Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[chroot]

2. MacM believes in absolute time.
He believes that causing clocks to stop simultaneously in the frame of reference of one observer must stop them in every simultaneously in every frame of reference. He provides no reasoning as to why this should be true, except that he feels it makes more sense to him.

Evidence, nineteen months ago:

MacM: "But is is acceptable for the purpose of testing Relativity's validity to specify that all clocks are synchronized to clock C per universal time. that is all three start and stop at the same physical time in reality."

He was corrected:

chroot: "This is not a moot point. In fact, it is the central point that you do not understand. There is no such thing as "universal time."

Evidence, recent:

MacM: "I wanted to determine what clocks would read according to time dilation on a real physical level of absolute instaneous time. I have successfully done that by using relativity to properly stop clocks at a physical "actual" instanteous point in time in accordance with only the control clock."

MacM: "It would be interesting to see a graph of the clocks synchronized to "A" test time with Simultaneity properly eliminated by the synchronization of stopping the clocks instantaneously with "A"."

MacM: "You must agree that there is such a thing as an "Instant in time" do you not. For it is your habit to apply Relavistic Simultaneity (deliberatly shift an Instant in time) to create multiple times for the test to make the numbers remain consistant."

MacM: "The reality is that time is invariant of relative velocity."

MacM: "they are being stopped instantly as in absolute time univerasally."

MacM: "But you claim because of "Simultaneity" they don't stop at the same time in absolute time and we have shown that they do."

He was corrected:

James R: "You can't just write issues of simultaneity out of existence like this. If you say the issue doesn't arise, then you are a assuming universal time, which also means the speed of light would vary in different frames of reference. That is not observed in reality."

 

[chroot]

3. MacM has dreamt up thought experiments that depend on instantaneous communication.
Though no mechanism of instantaneous communication has ever been found, MacM has no trouble at all believing on faith that it's just a matter of time until someone discovers one.

Evidence, nineteen months ago:

MacM: "It is perfectly legitimate to make the assumption that they are so synchronized to test the affect of the relative velocity on time in and of and by itself exclusive of the problemmatic method of doing so."

MacM: "I am under no obligation to provide a method of synchronizing clocks for the theoretical analysis of the Relavistic proposal that relative velocity dilates time. I repeat that is not a requirement."

MacM: "It is most obvious that to stipulate a known falacy will produce false reaults. There is no indication that clocks and no be arranged to begin at test and end a test in harmony."

MacM: "I don't conceed that the clocks cannot be started and stopped in a synchronized manner."

He was corrected:

chroot: "The reason the three-clock experiment won't work as stated is because it presumes something (stopping the clocks at the same instant) that isn't physically possible. It isn't a complete experiment that one could actually go perform. Once completed (in any fashion you like), it will be found that there are no paradoxes."

chroot: "This is not physically possible. There is no way to stop the clocks at the "same instant." How would either clock know when this instant is? The very point of the experiment is to measure time on different clocks, isn't it? Your "paradox" hinges upon something that cannot be done, even in principle."

chroot: "Make me look stupid in front of all these people. You'd love to do that, wouldn't you? Go ahead, take the bait. Show me an apparatus that someone could build that would stop the clocks at 'the same instant.'"

chroot: "Your idea that the clocks should be stopped "at the same instant" is not possible in this universe."

chroot: "I modified your experiment to make it physically realizable, and showed you the solution -- sans paradox... After I posted this treatment, you were all bent out of shape, because your experiment called for this mystical 'stopping at the same instant' concept."

chroot: "If your thought experiment is not physically possible, it's just nonsense."

chroot: "The experiment you suggest is not physically possible, and thus has no real answer. I modified the experiment to make it physically possible, and showed you how the paradox does not exist."

chroot: "If you stipulate that the clocks stop automatically when they reach a designated time, then your experiment will tell you nothing about time dilation -- which is, after all, what you're trying to measure."

Evidence, recent:

MacM: "In my control the signals to the three clocks are defacto equivelent to instantaneous communication (i.e. - as though it were achieved by particle entanglement)."

MacM: "You no longer are working in a instant control system network [which is required in my thought experiment]."

MacM: "You are not instantly informing B's monitor of its Relavistic view of A that A has stopped. I do."

MacM: "I take exception to your and others claim that information cannot be sent FTL. The simple and most obvious truth is that mankind today is simply just to ignorant to understand how nature does it in the universe. It is quite obvious that these particles send and receive information FTL."

