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
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 experiment
by removing all observers. Instead, we place
a 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 at
the same time, the bolts electrocute the
relativist. We are done! Otherwise, only one
bolt 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 are
talking either Mathematics or religion, not

    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.


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008