is this right? - Rietdijk proof future determined, already "past"for distant observer

[ppppppp]

http://www.jstor.org/pss/186637 see details. I totally agree!

[ppppppp]

Why silent? Hahahaaa..... The question is beyond this forum.

[JesseM]

It's really a philosophical question. Relativity says that no frame can be physically preferred, but that doesn't totally rule out the idea that one frame's definition of simultaneity could be "true" in some metaphysical sense, though no experiment would ever tell us which frame this was. I don't believe that myself, but if someone does, they could say that the "metaphysically preferred" frame defines the true present, and that nothing in the future of this present is set yet.

[Evo]

Please repost according to the current PF guidelines.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47294

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=459350