MacM: "MacM: "I have simulated "Instantaneous communication". Both clocks shut down simultaneous in both clocks view."

 

[chroot]

4. MacM chooses to believe that quantum entanglement is such a method of instantaneous communication.
He simply doesn't understand quantum entanglement well enough to see his own error. While everyone else on the planet is telling him he's not understanding the situation, he's more than happy to just stick his fingers in his ears and keep repeating his belief.

Evidence, thirteen months ago:

MacM: "What it means is that it may be possible to send signals between the three clocks in the "three clock paradox" instantaneously using quantum entanglement."

MacM: "The fact is useful information is being transmitted at least billions times faster than c."

MacM: "Now I know you disagree with information transfer but that I am afraid is nothing more than a bias; which seems to be rapidly falling behind the times."

MacM: "Information HAS been sent FTL."

MacM: "That is information and no 'c' or subluminal carrier is required."

MacM: "But the difference would be that you must estblish your communication net work at sub-c but any future communication could be FTL."

MacM: "You claim FTL communication is impossible and they say they are developing that very thing."

MacM: "What I said was it now appears we can in the future have FTL communications."

MacM: "I also understand the desire of Relativists to argue they can't be sent. But it is just a short term denial cover of the issue which I do believe will be solved and when it is - Oh, well."

He was corrected:

Crisp: "You cannot transmit any information using entanglement. To understand what it really is about, you'll need to take advanced courses. All I can say is that the entanglement effect is "local" (it happens only for one observer and the other notices nothing about it)."

chroot: "Measurement, of any sort, destroys the entanglement. You cannot poll your particle to see when it changes, because the first such measurement will destroy its entanglement. No, there is no way to poll it without destroying its entanglement."

Crisp: "No there is NO information transfered when you perform the measurement of ONE of the entangled particles. You know what the outcome COULD be of an experiment IF IT WERE to be performed far away."

Crisp: "I hope this clarifies that:
- Entanglement cannot be used to transfer information.
- Since no information is transfered, no problem occurs with relativity."

Crisp: "Bullshit, you jumped on the FTL claim like you do on many other claims, and you are now crawling back."

Evidence, recent:

MacM: "We could claim a link via particle entanglement (spooky action at a distance) control system which would cause the clocks to physically "Actually" stop the instant clock "A" reached 10 hours... For theoretical purposes it should be more than acceptable."

MacM: "You can clearly stipulate that you are stopping the clocks instantaneously, as though particle entanglement has been mastered and is being used for control."

MacM: "By using the preset timer according to Relativity to control the onboard clock, will or will not "B" physically stop at the same instant (as in particle entanglement) that "A" stops?"

MacM: "I should be able to theoretically claim using particle entanglement to in some fashion control the clocks but since we have not yet achieved mastering actually using the instantaneous nature of particle entanglement, you (meaning this board) would not allow that either."

MacM: "But I did and I can [write issues of simultaneity out of exisrtence]. The system I proposed simulates control by particle entanglement. Particle entanglement is a real phenomena."

He was corrected:

James R: "For a start, it is impossible to transmit a signal instantaneously using entanglement, so your arrangement is flawed at its core. But, even if it were possible, the issue of the relativity of simultaneity would remain."

Janus58: "Quantum entanglement cannot be used to transmit information instantaneously... So forget Quantum entanglement, there is no way you can use it to transmit useful information, or even a time marking signal."

James R: "Entanglement does not allow the transmission of information FTL."

James R: "you're claiming that everybody knows that entanglement allows FTL communication."

 

[chroot]

5. MacM is delighted that instantaneous communication itself would be an indication of the failure of relativity.
Since he believes instantaneous communication is possible, he thus believes relativty is flawed.

Evidence, nineteen months ago:

MacM: "There is no scientific basis for rejecting preseting the clock to circumvent the synchronization problem."

MacM: "To satisfy the requirement and to complete the test I simply created a situation which effectively stipulated the synchronization. If you just stop flapping your gums and open your ears and eyes you would see the truth."

Evidence, recent:

MacM: "Accepting the fact of FTL and particle entanglement potential for instantaneous control of the clocks does indeed expose the physical impossibilities claimed as the basis of the mathematical functions of Relativity."

MacM: "Since it is known that particle entanglement is apparently fact and that such particles receive information between them FTL (Instantaneous as best as we can tell), assuming that the phenomena is indeed instantaneous, exploring the function of Relativity in that regime using multiple clocks and clock monitors via simulations calibrated to mimic Relativity will result in exposing physical impossibilities in the predictions of Relativity."

