The Relativity of Simultaneity

You're gazing into your navel instead of discovering how the universe works.
Go. Measure. Learn.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't want to answer the question? Why not, are you afraid of the answer?

His postulate is garbage!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your question is misguided.
A constant speed relative to what?

Here's a question for you, MD. Avoid at your peril.

If you want to understand how the universe works, why don't you do some real measurements?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Space. Light travels at a constant speed in space relative to the point in space it was emitted. Since light always travels at the same speed in space, we can define units of measure of distance according to the length of the path light travels per duration of time.

My postulate is dead nuts accurate with that statement, and the definitions of units of measure. Einstein's postulate doesn't comply, so he creates a world of illusions.

I'm working on it. When I do complete the measurements you will be the first to know!! :-*

 

Try again. Space is not an object. It has no velocity or rest state.

Great. Until then, you're just wasting our time.

Be sure to investigate the previous measurements people have made of light speed in different reference frames. A lot of the work has been done before.

Here's the bottom line, MD:
In reality, light is actually measured to be traveling at the same speed in every frame.

Any theory that leads to a conflicting conclusion must be wrong.


Come back when you have hard data about reality.

 

So you deny a light can be emitted at a point in space?? You're going off the deep end to defend Einstein's postulate, and he is leading you down the wrong road, Pete.

You're wasting your own time chasing your tail in circles defending Einstein's second postulate. You don't want to answer my questions because you know you can't defend Einstein's position when you honestly answer my questions, so you avoid them.

What time did the race start, Pete? Suddenly you have time again to talk about the subject?? Shouldn't you be preparing for the exams?

 

More like nuts.

 

May I just test my understanding here; you were referring to light emitted from a source and making the point of origination in space an absolute point relative to the expanding light sphere. Am I right so far? This assumes that the light sphere will move away from the center point equally in all directions at the same speed.

You are imagining that the specific light sphere is then observed as at passes other points in space by observers that are in motion relative to the fixed point of origin of the light sphere. Right?

And you are using logic to conclude that if that speed of that original light sphere is measured by a moving observer, that measurement will be different than the speed measured from the point of origin. Is that correct?

 

C1 or C2 is the cause of the event E.
E1 and E2 are two different states of the event E caused by C1 or C2.

 

Originally Posted by Pete
Try again. Space has no velocity or rest state.

You really think giving a completely ignorant response to Pete's statement helps your position. You obviously know, as does anyone with 1/2 brain, that he did not say anything about where light can be emitted

Your inability to admit that you are wrong remind me of the crowd that was expecting the rapture on Saturday. The majority of them will not admit they were wrong, even now.

Your position on the speed of light is counter to what is measured. How is feigning ignorance suppose to help your position, it just makes you look pathetic.

 

Yes I understand.
That is why in my example the event E is located midway between C1 and C2, possible causes.
If C1 happens first relative to C2 then E1 happens.
If C2 happens first relative to C1 then E2 happens.

 

Now origin, you have to go back a ways in the discussion to see why MD responded that way. There was a set of questions and MD asked if everyone agreed. MD is trying to establish a sequence of statements, maybe even going for a syllogism, who knows. But the response was not as impertinent as you saw it IMHO.

 

Yes, that's exactly my position.
In this demonstration, the method I use is reductio ad absurdum.
So the order of occurrence of cases C1 and C2 is only one, and not depend on the velocity of the "observer".

 

No it's not. You made up a situation that can't exist. Maybe you need to write the situation more carefully. Where are the observers, for example, in your scenario?

Firstly, it's not an impossibility, Secondly, even if observers disagree on the order or events, they can calculate what order of events the other observer would have seen. This is obvious, or you wouldn't be able to describe the two observers in your example in the first place (not that you did).

 

The order of occurrence of cases C1 and C2 is only one, and not depend on the velocity of the "observer".

 

The above is, of course, false. It is amusing to watch a fringe antirelativist like you trying his hand at explaining relativity.