"Spirit of Truth" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:Luf6m.email@example.com... > > "Whoever" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message > news:email@example.com... >> "Spirit of Truth" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message >> news:FRX5m.17212$Dx2.email@example.com... >>> >>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:firstname.lastname@example.org... >>>> >>>> "Koobee Wublee" <email@example.com> wrote in message >>>> news:firstname.lastname@example.org... >>>> Hmmm... I have asked the so-called experts in justifying their >>>> arguments in why the world is observed to behave in relative >>>> simultaneity. All I got are doug the manyuk (Arabic for male >>>> prostitute), Whoever the diarrhea licker, and Peter Webb the empirical >>>> idiot (according to Uncle Al's classification). >>>> >>>> So, if the self-styled physicists do not understand the differences >>>> between what relative simultaneity and absolute simultaneity are, why >>>> are they promoting one from the other? >>>> >>>> =================== >>>> I already specified the difference between relative and absolute >>>> simultaneity. The concept of "absolute simultaneity" is that >>>> measurements of simultaneity are independent of the reference frames;in >>>> relative simultaneity these depend upon the reference frame that is >>>> used for measurements. >>>> >>>> I know SR is "hard", that's life, sometimes you have to work at >>>> understanding something. >>> >>> Master Webb, instead of Space and Time being absolute... >>> with SR, Spacetime becomes absolute, block universe is created >> >> Its not created .. either it is or it isn't. Not that there is any way >> we can tell. And not that it makes any difference. >> >>> MEANING the Past and Future are permanently existing. >> >> In what sense existing? All that matters is that effect always follows >> cause. And you do realize that when you interact with another person, >> you are not talking to them at their now, but to their past. Nothing you >> see is now. You have no possible way of interacting with anyone else's >> now from your now. We are alone in our now, with only the ghosts of >> other past now's to keep us company. >> >>> THAT is the description of your silly idea of lack of simultaneity. >> >> What lack of simultaneity? > > Confront this: > > No, you haven't inderstood Einstein's lack of simultaneity.
Yes . I have .. better than you, it appears. If you understood SR you would not say there is a lack of simultaneity in it.
[snip same old links as before]
> Both those link say you are living in a block universe with the future > already there. It is false.
No .. they don't .. you simply interpret it that way.. Your choice.