Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.

His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

You can get free version of the book from : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
>
> How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
> The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
> According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.
>
> His Conclusion is against his premise !!!
>
> Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
>
> for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

"SR is local".

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:23:06 -0700, Jack Liu wrote:

> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I
> would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in
> physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
>
> How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that
> two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway
> "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the
> rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two observers located at
> that very moment in the center of the rail.
> The focus is not on whether two observers experience different
> "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent.
> His conclusion directly denies his premise.
> According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the
> "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise
> must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity"
> in the premise is relative to.
>
> His Conclusion is against his premise !!!

I have explained elsewhere the logical impossibility that his RoS
generates. Paragraph2: Just locate the light sources on the moving clocks
and the whole thing falls apart

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")

Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.

--
Jan

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 09:43:19 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> > Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
> Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
> both derivation and use.

Nonononononono! Not important at all!
We would derive none of our idiocies
without it, but importance? Phew.

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:37:03 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:23:06 -0700, Jack Liu wrote:
>
> > Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I
> > would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in
> > physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
> >
> > How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that
> > two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway
> > "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the
> > rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two observers located at
> > that very moment in the center of the rail.
> > The focus is not on whether two observers experience different
> > "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent..
> > His conclusion directly denies his premise.
> > According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the
> > "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise
> > must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity"
> > in the premise is relative to.
> >
> > His Conclusion is against his premise !!!
> I have explained elsewhere the logical impossibility that his RoS
> generates. Paragraph2: Just locate the light sources on the moving clocks
> and the whole thing falls apart

Hi Jane

I found it independently and wrote it in my book <absolute time 2022 > Chapter 9 . However I would love to quote yours in my book if you can tell me where did you publish your argument. Thanks.

Jack

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:43:19 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> > Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
> Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
> both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
>
> --
> Jan

To Jan

1. thank you first, since you finally agree with me that is paradox, although you think it is not important. Thank though.

2. Like Maciej Wozniak has just said: it is very important!
That meant Einstein was supporting Absolute time in the his PREMISE.

3. That means time dilation effect is just light transmission lag.

Jack

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:11:51 -0700 (PDT), Jack Liu wrote:

> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:37:03 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:23:06 -0700, Jack Liu wrote:
>>
>> > Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I
>> > would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox
>> > in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
>> >
>> > How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed
>> > that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway
>> > "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the
>> > rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two observers located at
>> > that very moment in the center of the rail.
>> > The focus is not on whether two observers experience different
>> > "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was
>> > inconsistent.
>> > His conclusion directly denies his premise.
>> > According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the
>> > "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his
>> > premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the
>> > "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.
>> >
>> > His Conclusion is against his premise !!!
>> I have explained elsewhere the logical impossibility that his RoS
>> generates. Paragraph2: Just locate the light sources on the moving
>> clocks and the whole thing falls apart
>
>
> Hi Jane
>
> I found it independently and wrote it in my book <absolute time 2022 >
> Chapter 9 . However I would love to quote yours in my book if you can
> tell me where did you publish your argument. Thanks.

I too am writing a very comprehensive thesis on the history of Einstein's
SR and the reasons why so many people do not accept it. It contains a lot
of new and important ideas that will surely shatter the whole physics
estblishment. It is almost finished but I keep adding new ideas.
Can I ask how and where you published your book.

> Jack

--
-- lover of truth

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:12:36 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:

> > I found it independently and wrote it in my book <absolute time 2022 >
> > Chapter 9 . However I would love to quote yours in my book if you can
> > tell me where did you publish your argument. Thanks.
> I too am writing a very comprehensive thesis on the history of Einstein's
> SR and the reasons why so many people do not accept it. It contains a lot
> of new and important ideas that will surely shatter the whole physics
> estblishment. It is almost finished but I keep adding new ideas.
> Can I ask how and where you published your book.
>

To Jane

self publish at amazon is easy and quick : https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/
https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

looking forward to your work and let's quote each other.

for more info, just contact me by twitter : @songwaimai

Jack

On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
>> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
>
> Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
> both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.

Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.

Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
embankment at the rear.

Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
actually happen.

What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
the strike on the rear.

What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
the strike on the front.

No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:12:36 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

> I too am writing a very comprehensive thesis on the history of Einstein's
> SR and the reasons why so many people do not accept it. It contains a lot
> of new and important ideas that will surely shatter the whole physics
> estblishment. It is almost finished but I keep adding new ideas.
> Can I ask how and where you published your book.

Looking forward to the Sunday comics.

