
> the case.

The MAIN prediction of classical mechanics (re special relativity) is
the prediction that light's one-way speed (per two clocks) will vary
with frame velocity; who or what proved this wrong and when???

On the other hand, the nasty hand, the only prediction of special
relativity is the invariance of light's one-way speed (per two
clocks); who or what proved this???

> > Here's how to fix relative simultaneity:
> > Take away the bad clocks, and replace them with good clocks.
> > It's that simple.
>
> It is not "simple" at all. In actual fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

You simply do not pay attention to the facts, the ones that I am
forced to keep repeating ad nauseam, one of which is the FACT that no
one can prove a negative, not even you or Einstein. Period.

> Bottom line: in experimental physics the only way we have to measure "time" is
> by using clocks. Real clocks. The clocks we have. You may think these are "bad
> clocks", but they are the only ones we have. And to the rest of us, a "bad
> clock" is one that does not keep good time in relation to other good clocks, not
> your useless attempt to assign a different meaning to that phrase.

<<snip>>
> Tom Roberts

It's not that I "think" they are bad clocks, it's that Einstein
himself freely admitted that they are slowed and (absolutely)
asynchronous. What more could go wrong with freaking clocks???

And now that I have added "slowed" to "asynchronous," the clocks of
Einstein have gotten much worse than one I started.

And I can't help but notice that you failed to offer any reason for
relative simultaneity. It must be beyond you.

~RA~
I only replied to this Tom post because he seemed a bit more
sane this time (no outrageous triangle crap)

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/25/12 8/25/12 8:08 PM, Ron-boy wrote:
> On Aug 19, 1:26 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 8/11/12 8/11/12 8:38 AM, Ron-boy wrote:
> <<snip>>
>> He quite clearly did not consider them to be "bad
>> clocks", he considered them to be clocks that measure "time":
>>
>> "Time is what clocks measure" -- A. Einstein
>
> Yes, but clocks that are admittedly slow and asynchronous cannot
> *properly* or correctly measure time.

Clocks are not "slow", though they are not synchronous with each other (except
in certain special circumstances, such as when synchronized and at rest in some
inertial frame). In particular, clocks do PROPERLY measure time, when time is
what clocks measure.

In a stunning irony, physicists call this "proper time".

As I have said before, in every experiment that measures time, a clock is used,
so this is the ONLY definition of "time" that makes sense in the context of
experiments -- i.e. in the context of physics.

Your personal a priori notions of what "time ought to be" are completely and
utterly irrelevant. And as I keep saying, actual experiments show that your
notions are WRONG.

> Einstein admits that his clocks
> run slow,

Nonsense. You are reading your own INCORRECT notions into Einstein's words. In
relativity, as I repeatedly say, clocks NEVER "run slow". "Time dilation" is NOT
"clocks running slow", it is a variation in geometrical projection, and does not
affect the running (ticking) of ANY clock.

If "time dilation" did affect the ticking of a clock, it's
easy to see that multiple observers looking at a single clock
would require it to "tick at multiple rates" which is manifestly
impossible. Moreover, it ought to be clear that the mere act of
observing a clock cannot possibly affect the clock.

You are just making up nonsense and attributing it to SR and to Einstein. YOUR
PERSONAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS are not SR.

> The MAIN prediction of classical mechanics (re special relativity) is
> the prediction that light's one-way speed (per two clocks) will vary
> with frame velocity; who or what proved this wrong and when???

The many measurements of the constancy of the round-trip speed of light, coupled
with the many measurements of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light, all in
various labs on earth (and thus in ever-changing inertial frames). The accuracy
of these measurements is now approaching a million times better than the earth's
orbital speed around the sun, which is a minimal measure of the difference in
these inertial frames.

As I have said many times, a direct measurement of light's one-way
speed has MUCH larger systematic errors than the combination of
measuring its round-trip speed and measuring isotropy of its
one-way speed.

>>> Here's how to fix relative simultaneity:
>>> Take away the bad clocks, and replace them with good clocks.
>>> It's that simple.
>>
>> It is not "simple" at all. In actual fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> You simply do not pay attention to the facts, the ones that I am
> forced to keep repeating ad nauseam, one of which is the FACT that no
> one can prove a negative, not even you or Einstein. Period.

But we have MEASURED that the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame
we have access to, including some moving with speed >0.999 c.

