On Dec 27, 11:34*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in ...
: 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.

You have apparently never understood the point that two observers,
even AFTER taking into account the finite speed of light and their
distances from two separated events, can disagree on whether the
two events are simultaneous.

Imagine the following scenario: You are involved in a first car
crash and are 9,314 miles from a second car crash. You see the
second crash 0.0500 seconds after the first, therefore you conclude
that the second car crash happened at exactly the same time as your
own accident. You evidently believe that ALL observers of the two
crashes, after taking into account their distances from the two
events and the finite speed of light, and performing the trivial
computation to compensate for the time delays in their witnessing
the events, must come to the same conclusion that you did.

Is that not so?

[snip totally irrelevant comment about a completely different
scenario]

Jerry