🚀 go-pugleaf

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?