simultaneity of relativity.

$$ Sue... wrote: PD wrote: dead_paul wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 06:30:07 -0700, PD wrote:
Sue... wrote: PD wrote: snip
Because it is impossible to determine that
physically, then there is no recourse but to say that
simultaneity is in the eye of the beholder.

Physics is an objective, not a subjective discipline.
Your agreement with the OP on this issue is noted. :-)

There are certain measurable (physical) properties that
are experimentally seen to be observer-dependent,

only on paper, properties such as kinetic energy soon reveal
where you ignored some data or reference frame.
consider the 2 car example, 2 cars head for each other at
equal speeds.
considering one stationary quadruples the collision KE.
but then you will observe both cars moving off to one side
instead of the wreck being stationary.

That's right. Energy is *conserved* in every single inertial
reference frame. This does not mean that it has the same value
in every inertial reference frame. Do you see the difference?

There is no physical loaw that says simultaneous in one frame
is simultaneous in another frame.

Well how about that!
A defense contractor would have us believe his aircraft artillery
is accurate because it can account for some physical laws
such that a shell and an aeroplane will be at the same place at
the same time. Shucks! We might have guessed it was
all a matter of random chance.

$$ The pilot QUiCKLY ejects the aeroplane's clock...
$$ [THAT way (WHEN the shell gets THERE) only the clock "gets it"].
$$ Effectively the pilot gets SEPARATED by a GR-time-LiKE interval.
$$ [i.e. But, of course (pun), the aeroplane may get a clock-BATH].
$$ [_ENORMOUSLY_ important: Aeroplane is NOW in wrist-watch-FRAME].
$$ snicker
$$ TWO clocks synchronized at one WORLD-line-POiNT, are BOTH WRONG.
$$ [All THREE points TOGETHER _must_ be separated a bit ..at ONCE].

Long live the blunderbuss. )[ The simultaneity of relativity ].
Sue... PD [ The SiMULTANEiTY of RELATiViTY ].