And one can show that clocks in relative motion DO NOT remain in synch, for all
clocks we have access to. We can only use clocks we have access to, which is why
it is impossible.

When you invent some clocks that behaves differently, then you
have a leg to stand upon. Until then, you are just hallucinating.
As I keep saying, you have NEVER described how to achieve
"absolutely synchronous clocks", and you have even refused to
describe what you mean by that phrase.

> It's not that I "think" they are bad clocks, it's that Einstein
> himself freely admitted that they are slowed and (absolutely)
> asynchronous. What more could go wrong with freaking clocks???

The problem is with your poor reading skills, not with the clocks. Einstein
NEVER said "they are slowed", because he knew full well that they are not (see
above).

> And now that I have added "slowed" to "asynchronous," the clocks of
> Einstein have gotten much worse than one I started.

How does your mistake affect Einstein, or what he said????


Tom Roberts

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:t5CdnQfQvY4...@giganews.com...

The problem is with your poor reading skills, not with the clocks. Einstein
NEVER said "they are slowed", because he knew full well that they are not
(see
above).

=========================================================

"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of
the poles under otherwise identical conditions." -- Einstein

YOU ARE A PROVEN LIAR, disgusting Roberts, and your reading ability is
non-existent.
SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU ARE SENILE AND YOUR DEMENTIA NEEDS NURSING.

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/26/12 8/26/12 3:50 AM, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:t5CdnQfQvY4...@giganews.com...
> The problem is with your poor reading skills, not with the clocks. Einstein
> NEVER said "they are slowed", because he knew full well that they are not (see
> above).
>
> =========================================================
>
> "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by
> a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
> under otherwise identical conditions." -- Einstein

You're right. I forgot about his writings before the details of SR were understood.

It is still true that attempting to interpret "time dilation" as "clocks running
slow" is fraught with inconsistencies. The ACTUAL MODEL of this in SR, as a
geometrical projection, has no such problem.


Tom Roberts

[kenseto]

On Saturday, August 25, 2012 11:14:53 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/25/12 8/25/12 8:08 PM, Ron-boy wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19, 1:26 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 8/11/12 8/11/12 8:38 AM, Ron-boy wrote:
>
> > <<snip>>
>
> >> He quite clearly did not consider them to be "bad
>
> >> clocks", he considered them to be clocks that measure "time":
>
> >>
>
> >> "Time is what clocks measure" -- A. Einstein
>
> >
>
> > Yes, but clocks that are admittedly slow and asynchronous cannot
>
> > *properly* or correctly measure time.
>
>
>
> Clocks are not "slow", though they are not synchronous with each other (except
>
> in certain special circumstances, such as when synchronized and at rest in some
>
> inertial frame). In particular, clocks do PROPERLY measure time, when time is
>
> what clocks measure. In a stunning irony, physicists call this "proper time".

But a clock second in different frames does not have the same duration....for example: the passage of a clock second in observer A's frame is corresponded to the passage of 1/gamma second in B's frame. What this mean is that a clock second in different frames do not measure the same amount of time (duration).
Proper time is merely the predicted clock time on an observed clock that corresponds to an interval of proper time on the observer's clock.
The GPS supports what I said. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The redefined GPS second is designed to have the same duration as a ground clock second which has 4.46 less periods of Cs 133 radiation. The redefined GPS second enables the GPS permanently in synch with the Ground clock.

>
>
>
> As I have said before, in every experiment that measures time, a clock is used,
>
> so this is the ONLY definition of "time" that makes sense in the context of
>
> experiments -- i.e. in the context of physics.
>
>
>
> Your personal a priori notions of what "time ought to be" are completely and
>
> utterly irrelevant. And as I keep saying, actual experiments show that your
>
> notions are WRONG.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Einstein admits that his clocks
>
> > run slow,
>
>
>
> Nonsense. You are reading your own INCORRECT notions into Einstein's words. In
>
> relativity, as I repeatedly say, clocks NEVER "run slow". "Time dilation" is NOT
>
> "clocks running slow", it is a variation in geometrical projection, and does not
>
> affect the running (ticking) of ANY clock.
>
>
>
> If "time dilation" did affect the ticking of a clock, it's
>
> easy to see that multiple observers looking at a single clock
>
> would require it to "tick at multiple rates" which is manifestly
>
> impossible. Moreover, it ought to be clear that the mere act of
>
> observing a clock cannot possibly affect the clock.

