"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...
: Dear gharnett:
:
: wrote in message
:
...
: Q is the following proposition: "Two car crashes, one in
: Ausralia and another in America, are correctly claimed
: by one party to be simultaneous and by another not
: simultaneous." I noticed no rebuttal showing that the
: terms "simultaneous" and "not simultaneous" in this
: proposition are not contradictory.
:
: "one party" = "simultaneous"
: "another [party]" = "not simultaneous"
:
: Not contradictory, since it is two different situations. Two
: different observers, and two different measurements (namely the
: separation in time of the *observation* of the two events, one
: zero separation, one non-zero separation).

The only separation in time is the finite speed of signal on its way
to the observer, not the events themselves.

So you assert. LT (which is shows experimentally to be a better model than
the gallilean transforms) says otherwise.

No observer is
part of the statement "the lightning crack of thunder and the
flash of light are simultaneous",

Yes .. it is .. implicitly.

although to a remote observer
they are not observed simultaneously.

It doesn't matter if the observer is remote .. the position of an observer
within a given frame of reference makes no difference to when the events
happened within that frame .. only when they are physically seen (or heard
etc) by an observer. Sr says there is an actualy difference (not just a
perceived one) between the time events happen realtive to one frame vs
relative to another.

Hence "one party" = "simultaneous"
"another [party]" = "not simultaneous"
is a contradictory statement,

No .. it is not .. unless the two observerse are at teh same location.

there being only one event observed
by both light and by sound.

So you are saying no matter where you are, or how you are moving, you will
perceive (eg via light or sound) that the two separated events are
simultaneous?

Science is objective, not subjective.

Yes .. yet your biases and religious dis-belief in SR blinds you to reality.

Further hence you are an idiot of the first order, arse bandit Smiffy.

Charming as always