MacM: "It will by simulation demonstrate the functions of Relativity by simulating particle entanglement type control or instantaneous control exposing the underlying basis for Relativity functions."

MacM: "Relativity is flawed in that it relies upon physical impossiblities normally hidden or masked by inclusion of information being transferred via finite and invariant speed of light information transfer system which induces real time delays and distorts accumulated data on a real time or instant basis."

 

[chroot]

6. MacM does not seem to recognize that everyone already knows
that relativity is not compatible with instantaneous communication, and somehow feels that he is showing everyone something new and worthy of praise by pointing it out.

Evidence, recent:

MacM: "Nobody is claiming we should actually build a instanteous communication network. We are evaluating the mathematics of Relativity using a simulation of such a system."

MacM: "When placed in an instantaneous communication enviorment it becomes quite clear that the predictions of relativity are impossible."

He was corrected:

Pete: "You hold, as an article of faith, that instants are universal. Fine - you are welcome to do so. If we begin with the premise that instants are universal, that simultaneity is not relative, then the conclusion must be that SR is nonsense."

Pete: "It is true that the SR model is illogical if you assume that instants in time are universal."

Pete: "I disagree. The simultaneity issue is an integral and inseparable part of relativity. Any concept of relativity that does not include it is not Relativity, but some inconsistent, invalid, and impossible model."

Pete: "SR and absolute simultaneity can not coexist."

James R: "In a fantasy world where FTL information transference is possible, then paradoxes may very well arise... If we ever discover that FTL travel or information transfer is possible in the real world, we may need to rethink relativity. But until that happens, there's no need."

James R: "IF FTL communicaton turns out to be possible, then there will be all kinds of potential problems with causation which relativity would have a hard time coping with."

James R: "I agree that IF FTL communication of information was possible, then there would be problems with causality. This MAY mean that relativity would need to be revised."

 

[Persol]

I've done this before remember? Let me remind you... summarized...
"You are wrong and I am right. (Realtivity) is wrong, and so are you, because I am right. You're list of quotes is wrong, even though I said them, because I am right."

"Oh yeah, (realtivity) sucks."

 

[MacM]

chroot,

Unfortunately you are a sad excuse for a human much less a scientist. You might start by learning to tell the truth rather than your distorted versions, out of context, references.

But before going there I would have to remind you of your own adminations when I first arrived.

"BIG BOLD LETTERS DOESN'T MAKE YOU CORRECT. IT IS CHILDISH AND A SIGN OF INSECURITY"

1. MacM doesn't believe in relative simultaneity.

Absolutely false. I believe in fact that it is primarialy nothing more than the product of delayed information via the invariance of and finite speed of light. As a consequence you are taking perception and calling it reality. Because you are watching my clock and claim it is running slower, does not in fact mean I am aging slower because you have not affected my proper time at my clock what-so-ever. And the mathematics of Relativity be damned, "That is the true status of reality in nature."

: "OK, so you are stipulating that all the clocks are stopped simultaneously in A's reference frame when A reads ten hours... The most important point is that SR suggests that in B's reference frame and C's reference frame, clock C stops first, then clock B, then clock A."

I know damn well what Relativity says. I happen to think you are all moon struck over Relativity and have given up your ability to think and chew gum at the same time. These responses are not in any manner a "Correction". They are nothing more than the recitation of Relativity. You cannot and should not expect the premisis of a theory to be the theory's own proof. You are simply being grossly simple minded - So whatelse is new.

: "Your final method of stopping the clocks is fine. All clocks will be stopped simultaneously in A's reference frame. In B's frame and C's frame, clock C will stop first, then clock B, then clock A, ie they don't stop simultaneously in any frame except A's."

Only in those minds that have lost their objectivity and advocate Relativity on a faith basis.

What is actually sad is you thinking you can restate peoples view and claim to know what they think or believe. I tell you one thing I most certainly believe.

You are beyond hope. You are an arrogant, obnoxious, pea brained twit that thinks he knows far more than he does. You do not hesitate to act in an outrageous manner toward people with ill advised self confidence and un-warranted dictatorial attitude.

Perhaps folks here should know that I posted an improved version of these tests on PF and that you saw fit to ban me, when in fact there was interest from your members.

They were responding in a thoughtful manner. There was none of the normal name calling that you seem to like to do. Perhaps it bothered you that I made it a vote thread and if you look at the voting it was 2/1 in favor of the tests being valid as well as the conclusions.

That seems to suggest that you are much more afraid of me than I am of you.

