"Jerry" wrote in message
...
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.

[snip interruption]

[snip totally irrelevant comment about a completely different
scenario]

**** off, knee-jerking ****head.

[restore existing scenario]
The only separation in time is the finite speed of signal on its way
to the observer, not the events themselves. No observer is
part of the statement "the lightning crack of thunder and the
flash of light are simultaneous", although to a remote observer
they are not observed simultaneously.
Hence "one party" = "simultaneous"
"another [party]" = "not simultaneous"
is a contradictory statement, there being only one event observed
by both light and by sound. Science is objective, not subjective.
Further hence you are an idiot of the first order, arse bandit Smiffy.