Adapted for the Internet from:Why God Doesn't Exist
 Pastor Al says that both of you didn't shake hands at the same time

In one classical thought experiment, Einstein envisions two lightning bolts simultaneously striking the
ends of a moving boxcar (A and B) and the ground (A’ and B’) as illustrated in Fig. 1. The stationary
observer at O sees both events occur simultaneously. However, a passenger P traveling on the boxcar
sees B hit before A, which follows from the motion of the passenger in the direction of B. (Light from A
has to travel longer to P as P recedes from A). Einstein concludes that both observers are correct: there
is no absolute frame of reference when events occur in time because the carrier of the image – light –
travels at a constant speed.
 Fig. 1   Al’s version of the boxcar ‘gedanken’ experiment.

Contemporary relativists still rely on Einstein’s boxcar experiment to convince gullible laymen that whether
two events happen simultaneously is an issue of measurement. According to relativists, an observer may
even conclude that one event occurred before the other when in fact the sequence was in reverse:

“ there is a frame of reference in which event A and event C occur simultaneously,
separated only in space. However there are also frames in which A precedes C
(as shown) and frames in which C precedes A.” [1]

The reason for these differences in perceptions, the mathematicians tell us, has to do with the finite speed
of light. Light ‘takes its sweet time’ to get to us from an occurrence. This reasoning takes them to the most
ridiculous conclusion of Mathematical Physics. Until a spark reaches your eyes, relativists and mechanics
claim that the event hasn’t happened yet:

“ until he sees its light, effectively it [a volcano] hasn’t erupted yet… to state that
something happened you have to have any evidence, and he hasn’t got any
evidence that something happened. So it hasn’t happened.” [2]

“ The ‘path’ comes into existence only when we observe it.” [3]

According to the morons of Mathematics, if the Sun were to explode this very moment, the physical event
didn’t really happen. It is when the mathematicians disappear as a result of the explosion 8 minutes later
that they finally come to terms with the occurrence. The idiots are saying that the window can break before
the baseball strikes it!

After a while, it dawns on you that the problem with Einstein’s box car gedanken experiment revolves
around the mysterious word simultaneous, so it is important to get Einstein’s version in order to
understand what he is talking about. The meaning Einstein gave to the word simultaneous is as follows:

Two events taking place... are simultaneous if they appear at the same instant
when observed” [4]

[Obviously, Einstein was not a very bright individual! Events are 'simultaneous'
if they appear at the 'same instant'? Great! That's a synonym, a circular argument.
'When observed'? You mean we need an idiot known as a relativist has to furnish
testimony? That doesn't seem to be a very objective criterion. Hopefully, two events
occurred or not simultaneously whether we know of this or not.]

Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled
what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different
places, and have evidently obtained a definition of ‘simultaneous,’ or
‘synchronous,’ and of ‘time.’ The ‘time’ of an event is that which is given
simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the
event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time
determinations, with a specified stationary clock.” [5]

As a result of his idiotic definitions, he concludes:

“ So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of
simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates,
are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when
envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.” [6]

Einstein says that whether two events occurred simultaneously depends on your recollection or on
your opinion. Since different observers have different perspectives, they will have different opinions.

there may be always observers for whom simultaneity won't correspond to the
same moments in time and therefore simultaneity is always relative [7]

Thus, the notion of simultaneity is illusory.

According to the dictionary, however, simultaneous means:

“ Happening, existing, or done at the same time. [8]

Note that there is no provision for observers in this definition.

These irreconcilable notions of simultaneous compel you to make a choice. The issue before you is
whether simultaneous alludes to qualitative or quantitative time. If simultaneous refers to quantitative
time we need an observer. Otherwise, we don’t. We don’t need an observer to tell us that the baseball
was thrown before the window broke. We need an observer only if we wish to calculate the number of
seconds it takes for the flash of the broken window to reach our eyes or to measure the distance traveled
by this signal. Qualitative time (before/after) is independent of observers. One event happened before, at
the same time, or after another by definition and irrespective of knowledge or observers. Perhaps the
relativist thought that he shook the girl’s hand at 2:15. The girl, for her part, thought that the handshake
occurred at 2:20. They have different clocks and different recollections, or perhaps the relativist had one
drink too many, or escaped from the asylum last night. But the handshake was simultaneous! And here
we see the problem with Einstein’s predicament (and ‘simultaneously’ realize the difference between
relativity and Physics). Physics has to do with what is. Relativity thrives on measurement and
perceptions (i.e., observers) and on functional definitions (i.e., proof definitions).

