Mike_bb's latest activity

More precise.

That means there is no contradiction, analog to what you wrote in posting #73:

With reference to which frame is the highlighted statement valid?

frame A

That's the point, [clock A = 100s] and [clock B = 80s]. I suggest following simultaneously events: With reference to frame B the events...

With reference to frame A the events [clock A = 100s] and [clock B = 80s] happen simultaneous to each other. With reference to frame B...

Yes, I agree with this, there is no contradiction. But why did you write about these events? I asked about that from frame B clock A...

The time-coordinate of an inertial frame is defined by a grid of synchronized clocks, which are all at rest with reference to this...

I provided example in post#69.

Well, see post #50: With reference to Observer B's rest-frame: Clock B first shows 80s (E2) and ##20s## later clock B shows 100s (E3)...

If from frame B clock A shows 100s then in frame A clock A shows 100s. What's wrong?

This is nice example. Thanks! But for our example you wrote that: From frame B: clock B shows 100s(E3), clock A shows 80s. Then clock...

You have it exactly backwards: - Time coordinates assigned to events depend on reference frames, because they assign them. - Time...

I think you need to write out... I'm going to use "reads" to avoid possible misinterpretations when using anything suggesting what it...

A simple explanation of the relativity of simultaneity is given in Morin's book "Special Relativity: For the Enthusiastic Beginner"...