02Simult

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

sees both events occur simultaneously. However, a passenger

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.”

[

]

The reason for these differences in perceptions, the mathematicians tell us, has to do with

the finite

speed

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.”

[

]

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

[

]

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 e

xplosion

8 minutes

later

that

they finally come to terms with the occurrence.

The idiots are saying that the

window

can

eak

before

the

baseball str

ikes

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”

[

]

[

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

]

“

hus 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.”

[

]

As a result of his

idiotic

definition

, 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.”

[

]

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

”

[

]

Thus, the

notion of simultaneity is illusory.

According to the dictionary, however, simultaneous means:

“ Happening, existing, or done at the same time.

”

[

]

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 basebal

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

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 th

relati

vist 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’

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.

”

[

]

The mathematicians are concerned with what they can measure, not with what is. Without testimony,

Mathematical Physics is dead!

o 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

and

which is

equidistant from A and B as shown in

Fig.

. 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

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 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
Physics.