An operational definition of time... has a high utility value in the conduct of both
advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. [9]

The mathematicians are concerned with what they can measure, not with what is. Without testimony,
Mathematical Physics is dead!

So let’s redesign Einstein’s experiment to eliminate the fuzziness introduced by relativistic measurement
and opinions. Hopefully, this gedanken experiment will also highlight the irreconcilable differences
between Physics and Mathematics. We will not do the experiment the relativistic subjective way. We will
not attempt to predict what will happen and we will not take any measurements or perform any calculation.
We will do it the way we do it in Physics: without observers or calculators. We will confirm objectively what
physically took place after the fact. This way we don’t have to rely on the opinions regarding what may have
happened coming from a misguided mathematician.

Let’s briefly review how an integrated circuit works as an introduction to my gedanken experiment. Current-
carrying bus lines crisscross a silicon chip like a grid. If the voltage on each of two intersecting lines is 0.5V,
we add for a total of 1 volt and the circuit turns on. If the voltage on one line is 0.5V and on the other 0V, or
they are both 0V, the transistor does not turn on. It is a black and white issue. Computers use this binary
system of ones and zeroes to create words and to perform calculations. Hence, an integrated circuit
functions because of physical simultaneity and not because relativists take measurements or have
opinions. This is another example of the differences between Physics and Math.

Suppose now that we condition Einstein’s experiment like the integrated circuit. We invite the most fanatic
and gullible of Pastor Al’s followers to sit in an electric chair we deliberately positioned at O and which is
equidistant from A and B as shown in Fig. 2. If lightning physically strikes simultaneously at A and B, the
electricity travels through two wires, discharges on the relativist and electrocutes him. In the alternative, if
B is physically struck before A, or A before B, the weaker current chars the idiot, sears his tongue, but he
lives to read this website. With this objective experiment we see why all observers cannot possibly be right.
Either the relativist at O is fried or he remains forever dumb, and regardless of which, we won’t need his
testimony at trial.
 Fig. 2   Fried relativist, or Al in the hot seat.
 No Bill! We are not shaking hands simultaneously because, unlike you, I am not in an inertial frame of reference.
 Footloose Bill
 free to put relativity on shaky ground
 The boxcar moves from left to right and two lightning bolts strike locations A (rear) and B (front). At the moment the bolts strike, two observers (passenger P and stationary observer O) are equidistant from A and B. According to Einstein, light from the event at B should arrive to P sooner than from A because the passenger is traveling in the direction of B. The observer standing on the platform should measure both events as happening simulta- neously. Hence, Al says that simultaneity is a function of measurement, location, and the speed of light.
 We redesign Einstein’s gedanken experimentby removing all observers. Instead, we placea gullible relativist in an electric chair smack in the middle of the platform and equidistant from points A and B. If lightning strikes A and B atthe same time, the bolts electrocute the relativist. We are done! Otherwise, only onebolt reaches the chair, toasts his P-brain, and sears his tongue. Irrespective of the results,we won’t need his testimony at trial.Relativity’s simultaneity argument relies on measurements and malleable definitions,both of which are subjective. If ever an experiment invokes testimony, we aretalking either Mathematics or religion, not Physics.

Once again relativists confuse knowledge and perception with existence and fact. In Physics, an event
happened before, after, or simultaneously with another one irrespective of people’s opinions. We cannot
have it in all three ways but lose. The measurements and perceptions of different observers are issues of
importance to mathematicians and psychologists, not to physicists. Relativity’s simultaneity ultimately boils
down to a question of definitions. There are no provisions for observers or measurement in the definition
of simultaneous. The definition of the word simultaneous should not make any provisions for quantities or
magnitudes. Whether one event happened at the same time as another in Physics is not an issue to be
decided by testimony or measurement or equations. It is decided strictly by rigorous definitions and logic.

________________________________________________________________________________________