🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul22.144745.24854@email.tuwien.ac.at>  
gast@next.ben-fh.tuwien.ac.at (Gast) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.130948.18912@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas  
> Clarke) writes:
> > In article <BrrztE.J4u@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van  
> Flandern)  
> > writes:
> > > 
> > > {reiteration deleted}
> > >     For those unfamiliar with SR, SR implies that events synchronized  
> in one
> > >frame will not be synchronized (= simultaneous) in a relatively moving  
> frame.
> > 
> > Not true.
> 
> It is true. Two events that happen simultaniously in one system don't in a  
> system which is moved in respect to the former system.
> 
> Harry

Apologies, egg-on-face etc. etc.

I read TVF's statement without the "not".  His argument didn't make
sense unless he was erroneously claiming that it made sense to compare
ages on T1 and E1 relative to event of T2 meeting E2.  This comparison
makes sense if you assume once simultaneous then always simultaneous.

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu