On Feb 27, 6:17 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote: > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:06:31 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On 2/25/12 9:30 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > >> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 18:07:11 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> On 2/25/12 3:08 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > >>> Events that seem to have happened at the same time for the observer > >>> on train do not happen at the same time for the observer on the > >>> ground. The concept of before and after actually depends on the > >>> observer. > > >> Of course they fucking don't....that's just an Einsteinian red herring. > > >> Simultaneity has nothing to do with what humans SEE. > > > Given two postulates, the principle of relativity and > > the constancy of the speed of light, the relativity of > > simultaneity is a *consequence* of relativity. Furthermore, > > there has *never been and observation* that contradicts > > a prediction of special relativity. > > Light speed is not constant.
Except experiment shows that it is
> No properties of the physical world are > dependent on what humans see.
Noone says they are
> Einstein's clock synch definition and RoS are > pure nonsense based on blatantly false logic, as I have clearly shown.
But you agreed that his method for clock sync is valid and was the one thing he got right
Ballistic theory agrees that clocks A and B are in sync if the time shown by the clocks for light to go from clock A to clock B is the same as the time for the light to be reflected back from clock B to clock A. This is regardless of the motion of the light source. SR and Ballistic theory agree on that method for clock sync.