> Those of us who have studied physics, and have experience where your > model breaks down (by performing experiments at high energy particle > accelerators), know that the model of relativity corresponds MUCH better > to the experiments we have performed on the world; relativity, of > course, does support and require the "lack of simultaneity" you have in > mind.
So, what are the differences between relative simultaneity and absolute simultaneity?
Say we have a series of events taking place and several observers observing these events. It is the job of each observer to piece all the events together into a timeline with chronological order. Under relative simultaneity, each observer will report a different timeline of these events. Some events unobserved will be left out. Under absolute simultaneity, all the timelines must be equal.
Does this sound about right?
> So this really comes down to your personal lack of experience, and your > extreme naiveté about the ability of your thoughts to control the > universe. Just because you THINK "This real universe of ours does not > support lack of simultaneity" does not make it so. Indeed, real > experiments show that it does.
As many observers observe the interference pattern of the MMX, each observer should have no problems reporting exactly where the beams of light come from and where and when the peaks of the light beams occur. Thus, simultaneity sounds like absolute to me. Any interferometer should falsify any wild and unrealistic ideas claiming that the universe supports relative simultaneity. The MMX actually falsifies the Lorentz transform since it manifests relative simultaneity. Since SR is merely an interpretation to the Lorentz transform, it is falsified as well. Simultaneity must be absolute according to any experiments. <shrug>