This is possible because clocks in relative motion run at different intrinsic rates. In othwer wordsthose multiple observers' clocks are running at different intrinsic rate and that's why they see a single clock run at different intrinsic rate.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:bKSdnUlbpMy...@giganews.com...

On 8/26/12 8/26/12 3:50 AM, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
> news:t5CdnQfQvY4...@giganews.com...
> The problem is with your poor reading skills, not with the clocks.
> Einstein
> NEVER said "they are slowed", because he knew full well that they are not
> (see
> above).
>
> =========================================================
>
> "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
> slowly, by
> a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the
> poles
> under otherwise identical conditions." -- Einstein

>You're right. I forgot about his writings before the details of SR were
>understood.

========================================================
Of course I'm right, and you are a lying idiot who is WRONG. You have never
understood the details of SR, you blustering old cockatrice, you are all
pomp and
no substance.

>It is still true that attempting to interpret "time dilation" as "clocks
>running slow" is fraught with inconsistencies.

==========================================================
Yes, SR is fraught with inconsistencies. That's what everybody sane says,
too.

>The ACTUAL MODEL of this in SR, as a geometrical projection, has no such
>problem.
> Tom Roberts

=============================================================
Yes it does, time is not a vector in a 2D plane and you are not a
mathematician.
Your CRAP MODEL of time having more than one direction is fraught with
inconsistencies, not a geometrical projection, and you are sputtering words
you've heard but don't know the meaning of.
You understand NOTHING, Roberts, you are CRAZY.
No wonder Lucent Technologies had to kick you out, you are a proven LIAR.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Big Dog]

Because it's a *measured* result AND the laws of electrodynamics demand
it. AND the speed of light being a universal constant DOES NOT REQUIRE
time to be universal across frames.

You don't understand how that's possible. It is perfectly possible, even
though you are too stone-stupid to follow the explanation that has been
given you a hundred times before. This is related to the fact that you
cannot read, and you don't know what (-12)/(-6) is. It's impossible for
you to understand any of this without knowing arithmetic or how to read.

>

[juan.le...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 11, 2012 at 7:55:47 AM UTC-7, Ron-boy wrote:
> On Aug 11, 10:02 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
> <<snip>>

>
> > Hey, you cannot talk about absolutely synchronous clocks without

> > telling us how to get them in real life. Einstein gave a watertight
> > rationale why we can't have absolutely synchronous clocks when we
> > (1) demand that the laws of physics be formulated so that they are
> > independent of inertial observers, and we (2) assume per experiment
> > that local lightspeed is independent of the source.
>
> Try again.
>
> No one has any proof of (1), and (2) (as Einstein said) assures that
> light's speed through space is constant. (He referred to this as "the
> law of the transmission of light in vacuo," meaning the absolute speed
> of light through empty space.) As Einstein went on to say, this very
> constancy of light's through-space speed makes it certain that its
> measured speed will VARY with frame velocity IF truly synchronous
> clocks are used. And, as I have said, but as you have stupidly
> ignored, this variance was the CAUSE of SR.
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
>
> On top of this, as I have tried to get you to understand, it is not
> possible to prove a negative, the negative in this case being "One
> cannot truly synchronize clocks."
>
> >
> > You have been squirting BS for decades and with a bit of luck and
> > a dozain of false identities you will keep on squirting BS for another
> > decade. Enjoy!
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Compared to the over-a-century spewing of SR's BS, I am way, way
> behind.
>
> And Einstein was not the only one who talked about absolutely
> asynchronous clocks.
>
> Take a look at this from a certified SR book:
>
> "Different observers at rest in their respective frames disagree over
> the time interval between two events because they calculate the
> different in the readings of two clocks at rest relative to
> themselves. THE LACK OF AN ABSOLUTE SYNCHRONIZATION for these clocks
> causes the variation in delta-t from observer to observer."
> ['introduction to the theory of relativity' by Sears & Brehme, Addison-
> Wesley, p. 87]
>
> The above proves that you are a partially-educated dummy.
>
> Heck, for all of your bluster, you cannot even tell us what is the
> cause of the relativity of simultaneity. Ignorance is not always so
> damn blissful!
>
> ~RA~
> PS please try to remember that we are NOT posting to alt.morons
> (I realize that this may be difficult, but give it a shot)

Why are people saying: "it is not possible to prove a negative" ?. That's is not true. Let us consider the following negative: "There does NOT exists a rational number Q such that Q*Q = 2". There is a PROOF justifying that statement, just look for the proof that the square root of 2 cannot be rational. Thus, this is an example of proving a negative.

