# Thread: The Relativity of Simultaneity

1. Originally Posted by MD
What SR draws on a piece of paper is a bunch of objects all claiming to be at rest.
Does it? I've seen diagrams of two observers in uniform relative motion. An observer in motion relative to another observer is not "at rest", period.
Ask any observer in the SR universe and they will say they are at rest. That means all observers are at rest in SR, so can you explain the observed motion in the universe while at the same time saying all observers are at rest?
And if you repeat something often enough, you might start to think it's true.
If SR says all observers are at rest, why does Einstein's paper discuss the composition of velocities?

Your brain is motionless. Your idea goes nowhere, and is demonstrably useless.

2. Originally Posted by arfa brane
Does it? I've seen diagrams of two observers in uniform relative motion. An observer in motion relative to another observer is not "at rest", period.
So there are two SR observers in relative motion. They both demand that they are at rest and the other observer is the one in motion. Did they ever consider that they might both be in motion, or has that thought never occurred to them?

Originally Posted by arfa brane
Your brain is motionless. Your idea goes nowhere, and is demonstrably useless.
More false statements, as usual. My brain is in motion, and is in fact made of motion. My ideas have already gone somewhere besides my brain, so again, you're flapping your lips spewing BS! Nothing new from you.

3. Originally Posted by MD
They both demand that they are at rest and the other observer is the one in motion. Did they ever consider that they might both be in motion, or has that thought never occurred to them?
It probably has occurred to more than a few people. So, how do two observers in relative motion tell which one is at rest?

How do they know any more than the velocity between them? So how can either observer claim to actually have zero velocity, except relative to the other? I think you will find that is exactly what is meant by "at rest". If there was no relative motion both would be at rest, right? But they could not also claim to have zero velocity, except relative to each other, right?

You have reached 68 pages, and you still got nothing to show for it. That's how come your idea goes nowhere. More than 1300 posts now, and you're still there, nowhere.

4. Originally Posted by Tach
Why do you keep spamming the threads with non-sequiturs?
So we can see who the trolls are ... but it is not a non-sequitur unless the incompatibility is too inconvenient for you to face up to. That is it, isn't it? Look at these 40,000 links before you respond, lol.

5. Originally Posted by quantum_wave
So we can see who the trolls are ... but it is not a non-sequitur unless the incompatibility is too inconvenient for you to face up to.
The absence of a quantum theory of gravity has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Besides, from your posts, it is quite clear that you are ignorant of basic special relativity, let alone of quantum gravity. So, such posts qualify you as an ignorant troll. Using them repeatedly, qualify you as a spammer.

6. Originally Posted by Tach
The absence of a quantum theory of gravity has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Besides, from your posts, it is quite clear that you are ignorant of basic special relativity, let alone of quantum gravity. So, such posts qualify you as an ignorant troll. Using them repeatedly, qualify you as a spammer.
You are using a straw man to characterize QM as the lack of Lorentz invariance at the quantum level. It is much more than a complete lack of evidence that GR pertains to the quantum level. It almost seems like you have so much of your life invested in GR that if it is questioned you lash out. Am I right?

I am saying that light is a physical event generated by oscillating dipoles at a physical location in space. You are saying that it isn't or that isn't pertinent to the thread, lol? Because the emission of light is a quantum event at the quantum level, that makes QM pertinent. Why are you not able to discuss a topic but always ready to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your comfy little world?

7. Originally Posted by arfa brane
It probably has occurred to more than a few people. So, how do two observers in relative motion tell which one is at rest?

Again you assume one is at rest. Why do insist on making the same mistake over and over and over???

Originally Posted by arfa brane
How do they know any more than the velocity between them?
They measure their own absolute velocity relative to the point the light was emitted in space. You don't listen very good do you?

Originally Posted by arfa brane
So how can either observer claim to actually have zero velocity, except relative to the other?
Because they measure the time it takes light to travel each way in their own frame. If the times are the same each way then they have a zero velocity.

Originally Posted by arfa brane
I think you will find that is exactly what is meant by "at rest". If there was no relative motion both would be at rest, right? But they could not also claim to have zero velocity, except relative to each other, right?
Are you trying to imply that because the car in front of me on the highway remains the same distance away from me, that I am at rest?

Originally Posted by arfa brane
You have reached 68 pages, and you still got nothing to show for it. That's how come your idea goes nowhere. More than 1300 posts now, and you're still there, nowhere.
Do you think that I should have overturned SR by now if I was correct? If your concept were true, why hasn't science overturned religion by now? You don't have a clue of how the world works, do you?

8. Originally Posted by quantum_wave
You are using a straw man to characterize QM as the lack of Lorentz invariance at the quantum level.
No. Stop trolling, you don't even know the meaning of the words you are stringing together.

It is much more a complete lack of evidence that GR pertains to the quantum level. It almost seems like you have so much of your life invested in GR that if it is questioned you lash out.
this thread has nothing to do with GR. Given that you don't even understand basic SR, it is not surprising that you are spamming it with non-sequiturs.

Am I right?
No. This is why pensioneers with no formal education never make physicists. Enjoy your retirement, keep your mouth shut.

9. Originally Posted by Tach
No. Stop trolling, you don't even know the meaning of the words you are stringing together.
Lol. I do too. Start a thread or is that beneath you. Quit bothering us with your childish remarks.