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:42:18 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> >> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
> >
> > Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
> > both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
> Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
> contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.
>
> Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
> Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
> is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
> embankment at the rear.
>
> Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
> the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
> reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
> actually happen.
>
> What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
> the strike on the rear.
>
> What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
> the strike on the front.
>
> No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
> finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
> simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

To Volney

You are right A, B, C has different about the timing of lightning, about the simultaneity of two event. However Einstein just believes in absolute time by claiming two lightning strike the two end of train SAME TIME at his premise.

It is so ridiculous to think Relativity revolution has overthrow the absolute time while Einstein himself trust absolute time.

See Introduction of ABSOLUTE TIME
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view

JACK

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:42:18 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> >> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
> >
> > Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
> > both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
> Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
> contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.
>
> Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
> Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
> is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
> embankment at the rear.
>
> Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
> the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
> reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
> actually happen.
>
> What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
> the strike on the rear.
>
> What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
> the strike on the front.
>
> No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
> finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
> simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

????
All three embankment observers, A, B, and C, know perfectly well how
to compensate for the finite speed of light in their observations.
Although they *see* the lightning strikes at different times, they all
calculate that the strikes happened at the same time.

They do not disagree on the simultaneity of the strikes, despite
differing in what they see.

See the Wiki discussion and figure 1-1 illustrating this subject
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Definitions

The current version of this section looks like it retains about 90+%
of my wording from 2017, with little changes like "Her location
within the lattice is not important" being changed to "Any specific
location within the lattice is not important" and so forth being
introduced by other editors. Also, somebody or other didn't like
where I had written, "The tokens typically used in popular expositions
of relativity to represent events—sparks, firecrackers, lightning bolts
and the like—are not events because they have finite durations and
extents. Unlike the analogies used to explain events, mathematical
events, since they have no duration, have no speed and cannot be
in motion," and had deleted these sentences between 2017 and
the present.

You can also reference the online version of Taylor and Wheeler

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> All three embankment observers, A, B, and C, know perfectly well how
> to compensate for the finite speed of light in their observations.
> Although they *see* the lightning strikes at different times, they all
> calculate that the strikes happened at the same time.
>

Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

I agree with you, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time . I agree. The "same time" you just mentioned is not relative at all, it is absolute.
Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .

Se introduction of https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view

Jack

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:12:31 PM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> > All three embankment observers, A, B, and C, know perfectly well how
> > to compensate for the finite speed of light in their observations.
> > Although they *see* the lightning strikes at different times, they all
> > calculate that the strikes happened at the same time.
> >
> Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
>
> I agree with you, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time . I agree. The "same time" you just mentioned is not relative at all, it is absolute.
> Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .

No. Simultaneity is a relative concept.
The strikes *do not* happen simultaneously to people on
the train, regardless of where in the train they stand.
They could be standing in the precise spot on the train
where the light from the flashes arrive at the same moment,
but since they would not be standing in the middle of the
train, they would *know* that the strikes did not happen
simultaneously....so far as *they* are concerned, anyway.

> Se introduction of https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view
>
> Jack

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> You can also reference the online version of Taylor and Wheeler

See section 4 of the following, "The Coordinates of an Event"
https://www.eftaylor.com/pub/stp/STP1stEdThruP20.pdf

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:19:51 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:12:31 PM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
> > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > > All three embankment observers, A, B, and C, know perfectly well how
> > > to compensate for the finite speed of light in their observations.
> > > Although they *see* the lightning strikes at different times, they all
> > > calculate that the strikes happened at the same time.
> > >
> > Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
> >
> > I agree with you, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time . I agree. The "same time" you just mentioned is not relative at all, it is absolute.
> > Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .
> No. Simultaneity is a relative concept.

Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

I agree with you, all of A B C can calculate that the strikes happened at the same time. calculated result in valid . This "Same Time" you just mention is not relative.
if you want to say Simultaneity a relative concept, that is all right, as long as you think "Same Time" is not. That is already what I want.

Jack

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 17:42:18 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 4/28/2023 3:43 AM, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> >> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
> >
> > Simultaneity is not essential for SR, it's merely a convenience for
> > both derivation and use. But not for the theory as such.
> Also, relativity of simultaneity doesn't depend on length
> contraction/time dilation in SR in all cases.
>
> Consider Einstein's train of length L, but is STATIONARY (stopped).
> Observer A is on the embankment at the midpoint of the train. Observer B
> is on the embankment at the front of the train. Observer C is on the
> embankment at the rear.
>
> Observer A sees simultaneous lightning strikes at the front and rear of
> the train. A says the strikes are simultaneous, as the light from each
> reaches her at the same time. A observes the strikes L/2c after they
> actually happen.
>
> What does B see? B sees the strike on the front and time L/c later sees
> the strike on the rear.
>
> What does C see? C sees the strike on the rear and time L/c later sees
> the strike on the front.
>
> No SR, no GR, no length contraction or time dilation, nothing but a
> finite speed of light. But the three observers all disagree on the
> simultaneity of the lightning strikes.

