"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:NJX5m.17211$Dx2.8059@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com... > > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4a4d6347$0$25358$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:47101b85-573d-4e28-8984-4fb7d3ed38b3@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >> 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? >> >> ********************** >> In "absolute simultaniety" if one observer sees two events as >> simultaneous, all will. In relative simultanaity, this is not true. >> >> >> 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? >> >> ********************* >> Yes! You have got it! > > > Complete and utter nonsense. > > Confront this: > > No, you haven't inderstood Einstein's lack of simultaneity.
I think you are speaking of yourself. And there is no lack of simultaneity in SR .. that you even refer to it as such shows you don't understand it.
