Simultaneity and Relativity | Physics with Professor Matt Anderson | M29-03

Can two events happen simultaneously? Does it depend on the observer? Hmmm...let's see.

Physics with Professor Matt Anderson

[reluctantrealist]

I don't understand. I agree that Planet B would see Supernova B first but wouldn't they know that Supernova B was closer and thus calculate that the events did happen at the same time?

[anandbavkar]

This video is not just confusing or misleading but outright incorrect.

[SamFugarino]

Really good presentation. You make it fun.

[fizixx]

Terrific intro to what's going to be more way kewl stuff! 🎉

[CausalDiscoveries]

Relativity of simultaneity leads to an irrecoverable contradiction—not simply a paradox, but a damning contradiction.

Say two distant instantaneous events (A and B) take place such that one inertial frame calculates they occur at the same time, this means other frames could calculate A occurs before B, while still others calculate B occurs before A. Since any inertial frame exists at any one point in space and time, one can then say, the moment and place A occurs, the following is true about B: it occurs in A’s past and future (i.e., not past). The fact that each conclusion (B is past or future) is derived from different inertial frames is irrelevant… in reality B cannot occur both before and after A. It’s one, the other or neither, which means the one frame that predicts this true state of affairs (even if we’re unaware of which frame it is) is the “preferred” frame.

This reasoning proves relativity’s light postulate is false, which means relativity is false, making its predictions still correct but now for the wrong reasons. Why does it matter that relativity is right for the wrong reasons? Why not just keep it if it works? Well that’s probably the same line of thinking that kept the earth-centered planetary model the dominant model for over 1500 years. Imagine what we’d miss without a sun-centered model. What are we missing with relativity? For starters, the cause of time dilation, the cause of the specific force we call gravity, and a solid foundation from which to derive a quantum theory of gravity.

Join me at my channel as I investigate the heart of a new scientific revolution: universal specificity.

[labidifaycal]

Relativity is WRONG, THE PROOF : how do you know that the two events occur at the same time or not even before both signals arrive at the two observers.
That means you AGREE that a former " non relativistic" or " classical" frame of reference is needed to validate the simultaneity or not of events.
Relativity is under many contradictions and over the history these errors are not discussed because of two main reasons:
1- the overwhelming of Quantum mechanics more rich experimentaly and its applications are several from the molecular level to atomic then to sub-atomic, and the diversity of phenomenological surprises.
2- the force of the new ideology : EINSTEINISM, which means : you are only rediculous if you try to prove Einstein wrong.

[sanjaysingh-xftc]

Hello sir I'm your fan from India. Please tell me about your teaching board

[ipergiovanni]

Will 2024 finally be the year Einstein is knocked off his pedestal?

Stationmaster Bob is stopped in the center of the station and train conductor Alice is stopped in the center of Einstein's infamous train moving relative to the station.

When Alice is exactly in front of Bob, for Bob, two stones hit simultaneously, the first, a firecracker at the head of the train, and the second stone, a firecracker at the tail of the train.

Since the two sound wave fronts reach Bob simultaneously, but do not reach Alice simultaneously, the academic donkey deduces the physical nonsense that only for Bob the two stones hit the head and tail of the train simultaneously.

In reality, according to universally shared and recognized physics, and for which the speed of sound does not depend on the speed of the sound source, the two events which for Bob are simultaneous, are not for Alice, because Alice, at the center of the train, moving forward together with the train, he first hears the sound wave front coming from the firecracker in front of the train and then the one from the firecracker behind the train.

Replace the two sound fronts with the two light fronts of the infamous 1905 article and you discover that the academic donkey mentioned above was Albert Einstein.

It seems to me that it cannot be demonstrated more clearly than this what I demonstrated and wrote in another way for the first time in the remote summer of 2019, namely that the Einsteinian relative simultaneity is the consequence of nothing less than a systematic error, with many regards to consequential: kinematic dilation of time and kinematic contraction of lengths.

Systematic Error (Treccani online encyclopedia): in physics, systematic errors are called those which, despite repeating the measurement several times, always occur in the same way, because they are due to imperfections of the instrument or incorrect measurement methods.

Shall we throw Einstein, finally in 2024, off the pedestal? Or how much longer do we need to wait to free humanity's mental energies to give life to a true physical theory and not a mathematical theory like RR?

Giovanni from Italy.