Or, at least, a poor fanatic idiot has gedanken
so.

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
>
> How did Einstein analyze simultaneity relativity? He first assumed that two lightning bolts hit the rails at both ends of the railway "simultaneously", and then he analyzed whether the lightning hit the rails "simultaneously" in the perspective of two observers located at that very moment in the center of the rail.
> The focus is not on whether two observers experience different "simultaneity". The point is that Einstein's reasoning was inconsistent. His conclusion directly denies his premise.
> According to Einstein's conclusion, simultaneity is relative, so the "lightning strikes both ends of the rail simultaneously" in his premise must be conditional. He must specify which observer the "simultaneity" in the premise is relative to.
>
> His Conclusion is against his premise !!!
>
> Again, Einstein's theory of simultaneity is nothing less than a paradox. I would name it Einstein's Paradox. This should be the biggest paradox in physics in the 20th century. (chapter 9 in "absolute time")
>
> for more detail : https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

The universe has a common age after the Big Bang.
The universe is 13.7 billion years old. The most
distant galaxies got to where they are in that
time after the big beginning.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:33:19 PM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:19:51 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:12:31 PM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > > All three embankment observers, A, B, and C, know perfectly well how
> > > > to compensate for the finite speed of light in their observations.
> > > > Although they *see* the lightning strikes at different times, they all
> > > > calculate that the strikes happened at the same time.
> > > >
> > > Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
> > >
> > > I agree with you, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time . I agree. The "same time" you just mentioned is not relative at all, it is absolute.
> > > Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .
> > No. Simultaneity is a relative concept.
>
> Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
> I agree with you, all of A B C can calculate that the strikes happened at the same time. calculated result in valid . This "Same Time" you just mention is not relative.
> if you want to say Simultaneity a relative concept, that is all right, as long as you think "Same Time" is not. That is already what I want.

"Same time" does not have an absolute meaning.
Sorry. Newtonian time has been long disproven.

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 20:13:08 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:33:19 PM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
> > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:19:51 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:12:31 PM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > All three embankment observers, A, B, and C, know perfectly well how
> > > > > to compensate for the finite speed of light in their observations..
> > > > > Although they *see* the lightning strikes at different times, they all
> > > > > calculate that the strikes happened at the same time.
> > > > >
> > > > Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time . I agree. The "same time" you just mentioned is not relative at all, it is absolute.
> > > > Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .
> > > No. Simultaneity is a relative concept.
> >
> > Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
> > I agree with you, all of A B C can calculate that the strikes happened at the same time. calculated result in valid . This "Same Time" you just mention is not relative.
> > if you want to say Simultaneity a relative concept, that is all right, as long as you think "Same Time" is not. That is already what I want.
> "Same time" does not have an absolute meaning.
> Sorry. Newtonian time has been long disproven.

But - sorry - in the meantime in the real world,
forbidden by your bunch of idiots "improper"
GPS and TAI keep measuring improper t'=t
in improper sedconds.

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:33:19 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:19:51 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:12:31 PM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > > All three embankment observers, A, B, and C, know perfectly well how
> > > > to compensate for the finite speed of light in their observations.
> > > > Although they *see* the lightning strikes at different times, they all
> > > > calculate that the strikes happened at the same time.
> > > >
> > > Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
> > >
> > > I agree with you, they all calculate that the strikes happened at the same time . I agree. The "same time" you just mentioned is not relative at all, it is absolute.
> > > Relativity just depends on "Absolute Time" .
> > No. Simultaneity is a relative concept.
>
> Dear Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
> I agree with you, all of A B C can calculate that the strikes happened at the same time. calculated result in valid . This "Same Time" you just mention is not relative.
> if you want to say Simultaneity a relative concept, that is all right, as long as you think "Same Time" is not. That is already what I want.
>
> Jack
I don't think the audience for a book criticizing relativity is relativists.. It functions as an ideology: "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" Peter Hayes.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> The universe has a common age after the Big Bang.
> The universe is 13.7 billion years old. The most distant galaxies got to
> where they are in that time after the big beginning.

not true. Those must be invisible. But those 13.7 billion years are
stationary Earth years. If you are close to the edge of the universe, this
number must be smaller one direction and larger offset the other
direction.

Le 28/04/2023 à 19:33, Jack Liu a écrit :

> Jack

I found this in your book.

What does it mean?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?_5CJAa4qjAloBDuFOEVK0NIA2m0@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=_5CJAa4qjAloBDuFOEVK0NIA2m0@jntp>

R.H.