crocodile deathroll

Like if you were situated exactly half way between two giant stars and they both exploded into a supernova simultaneously, then you will observing the events simultaneously, but that is only because you are in a privilaged position as an observer.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

The first concept to address is the so-called observer simultaneity VS predictable simultaneity. To clarify my position let me use Newton's equation in relation to classical motion namely, V = U + a*t, such that U signifies the initial velocity(directed speed), V indicates the final velocity, a = acceleration (rate of change of speed) and t is the prediction parameter. We multiply a by t (a*t) to obtain the accumulative effect of the increase in speed (acceleration is a constant rate of speed increase).

This prediction parameter t, enables us to preview the result of the acceleration with respect to initial speed (loose use) previewed in relation to another rate of motion. The control element of this prediction which is t, is based on a constant rate of motion which is apriori to the equation. We call this apriori control element clock time. Itz use is how we are progressing in relation to it (clock rate).

We now turn this equation into a control experiment with two independent intelligent observers let us say Jasmine and Sarah (my favourite experminental assistants). We obtain a Guyanese made clock large enough to be seen by the two assistants. Next we join a Cessna in progress taking off at a Canadian airport.

* * *

I must delineate between measuring simultaneity and predicting simultaneous behaviour. The equation Newton uses to predict speed outcomes is a universal one. This means independent of observer status, the Cessna will achieve a final velocity V just before lift-off. This means itz effect is simultaneous in the space-time continuum, it will be V everywhere within the steece.

When asked what time it was on the large clock as the wheels left the tarmac, both observers may have difficulty agreeing what the third hand was showing (milli second 3rd hand). The transmission of the 3rd hand information to both observers even though both observers were SIMULTANEOUS with the clock information transfer IS AFFECTED by the percieved rates of the so-called soliphist observers.

If I can conclude by saying the error in simultaneity is indicated by the soliphist observation BUT there is no error in simultaneity between the Cessna and the two observers. The two observers were simultaneous with the Cessna take-off in a space-time format notwithstanding the natural simultaneous error conditions which exist between soliphists.

I'll extrapolate on the meaning of simultaneity between the 2 observers, the Cessna and the space time continuum in the next few posts...

Sammi Na Boodie ()

tronvillain

Uh, crocodile deathroll? I am not sure we actually have anything to argue about. As I have said before, I think the universe is a static four dimensional object.

Gauge Boson

Only if you are stationary relative to both of them. This is an almost exact duplicate situation as the thought experiment Einstein used in special relativity to show that simultinaity is not absolute. Suppose that there is another observer directly between the two stars at the same time that they go supernova from your persepctive. Only this observer is moving toward one of the stars. Since this second observer will have moved before the light reaches him, the light from each will take a different distance, and hence different time, to reach him. Thus, even if you share the same position at the time you would consider the supernovae to occur, they would not be simultaneous to the other observer. When Lorentz transformations and gravitational effects are added, any remnant of simultinaity can go out the window. The only thing that remains consistent in all frames of reference is the order of events.

I have a question for anyone out there with extensive knowledge of general relativity: what, specifically, is the Wheeler-DeWitt equation?

Mr. Sammi

George Boson, in the range OR scope of a field ALL elements are simultaneous within the field. This means they exist contemporaneously.

The simultaneous measurement which is an inexact science outside the scope of a field was the sort of thing about which Einstein was talking.

Two people right next to a radio will hear the radio at the same time. The scope of the field plays a part in determining the error range of simultaneity.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Gauge Boson

Sammi, I'm not sure I understand your last post.

Mr. Sammi

George Boson, apologies for the lengthy delay in reply, I have lately been occupied with life(?).

* * *

OK, we are somewhere at simultaneity in the scope of the field. Can we design an experiment to test the simultaneous field of sound(A) BY using a light beam(B) as our control element in the experiment(E). We need 1 source and multiple recipients. Rig the recipient using a regular language which describes itz behaviour and manufacture so we can achieve almost identical recipients. The recipients can be tied together by the light beam which would give an indication of the sonorous phase difference.

* * *

Some sort of experiment. What does this tell us? The use of (B) to measure the effect of (A) including itz simultaneous field IS ADEQUATE only when (B) is of higher quality than (A). Using (A) (when B is A) to measure the intrinsics of (A) does lead to many difficulties as Einstein pointed out.

It seems logical that entities simultaneous at c may be measurable by a system comprising of c squared.

You may then ask what is the simultaneous scope of a field, and how may this be known?

Sammi Na Boodie ()