10. Originally Posted by quantum_wave (Responding to Tach)
You are using a straw man to characterize QM as the lack of Lorentz invariance at the quantum level.
Sorry, but you seem to miss out on the fact that all modern quantum field theories take Lorentz invariance as a fundamental principle. We wouldn't even be able to create a proper theory of electron interactions without it, let alone quarks and gravitons.

11. Originally Posted by CptBork
Sorry, but you seem to miss out on the fact that all modern quantum field theories take Lorentz invariance as a fundamental principle. We wouldn't even be able to create a proper theory of electron interactions without it, let alone quarks and gravitons.
You can't be defending Tach if you have an credibility ... and you can't be denying the incompatibility between QM and GR exists. So what is your point? You want to join in the fun of trolling?

12. Originally Posted by quantum_wave
You can't be defending Tach if you have an credibility ... and you can't be denying the incompatibility between QM and GR exists. So what is your point? You want to join in the fun of trolling?
his point is that you don't know what you are talking about. Give it a rest, enjoy your pension.

13. Originally Posted by MD
Again you assume one is at rest. Why do insist on making the same mistake over and over and over???
And there it is.

68 pages and you still have the same ridiculous idea of what "at rest" means. It does not mean one of the observers has an absolute rest frame. That this has been explained to you many times, and you still don't get it, does suggest that your brain is at rest.

Are you trying to imply that because the car in front of me on the highway remains the same distance away from me, that I am at rest?
For the umptieth time, the fact that distance between the cars doesn't change means they have zero relative motion--the cars, not the environment, not the remainder of the universe, nor a sphere of light. Objects or observers with zero relative motion are "said" to be at rest. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with saying an event occurs at time = zero, when the universe has been around for ~ 15 billion years?

Wouldn't you agree with most other people and say that "at rest" and "time = zero" are just useful conventions? And that this means there cannot be any absolute velocity, or absolute time?

14. Originally Posted by quantum_wave
You can't be defending Tach if you have an credibility ...
Why not? Tach is correct, QM requires Lorentz invariance as one of its fundamental axioms.

Originally Posted by quantum_wave
and you can't be denying the incompatibility between QM and GR exists. So what is your point?
There is an incompatibility between QM and GR. QM and Special Relativity, on the other hand, are entirely compatible, and QM as we know it today wouldn't even be possible without incorporating SR directly into the axioms.

15. Originally Posted by Tach
his point is that you don't know what you are talking about. Give it a rest, enjoy your pension.
Thanks, but I am.

As for me not knowing what I'm talking about, I find even at my old age I still have the ability to learn. When I bring up something, I know I don't know as much about the topic as someone who has studied it or works with it. Is that the reason you want me to quit?

Or is it because your math bound brain finds mathematics a place of beauty, predictability, and fulfillment and if it weren't for the pesky real world out there that refuses to correspond precisely to the math you would be able to live a comfy little life?

Here is what I want from you. When I say something that you find unworthy of being posted in the forum, you take it on as a teaching opportunity. Say why I'm a pea brain and give me some content to point me in the right direction.

Right now you have acted like a complete egotist and haven't shown any aptitude for carrying on a discussion. Trolling is what you are doing.

16. Originally Posted by arfa brane
And there it is.

68 pages and you still have the same ridiculous idea of what "at rest" means. It does not mean one of the observers has an absolute rest frame. That this has been explained to you many times, and you still don't get it, does suggest that your brain is at rest.
Without reference to another object, you tell me what you mean by the term "at rest."

You are in a box in space. You assume the box is "at rest." What do you mean by "at rest." Do you mean the box isn't having an out of box experience?? Are you trying to tell me the box isn't in motion compared to itself?? Your "idea" of "at rest" is absurd! You don't even have a valid concept of "at rest." Your entire concept of at rest is based on the fact that the box can't be in two places at the same time. No Sh\$#, Sherlock!

17. Originally Posted by CptBork
Why not? Tach is correct, QM requires Lorentz invariance as one of its fundamental axioms.

There is an incompatibility between QM and GR. QM and Special Relativity, on the other hand, are entirely compatible, and QM as we know it today wouldn't even be possible without incorporating SR directly into the axioms.
Thanks, now that is something I can work with. Maybe next time you want to teach me something you could include a good appropriate link because the Internet is a big place and if I were to go looking I would prefer to go somewhere that you recommend.

18. nice one

19. Originally Posted by MD
Without reference to another object, you tell me what you mean by the term "at rest."
Stop being an idiot.

You need two objects, a distance you can measure, and a way to mark the passage of time. Say one of the objects is an observer, and the other is some inert object which appears to be in motion. How does the observer know the object is not at rest, and they are in motion?

The answer is: they don't know, they can't tell. There is no experiment they can do.

I'm not in a box in space. I'm not at rest, except relative to some objects I can see in my neighbourhood. That may seem absurd to you, but that's probably because everything seems absurd to you.

20. Originally Posted by arfa brane
Stop being an idiot.

You need two objects, a distance you can measure, and a way to mark the passage of time.
So in a box without reference to another external object, you don't know if you are at rest or in motion?

...and, are you trying to tell me that my motion is dependent on another object's motion?

So say I'm on the highway and another car is in front of me and the distance is remaining the same. All of a sudden the distance starts to increase. Which car accelerated?