Is relativity of simultaneity measurable?

Then tell us what they "measured" since it is your claim that these measurements are the "proof" you claim them to be.

And then explain exactly what and how and why these "measured effects" are what you claim.

No, the scientists you mention just "interpret" and "simulate" from theory assumptions input to algorithms for "interpretation" of effects observed. That is all they present in conjunction with any data they obtained. It is you that claims their "interpretations" are "proof" positive of SR "contraction" for real and not from other possible causes in LHC accelerator system/energy effects.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't feel obligated to teach you anything. You should try to educate yourself, the websites are self-explanatory.
Once again, it is not "my claim", it is the claim of the professionals that actually ran the experiments. Understood?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, the scientists you mention just "interpret" and "simulate" from SR theory assumptions input to algorithms for "interpretation" of effects observed. That is all they present in conjunction with any data they obtained. It is you that claims their "interpretations" are "proof" positive of SR "contraction" for real and not from other possible causes in LHC accelerator system/energy effects.

So tell us what they "measured" since it is your claim that these measurements are the "proof" you claim them to be. And then explain exactly what and how and why these "measured effects" are what you claim.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is the third time you make this false claim.

 

I am questioning your claims about LHC accelerator effects being "proof" of SR "contraction" and not any other cause/effect in there. Have you any scientific and objective arguments to support your claims that don't just depend on SR theory assumptions and interpretations? If you don't want to support your claims about LHC operations as "proof of SR contraction", ok. Another "lesson" learnt from you is to evade your responsibilities in debate. Thankyou for that "lesson" again.

 

So now you don't know relativity of simultaneity is real? It's interesting that you've change your mind. You might want to revisit your earlier arguments based on this new understanding.

 

Professional physicists are divided on the issue, you should read the first article and try to understand it, instead of arguing.
Now, what I do know, is that you cannot test it. The second article leaves no doubt about that.

There is nothing to revisit: you can't build a valid experiment to measure RoS.

 

You aren't questioning, you are making false claims. Three times you repeated the same false claim.

 

You claimed that LHC operations "proved" that SR "contraction" is "real". You linked to two articles which describe LHC scientists interpreting data according to SR theory whose assumptions were then input to algorithm for simulation of the data/effects observed.

They just say that SR theory interprets it as "SR contraction".

You claim that it is "SR contraction" for sure and proven beyond doubt and that it could be nothing else in LHC energy/acceleration system effects involved!

Your claim of "proof". Your links questioned as to their adequacy as "proof" of "SR contraction" claimed by you.

Can you support your claims with any links that do not just present only SR theory "interpretations" of data?

You claimed those linked interpretations were "proof", not me or anyone else.

 

One thing at a time, do you retract your three time repeated false claim that:

?

 

Until you support your claim of "proof" from those links of yours, there is nothing for me to retract in the following statement in context so far:

Please don't start your game of "excerpting and evading". You claimed LHC as "proof". It is not "proof", only "interpretation from theory" of their data and simulated accordingly, as already pointed out enough times so you can't play evasive games and not be called out.

 

I don't discuss with people who make false, anti-mainstream claims. Dialogue is impossible with such individuals. Until you renounce your crank claim, there is nothing to talk about.

 

So you don't think your links are "proof" after all? That's why you refuse to explain exactly how they constitute "proof" of your claim? ok.

 

Are you sure?

You too Tach. Cite, please.

OnlyMe reiterated his points. The only thing that is false is your assertion that he is false.

 

Ion pancaking? Sounds delicious.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He has been playing that game all along. Look, he's evading again.

He did not make any crank claims, and even if he did, it is still easier to have dialogue with him than with you.

 

I am going to ask you how are you going to make two remote measurements at the "same" time?

Tel me How You Can Measure. Don't Say We Cam Measure.

 

The reason why Relativity Of Simultaneity is not observed is because you cannot observe two remote measurements at the same time. Have you specified how did you measure two remote measurements?

 

Synchronize two clocks, then take them to the locations of the events you want to measure and set each up with some kind of detector. Program the clocks to stop ticking as soon as they detect events at their respective locations. After both events have happened, bring the clocks back together and compare the times they recorded.

Am I missing some subtle reason why that doesn't work?

 

If I'm not wrong, the clocks ticking non-simultaneously in another frame will make the experiment null.

Do you think we could use a radar gun to test RoS?