"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.

says...

In response to my remark that as yet I have been offered no rebuttal
to my "logical refutation," A poster on this thread replied that "[my]
tortured reasoning was exposed by a number of posters." Is that so? My
apologies, I did not notice.

That's because you are an idiot.

I'd be grateful if this subscriber or any
other would point out to me a post showing that the falsehood of Q
does not follow from principle of non-contradiction. 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.

On the contrary, many people have showed why the two statements
are not contradictory. "Simultaneous" is relative to an observer,
in the same way that "left/right" or "above/below" are relative
to an observer.

Apparently the subscriber is thinking of several posts that discussed
the non-contradiction of different uses of terms such as "left," and
likened the two appearances of the term "simultaneous" in Q to these.
Yet of course such defenses fail, since, as I have shown at some
length, obviously Q is not like these.

On the contrary, it is exactly like those.

As I have explained hitherto, this interpretation of the doctrine
of the "relativity of simultaneity" would trivialize it.

It *is* trivial. Things simultaneous in one coordinate system
are not simultaneous in another coordinate system.

The theory does not make the trivial claim that the term "now"
differs in sense in different applications, like the term "left"
or other relative terms, or, for that matter, the term "cat."

Yes, it does. The term "now" has a different interpretation for
different observers in the same way that "left" and "right" do.

Rather, the theory claims (by implication) that the two car
crashes of Q may be both simultaneous and not simultaneous
in precisely the *non-trivial* sense

No, it does not.

since, unlike the different uses of term "left" or "cat," the
claims of both parties of Q *have the same referent.*

No, they do not. "now" is a set of spacetime points.
It is a *different* set for different observers. The
referent of "now" is *different* for different observers.

Moreover, the posts in question did not *show* that the two uses of
the term "simultaneous" in Q differed in sense (equivocation) or
reference; these posts merely listed some relative terms, and claimed
without further argument that the apparent contradiction of Q was
justified by its likeness to one of these relative terms. We are not
surprised that no argument was offered, since again, as I explained
above, such an interpretation of SR would trivialize it.

It is trivial. Under the coordinate transformation

x' = gamma (x - vt)
t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2)

two events that are simultaneous in coordinate system
(x,t) are *not* simultaneous in the coordinate system
(x',t').

You are a deeply stupid person.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
says...

In response to my remark that as yet I have been offered no rebuttal
to my "logical refutation," A poster on this thread replied that "[my]
tortured reasoning was exposed by a number of posters." Is that so? My
apologies, I did not notice.

That's because you are an idiot.

[snip]

Moreover, the posts in question did not *show* that the two uses of
the term "simultaneous" in Q differed in sense (equivocation) or
reference; these posts merely listed some relative terms, and claimed
without further argument that the apparent contradiction of Q was
justified by its likeness to one of these relative terms. We are not
surprised that no argument was offered, since again, as I explained
above, such an interpretation of SR would trivialize it.

It is trivial. Under the coordinate transformation

x' = gamma (x - vt)
t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2)

two events that are simultaneous in coordinate system
(x,t) are *not* simultaneous in the coordinate system
(x',t').

You are a deeply stupid person.

I think the problem has its root in his notion of time.
He insists that time is something metaphysical and nothing
you or I tell him, will make him change his mind:
"No, time is NOT what we read on clocks.
Time is something metaphysical.
The NIST definition of the second is crap."
Something along those lines.
Just another Blind Bulldozer.

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
says...

In response to my remark that as yet I have been offered no rebuttal
to my "logical refutation," A poster on this thread replied that "[my]
tortured reasoning was exposed by a number of posters." Is that so? My
apologies, I did not notice.

That's because you are an idiot.

[snip]

Moreover, the posts in question did not *show* that the two uses of
the term "simultaneous" in Q differed in sense (equivocation) or
reference; these posts merely listed some relative terms, and claimed
without further argument that the apparent contradiction of Q was
justified by its likeness to one of these relative terms. We are not
surprised that no argument was offered, since again, as I explained
above, such an interpretation of SR would trivialize it.

It is trivial. Under the coordinate transformation

x' = gamma (x - vt)
t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2)

two events that are simultaneous in coordinate system
(x,t) are *not* simultaneous in the coordinate system
(x',t').

You are a deeply stupid person.

I think the problem has its root in his notion of time.
He insists that time is something metaphysical and nothing
you or I tell him, will make him change his mind:
"No, time is NOT what we read on clocks.
Time is something metaphysical.
The NIST definition of the second is crap."
Something along those lines.
Just another Blind Bulldozer.

My take is he couches his objections in such tortured reasoning he will
never see the forest for the trees. That may because he believes time is
metaphysical, or he has an ingrained belief time is somehow a-priori
absolute, and that prevents him from seeing it is logically possible for it
to be relative. Sort of like guys I tutored in math ages ago. Let
something be x. Why does it have to be x? No reason - it can be anything
but to proceed it must be something. But why x? It would go around and
around like that. They obviously had a mental block. I suspect something
similar with this guy.

Thanks
Bill


Dirk Vdm