🚀 go-pugleaf

Spirit of Truth wrote:
> "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message 
> news:h0rZl.13217$v24.9784@newsfe13.iad...
>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>> "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message 
>>> news:7cNYl.135$jI6.66@newsfe11.iad...
>>>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>>> "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:I5PWl.21823$xW6.8992@newsfe11.iad...
>>>>>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>>>>> Added to and correction of typo:
>>>>>>> "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message 
>>>>>>> news:uouWl.597$h53.307@newsfe10.iad...
>>>>>>>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>   [nothing worth reading]
>>>>>>>>> Contrary to people who critize what you post, you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MMX did NOT prove anything. ANY child could expain
>>>>>>>>> that if light was ballistic the two way result would have given the
>>>>>>>>> result they got OR if one simply looked at Galileon relativity
>>>>>>>>> the local distance the light travelled would obviously not
>>>>>>>>> change so would have given the same result.
>>>>>>>> Based on your frequently displayed "knowledge" of facts, Spirit, 
>>>>>>>> your choice of stage name is oxymoronic.  What the MMX "proved" is 
>>>>>>>> that light wasn't a wave traveling through a material substance - an 
>>>>>>>> important discovery since, based on lots of other discoveries, light 
>>>>>>>> was presumed to be a wave.  And, although some later discoveries 
>>>>>>>> were consistent with particulate light, it's clear, at this point, 
>>>>>>>> that light isn't ballistic (e.g., the GPS wouldn't work if it were).
>>>>>>> Jem, you should know better than that. Many experts in SR
>>>>>>> state exactly what I stated above about MMX.. And, anybody
>>>>>>> with even a modicum understanding of math (a child) could expain
>>>>>>> it to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Einstein using, or anyone else using, MMX to justify SR
>>>>>>>>> or length contraction is just plain incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Single experimental results don't justify theories, viable theories 
>>>>>>>> have to agree with ALL experimental results.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, Spirit, speaking of things "ANY child could explain", have you 
>>>>>>>> realized yet that not both observers, in Einstein's train gedanken,
>>>>>>>> can simultaneously see the light flashes?
>>>>>>> Jem, you still are not confronting that both rest frames would so
>>>>>>> exactly that.
>>>>>> No, Spirit, both rest frames wouldn't say exactly that, since /that/ 
>>>>>> is an impossibility.
>>>>> Sorry, Jem, you are incorrect. What is an impossibility in this
>>>>> universe is lack of simultaneity.
>>>>>
>>>> Anyone who dismisses a contradiction in order to maintain a belief 
>>>> hardly deserves the moniker "Spirit of Truth".
>>>> Oh, and BTW, June, at least express that irrational fear of yours 
>>>> correctly.  It's not "lack of simultaneity" that cowers you - 
>>>> simultaneity is ubiquitous in Relativity.  Your phobia is for lack of 
>>>> /absolute/ simultaneity.
>>>> Although, FYI, June, absolute simultaneity could be introduced into the 
>>>> relativistic model with the greatest of ease, without changing the 
>>>> theory one iota.
>>> .....................................................................................................
>>> .....................................................................................................
>>>
>>> Really? How?
>>>
>> You're gonna have to do a little thinking in order to find out how.
>>
>> How can you tell whether two arbitrary events occurred simultaneously?
> 
> ...............................................................................................................
> ..............................................................................................................
> 
> Jem, with SR there is no simultaneity except spacetime simultaneity which
> means a block universe, and of course that is false.
> 

No, June, it isn't false, it's gibberish, and a pretty clear 
indication that you don't know what "simultaneity" means.

> If you think you know
> something else please be good enough to tell us.
> 

OK.  "Simultaneity" means "condition where two or more events occur at 
the same time", which has nothing to do with spacetime or block universes.

So again, (assuming you still want an answer to the question you 
asked), how can you tell whether two arbitrary events occurred 
simultaneously?