"Koobee Wublee" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > On Jul 2, 7:08 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> 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.
Of course .. the changes in simultaneity do not affect causality
> Thus, simultaneity sounds like absolute to me.
What things are you claiming are simultaneous?
> Any > interferometer should falsify any wild and unrealistic ideas claiming > that the universe supports relative simultaneity.
How would it?
> The MMX actually > falsifies the Lorentz transform since it manifests relative > simultaneity.
No .. Lorentz transform explain MMX results.
> Since SR is merely an interpretation to the Lorentz > transform, it is falsified as well.
> Simultaneity must be absolute > according to any experiments. <shrug>
Why do you think that? Seems like an unsupported assertion to me .