# Simultaneity is not Postulate of Physics It's Psychological

1. May 13, 2004

### geistkiesel

This post is a reissue of a previous post that had some very crummy “graphics” if that is what one would call them.

In the experiments analyzed here, we use Einstein’s model described in “Relativity” pages 25 – 27. A moving observer O’ is at M, the midpoint between two lights A and B heading for B, when both lights are pulsed on.
The pulse from B is detected by O' at t1. Later at dt = t2 - t1 = 1 the light from A is detected at t2. The analysis works from either frame so maintain consistency when analyzing results. This is not a conceptually strenuous exercise, with at most two paragraphs, plus some venting..

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/simultaneity.gif [Broken]

Is the simultaneity postulate of SR and GR a correct description of physical phenomena? Do observers in different inertial frames see events that are simultaneous in one frame, but not simultaneous in another? Will the moving O’ observer see the lights come on at different times?

Unambiguously, the answer to these questions is no.

Using figure as a guide O’ measure the clock setting and frequency of the light pulse from B reaching a point at time t1 after passing through the midpoint at M. O’ makes the assumption that the lights were pulsed on simultaneously. This means that during time t1 the light from A arrives at -t1, as the wave fronts from both sources must be equidistant. During the time dt = t2 – t1 = 1 arbitrarily, the light from –t1 reaches t2. The total distance traveled is (dt)c = c. The distance is also measured as vt1 + vt1 +_ 1 = 2t2 + 1 for v = 1, arbitrarily. Equating c = 2t1 –1, we find t1 = (c – 1)/2. If dt were larger than 1 then A pulsed on after B as the locations of the respective wave fronts would be skewed. If dt < 1 A pulsed on before B.

When discussing the physical significance of simultaneity, the description is inextricably linked to “the observers conclusions”; This simple example stresses the rejection of the natural order of things by the definitive assumption that the observer always makes the proper assumptions about the extent of the analysis of experimental results. Here, the casual acceptance of the different arrival times at t1 and t2 equates with non-simultaneity is not supported by a rational analysis of the parameters and conditions of the experiment.

Doctordick asks if anyone understands the forum “Theory Development”. I understand a part of the forum. I was exiled for repeated questioning of dogma on the basis that those interested in the current model-dogma ought not be confused, pestered with, or bothered by heretics from the fringes. Of course, the mentor Chroot, who arbitrarily edited some of my posts exhibiting heresy in infringing on the prevailing views and their collective state of mental equilibrium, didn’t edit my posts with any intention of being objective, reasonable or fair. Maintenance of the status quo is his major concern, which includes his belief system. I didn’t see any “scientist” mentoring myself. Perhaps he perceives the real possibility of treasured theories being righteously close to caving in around him.

I often close posts with “The enemies of truth. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017