Age And Relativity

[JMJones0424]

My intent in the post you quoted was to illustrate the absurdity of your view. If we observe time passing between two events, then those events, by definition, are not simultaneous. We are moving at a non-zero velocity relative to the rest frame of the Universe, therefore, any two events that are simultaneous in that frame are not simultaneous in ours.

 

Please note, absolutely nothing in this thread is an advanced concept. Given the experimental evidence that we have, Newton would be forced to abandon Galilean Relativity which he codified and recognize that he was mistaken in assuming universal time.

 

Every post of mine in this thread has been an attempt to show you how the invariant speed of light necessitates relative time and distance. You have seemingly ignored those points, which is why I find this conversation to be so irksome. This is established science. There is no debate, you are wrong. There is no need for you to take anything on faith. All that is required is for you to put half the effort into understanding this simple concept as you have in arguing your falsified, archaic concept.

 

I have given two representations showing how invariant speed of light requires frame dependent measurements of time and distance. I have given references on how to perform coordinate transformations. As my last contribution to this thread, unless you show an effort to understand, is to recommend you watch this lecture by Leonard Susskind on relativity. It is about an hour and a half long, which is less time than you and I have wasted on this thread. (The video is mislabeled. This lecture precisely deals with your misconceptions. Please, watch it.)

 

 

[sigurdV]

Watching video is not so fun if you cant hear the sound, it'll have to wait...

 

Meanwhile, if intellectual rigour wont hurt too much, then perhaps you could try to prove something instead of just claiming things to be the case.

 

Also, and especially if you use rethorics , you should express yourself in a way that minimizes misunderstandings... let us check what you maybe think is a clear statement of yours: " If we observe time passing between two events, then those two events,by definition, are not simultaneous."

 

What definition? Yours, mine or anyones? And is your sentence describing what you see as truth, or does it describe what you think is my "misconcepted" wiew on the matter?

 

You should handle sentences more carefully, not only their inner construction, but also their contexts: Try writing "The place for truths" on your wastebasket, then write on a note "This note is not in the wastebasket!". What should be done with the note? Is it clear what statement the note expresses?

 

And, while writing on your debating technique; my use of the concept "advanced" was on coming explications of relativity theory... perhaps a sentence was a wee bit unclear there, but why you misapprehend it as stating that some advanced concepts already have been introduced eludes me!