Notice (interestingly) that the statement "it is NOT possible to prove a negative" is itself a negative and IT cannot be proven, but this is just because IT is NOT true. Thus, One cannot prove a negative statement if the negative is not true, because if you could. then it would be true, and that would be a contradiction.

Hope you have enough brains to process that.

[astro...@interia.pl]

> As Einstein said, all observers in all frames now agree on the
> simultaneity of two definite events.

Nonsense. He never said.

The simultaneity must/is relative in the relativity,
because the light signals propagation is.. relative: c' = c+v.

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/11/16 8/11/16 - 5:15 PM, astro...@interia.pl wrote:
>> As Einstein said, all observers in all frames now agree on the
>> simultaneity of two definite events.
>
> Nonsense. He never said.

Correct. He never said that, and it is just plain wrong.

> The simultaneity must/is relative in the relativity,
> because the light signals propagation is.. relative: c' = c+v.

But this is also nonsense. Relative to any (locally) inertial frame, the vacuum
speed of light is c. There are literally zillions of experiments that show this.

As for the subject question "Why is simultaneity relative?", the answer is that
that is just the way the world we inhabit happens to be. Science cannot answer
such "Why?" questions; theology claims to, but is mere fantasy.

A "1-level deep" answer can be given in physics: simultaneity
is relative because the underlying (local) symmetry of the
world we inhabit is the Lorentz group. But why that should be
so is unanswerable. For theoretical physics this happenstance
is a great advantage, as it has enabled us to construct
remarkably accurate models of the world and the behaviors of
its fundamental constituents. Without (local) Lorentz
invariance it is highly unlikely we could have done so.


Tom Roberts

[astro...@interia.pl]

W dniu piątek, 12 sierpnia 2016 17:00:43 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> > The simultaneity must/is relative in the relativity,
> > because the light signals propagation is.. relative: c' = c+v.
>
> But this is also nonsense. Relative to any (locally) inertial frame, the vacuum speed of light is c. There are literally zillions of experiments that show this.

Indeed.
Therefore the c = inv must imply: t-relative.

In other way:
t = inv, implies directly: c-relative.

But in a pseudoscience you can avoid, these facts and freely improvise.

> As for the subject question "Why is simultaneity relative?", the answer is that that is just the way the world we inhabit happens to be. Science cannot answer such "Why?" questions; theology claims to, but is mere fantasy.
> A "1-level deep" answer can be given in physics: simultaneity
> is relative because the underlying (local) symmetry of the
> world we inhabit is the Lorentz group. But why that should be
> so is unanswerable. For theoretical physics this happenstance
> is a great advantage, as it has enabled us to construct
> remarkably accurate models of the world and the behaviors of
> its fundamental constituents. Without (local) Lorentz
> invariance it is highly unlikely we could have done so.

You too much improvise.
The meaning of the simultaneity is exact, so it's not any fantasy.

After all You must synchronize these GPSs clocks...
and there is no any alternative in the theory, nor in the practices,
because: 1 = 1 in the both - unconditionally!

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:rcydneSMbtEJeTDK...@giganews.com...

> The simultaneity must/is relative in the relativity,
> because the light signals propagation is.. relative: c' = c+v.

|But this is also nonsense. Relative to any (locally) inertial frame, the
vacuum
|speed of light is c. There are literally zillions of experiments that show
this.

There were literally zillions experiments showing the advantage
of communism over rotten capitalism. Of course, it showed this
advantage only to believers.
These experiments showing the advantage of your Shit are quite
similiar.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Note, the Lorentz group applies only to light that is assumed to travel
at c relative to an absolute light carrying medium called the aether.
There is no evidence that the aether and therefore the Lorentz group
exist at all in the real world.

> Tom Roberts

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 2:39:41 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> Note, the Lorentz group applies only to light

Nope. Dead wrong again. It applies to electrons, protons, neutrons,
neutrinos, atc.

> that is assumed to travel at c relative to an absolute light carrying
> medium called the aether.

Nope, and Ralphie-boy fails to rid himself of his false fantasies.

> There is no evidence that the aether and therefore the Lorentz group
> exist at all in the real world.

And he is wrong AGAIN! How can one individual be so abysmally wrong so
many times in one post? Probably because he is dishonest and delusional.

[Tom Roberts]

Why do you bother to just make stuff up and pretend it is true? Everything you
wrote here is completely wrong. In particular, SR and its Lorentz group obey the
PoR, which is incompatible with any aether. And there is LOTS of evidence that
the Lorentz group is an excellent (local) model of the world we inhabit. But
since you cannot escape the extended fantasy world you have constructed for
yourself, you cannot see that.

Tom Roberts

[kenseto]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 11:00:43 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/11/16 8/11/16 - 5:15 PM, astro...@interia.pl wrote:
> >> As Einstein said, all observers in all frames now agree on the
> >> simultaneity of two definite events.
> >
> > Nonsense. He never said.
>
> Correct. He never said that, and it is just plain wrong.
>
>
> > The simultaneity must/is relative in the relativity,
> > because the light signals propagation is.. relative: c' = c+v.
>
> But this is also nonsense. Relative to any (locally) inertial frame, the vacuum
> speed of light is c. There are literally zillions of experiments that show this.
>
> As for the subject question "Why is simultaneity relative?", the answer is that
> that is just the way the world we inhabit happens to be. Science cannot answer
> such "Why?" questions; theology claims to, but is mere fantasy.

Simultaneity is not relative.....Why? Because simultaneity can only be measured in the frame of the events and at equal distance from the events. If the observer satisfied these conditions then he can he can claim that these two events in his frame are measured to be simultaneous. He can then use the LT to transform the time of simultaneity to another frame: for example: if the time of simultaneity two events in his frame is Delta(T) then the time of simultaneity for these same two events in a moving frame wrt the original observer is Delta(T)/gamma.

More importantly, the concept of simultaneity got nothing to do with any physical processes. It is invented by Einstein to get rid of the paradoxes derived from his P2.....How? RoS says that the closing speed of light ( the same as the speed of light) wrt any object is (c+/-v). This effectively cancels out the P2 that claims the speed of light is a universal constant c.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:04:20 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:

> Simultaneity is not relative.....Why? Because simultaneity can only be measured in the frame of the events and at equal distance from the events.

You have been told thousands of times. An event does not occur in any
particular frame.

If you think otherwise, then you do not understand the definition of the
word "event" as understood by others. Please try to understand the meaning
of the word "event" as used by everybody else. Your *PRIVATE* definition of
the word "event" is of absolutely no use in communicating with others.

[Python]

Le 14/08/2016 à 19:04, kenseto a écrit :
> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 11:00:43 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:

...

>> As for the subject question "Why is simultaneity relative?", the answer is that
>> that is just the way the world we inhabit happens to be. Science cannot answer
>> such "Why?" questions; theology claims to, but is mere fantasy.
>
> Simultaneity is not relative.....Why? Because simultaneity can only be measured
> in the frame of the events and at equal distance from the events. If the observer
> satisfied these conditions then he can he can claim that these two events in his
> frame are measured to be simultaneous. He can then use the LT to transform the time
> of simultaneity to another frame: for example: if the time of simultaneity two events
> in his frame is Delta(T) then the time of simultaneity for these same two events
> in a moving frame wrt the original observer is Delta(T)/gamma.

This is utter nonsense Mr Sete. There no specific frame concerning two
events as an event is in EVERY frame.

The rest of paragraph is complete bullshit concerning SR.

Could you consider learning some basic physics before babbling? It is
very clear that you've never had any kind of education.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Tom, why do you think it is called the 'Lorentz Group'?
A) because it was developed by Lorentz on the assumption that the aether
existed.

Why don't you learn something about the history of the events that led
to Einstein blatant plagiarizing of Poincare's version of LET? Is the
truth so unpalatable that it stops your brain from operating altogether?

> Tom Roberts
>

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 15/08/16 04:12, Python wrote:
> Le 14/08/2016 à 19:04, kenseto a écrit :

>> Simultaneity is not relative.....Why? Because simultaneity can only be
>> measured
>> in the frame of the events and at equal distance from the events. If
>> the observer
>> satisfied these conditions then he can he can claim that these two
>> events in his
>> frame are measured to be simultaneous. He can then use the LT to
>> transform the time
>> of simultaneity to another frame: for example: if the time of
>> simultaneity two events
>> in his frame is Delta(T) then the time of simultaneity for these same
>> two events
>> in a moving frame wrt the original observer is Delta(T)/gamma.
>
> This is utter nonsense Mr Sete. There no specific frame concerning two
> events as an event is in EVERY frame.

Sorry, YOU are the idiot here. It is quite obvious what Ken is saying
and apart from the fact that he applies the fictitious gamma factor, his
logic is sound.
What he is pointing out is that simultaneity really has nothing to do
with light or human vision and anyone who tries to synchronize moving
clocks is kidding himself.

> The rest of paragraph is complete bullshit concerning SR.

Your whole paragraph is complete bullshit concerning the real world.

[kenseto]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> Le 14/08/2016 à 19:04, kenseto a écrit :
> > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 11:00:43 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> ...
> >> As for the subject question "Why is simultaneity relative?", the answer is that
> >> that is just the way the world we inhabit happens to be. Science cannot answer
> >> such "Why?" questions; theology claims to, but is mere fantasy.
> >
> > Simultaneity is not relative.....Why? Because simultaneity can only be measured
> > in the frame of the events and at equal distance from the events. If the observer
> > satisfied these conditions then he can he can claim that these two events in his
> > frame are measured to be simultaneous. He can then use the LT to transform the time
> > of simultaneity to another frame: for example: if the time of simultaneity two events
> > in his frame is Delta(T) then the time of simultaneity for these same two events
> > in a moving frame wrt the original observer is Delta(T)/gamma.
>
> This is utter nonsense Mr Sete. There no specific frame concerning two
> events as an event is in EVERY frame.

Idiot....I snappy finger is an event happened in my frame. I don't care if you can construct a coordinate system that includes me snapping my finger....but if I don't tell you that I snapped my finger you don't even know that event had happened. You need to expand your thinking instead of keeping the same obsolete definition.

>
> The rest of paragraph is complete bullshit concerning SR.
>
> Could you consider learning some basic physics before babbling? It is
> very clear that you've never had any kind of education.

ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black.

[kenseto]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 2:11:35 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:04:20 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>
> > Simultaneity is not relative.....Why? Because simultaneity can only be measured in the frame of the events and at equal distance from the events.
>
> You have been told thousands of times. An event does not occur in any
> particular frame.

Idiot.....I snapped my finger is an event and that event certainly happened in my frame. You can construct a coordinate system that includes me snapping my finger but that doesn't exclude the fact that the event happened in my frame. For that matter If I didn't tell you that I snapped my finger you would never know that I snapped my finger. You need to expand your thinking instead of keeping the same obsolete definition of an event.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 3:43:59 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 2:11:35 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:04:20 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > > Simultaneity is not relative.....Why? Because simultaneity can only be measured in the frame of the events and at equal distance from the events.
> >
> > You have been told thousands of times. An event does not occur in any
> > particular frame.
>
> Idiot.....I snapped my finger is an event and that event certainly happened in my frame. You can construct a coordinate system that includes me snapping my finger but that doesn't exclude the fact that the event happened in my frame. For that matter If I didn't tell you that I snapped my finger you would never know that I snapped my finger. You need to expand your thinking instead of keeping the same obsolete definition of an event.

And it would have happened in my frame as well. It would have happened in the
frames of *everybody* on the planet, regardless of whether you told them or not.

For that reason, it is meaningless to speak of "the frame of the events" because
there is no one single frame which can claim ownership of any event.

For that reason, it is meaningless to state that simultaneity "can only be
measured in the frame of the events."

Simultaneity and non-simultaneity of a pair of events can be judged in *any*
frame. Observers in different frames just won't necessarily agree in their
judgement.

> > If you think otherwise, then you do not understand the definition of the
> > word "event" as understood by others. Please try to understand the meaning
> > of the word "event" as used by everybody else. Your *PRIVATE* definition of
> > the word "event" is of absolutely no use in communicating with others.

Incidentally, the more you call others "idiot", the lower the opinion that they
will have of you.

[astro...@interia.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 00:21:54 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic

> Simultaneity and non-simultaneity of a pair of events can be judged in *any*
> frame. Observers in different frames just won't necessarily agree in their
> judgement.

You are stupid.
Maybe a visibility of the events can be judged somewhat...
but no the simultaneity itself.

[kenseto]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 6:21:54 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 3:43:59 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 2:11:35 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:04:20 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > > Simultaneity is not relative.....Why? Because simultaneity can only be measured in the frame of the events and at equal distance from the events.
> > >
> > > You have been told thousands of times. An event does not occur in any
> > > particular frame.
> >
> > Idiot.....I snapped my finger is an event and that event certainly happened in my frame. You can construct a coordinate system that includes me snapping my finger but that doesn't exclude the fact that the event happened in my frame. For that matter If I didn't tell you that I snapped my finger you would never know that I snapped my finger. You need to expand your thinking instead of keeping the same obsolete definition of an event.
>
> And it would have happened in my frame as well. It would have happened in the
> frames of *everybody* on the planet, regardless of whether you told them or not.

But you are not qualified to judge the simultaneity of two events happened locally in my frame for the following reasons:
1. you are not at equal distance from the events.
2. you don't know that the events had happened unless I told you
3. You don't know when the events had happened locally in my frame
4. The idea of RoS got nothing to do with any physical process....it was invented by Einstein to cancel out the effect of all the paradoxes derived from the P2.

>
> For that reason, it is meaningless to speak of "the frame of the events" because
> there is no one single frame which can claim ownership of any event.
>
> For that reason, it is meaningless to state that simultaneity "can only be
> measured in the frame of the events."
>
> Simultaneity and non-simultaneity of a pair of events can be judged in *any*
> frame. Observers in different frames just won't necessarily agree in their
> judgement.

No the simultaneity of a pair of events can only be judged by an observer at equal distance from the events. In any case RoS is a false concept.....therefore it should be discarded.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

299 792 On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:49:38 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 6:21:54 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 3:43:59 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:

> > > Idiot.....I snapped my finger is an event and that event certainly happened in my frame. You can construct a coordinate system that includes me snapping my finger but that doesn't exclude the fact that the event happened in my frame. For that matter If I didn't tell you that I snapped my finger you would never know that I snapped my finger. You need to expand your thinking instead of keeping the same obsolete definition of an event.
> >
> > And it would have happened in my frame as well. It would have happened in the
> > frames of *everybody* on the planet, regardless of whether you told them or not.
>
> But you are not qualified to judge the simultaneity of two events happened locally in my frame for the following reasons:

> 1. you are not at equal distance from the events.

Not necessary. See my remarks at the end of my post.

> 2. you don't know that the events had happened unless I told you

That is a silly objection. The idealized assumption is that all events in
question are observable by all interested observers.

> 3. You don't know when the events had happened locally in my frame

I simply ask you to tell me what you measured, of course.

> 4. The idea of RoS got nothing to do with any physical process....it was invented by Einstein to cancel out the effect of all the paradoxes derived from the P2.

Physical processes do not care one bit how we measure and interpret them.
They just "do their thing."

It turns out that ALL consistent measurement protocols (ones that are based on
physically realizable means of position/time measurement and signal transfer)
are subject to the sorts of alternative interpretations that you term
"paradoxes".

> > For that reason, it is meaningless to speak of "the frame of the events" because
> > there is no one single frame which can claim ownership of any event.
> >
> > For that reason, it is meaningless to state that simultaneity "can only be
> > measured in the frame of the events."
> >
> > Simultaneity and non-simultaneity of a pair of events can be judged in *any*
> > frame. Observers in different frames just won't necessarily agree in their
> > judgement.
>
> No the simultaneity of a pair of events can only be judged by an observer at equal distance from the events. In any case RoS is a false concept.....therefore it should be discarded.

False. One can measure the distance to each event (for example, using parallax)
and do simple calculations to compensate for delays due to distance.

If I am standing in the vicinity of event 1 and 299792458 m from event 2, and
the signal from event 2 arrives one second after event 1, I can conclude that
the events occurred simultaneously, so far as *I* am concerned.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:lradnXdeFsyz4i3K...@giganews.com...

|PoR, which is incompatible with any aether. And there is LOTS of evidence
that
|the Lorentz group is an excellent (local) model of the world we inhabit.
But
|since you cannot escape the extended fantasy world you have constructed for
|yourself, you cannot see that.

A lie, as expected from a fanatic idiot, too stupid even for noticing
that "excellent" is a term even more relative than his moronic Shit.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:7e3a6422-fb8a-4269...@googlegroups.com...

|False. One can measure the distance to each event (for example, using
parallax)
|and do simple calculations to compensate for delays due to distance.

You don't know your Shit well, do you?
No, according to it there is no possibility of measuring distance,
except local disttance (self-denying) and inertial frames (that
don't exist).