 

[MacM]

2. MacM believes in absolute time.

Again with the large print.

He believes that causing clocks to stop simultaneously in the frame
of reference of one observer must stop them in every simultaneously in every
frame of reference. He provides no reasoning as to why this should be true,
except that he feels it makes more sense to him.

Again with the false representation of the case as stated. I did not simply
stop the clocks in one frame of reference. You should learn to read and
think before opening your mouth.

In fact others here ultimately concluded that indeed I have stopped all
clocks simulatneously but they then concluded I was no longer testing Relativity.

While I disagree with that conclusion, it at least is a valid point of
contention.

You haven't posted any. Why because you are an egotistical dumb ass.

Why for example have you ommited things like this:

At shut down:

A = 36,000 Monitor see's B as 15,692
B = 15,692 Monitor see's A as 6,840

If you want to include monitors on both clocks, then I agree
with these figures.

After finally understanding what I was doing (shutting down the clock by its
value based on Relativity and not some delayed remote communication) he
agreed with my figures and the fact that the clocks under consideration are
in fact stopped as claimed. Simultaneously.

In all fairness however, he then continues on (in what I find to be blind
faith) to conclude that that isn't a propblem since it is in accordance with
Relativity.

I have shown that stopped clocks, according to Relativity, must possess and
display two different accumulated times and that isn't a problem?. :bugeye: I think others (not me) need to take some time off and do a bit of actual thinking.

You in particular.

 

[MacM]

3. MacM has dreamt up thought experiments that depend on
instantaneous communication.

Again with the childish BIG PRINT.

Though no mechanism of instantaneous communication has ever been
found, MacM has no trouble at all believing on faith that it's just a matter
of time until someone discovers one.

I said I think it may well be possible. Your failure to allow that
possibility is evidence of the harm being done by Relativity of which I have
repeatedly asserted.

: "The reason the three-clock experiment won't work as stated is because it presumes something (stopping the clocks at the same instant) that isn't physically possible. It isn't a complete experiment that one could actually go perform. Once completed (in any fashion you like), it will be
found that there are no paradoxes.

I do not conceed that all clocks cannot be stopped
simultaneously.

: "This is not physically possible. There is no way to stop
the clocks at the "same instant." How would either clock know when this
instant is? The very point of the experiment is to measure time on different
clocks, isn't it? Your "paradox" hinges upon something that cannot be done,
even in principle.

: "Make me look stupid in front of all these people. You'd
love to do that, wouldn't you? Go ahead, take the bait. Show me an apparatus that someone could build that would stop the clocks at 'the same
instant.

: "Your idea that the clocks should be stopped "at the same
instant" is not possible in this universe.

Well, well. Stupid indeed. It seems it is you that are being corrected. I
damn well can and have arranged a method of doing so. Now you choose to
move the goal post and claim it is no longer Relativity. When I prove it
is, then what do you propose to claim next?

: "If you stipulate that the clocks stop automatically when
they reach a designated time, then your experiment will tell you nothing
about time dilation -- which is, after all, what you're trying to
measure.

Absolutely false. As repeatedly stated the test was to test the mathematics
of Relativity, not physically test time dilation in real physical clocks.

You never seemed to grasp that. But then that is no real suprise
understanding your limited ability to think out of the box.

 

[Persol]

You might start by learning to tell the truth rather than your distorted versions, out of context, references.

Lol, can I call it or what?

Again with the childish BIG PRINT.

You do realize you posted entire paragraphs like this, right?

I said I think it may well be possible.

My god, you aren't even a good liar...
"Information HAS been sent FTL."
"The fact is useful information is being transmitted at least billions times faster than c."
"You claim FTL communication is impossible and they say they are developing that very thing."

You've distorted every attempt you have made at understanding/disproving relativity. You could at least try not to blatantly LIE.

I believe in fact that it is primarialy nothing more than the product of delayed information via the invariance of and finite speed of light.

Which has been demonstrated as wrong. You can believe anything you want, but if you are going to continue using the 'I know I am right, ignoring your proof' line... you should take it to the religious forum.

 

[chroot]

You called it, Persol. I decided to make a compendium of MacM drivel out of sheer fascination that he's posted almost as many times to sciforums as I have to physicsforums -- and I help run physicsforums. The sheer volume of his posts is staggering, and they're almost all chock-full of abject hilarity.

I nearly hurt myself laughing when I began this survey of MacM's bullshit. I was expecting to find a few contradictions here and there, maybe two or three good quotes per point. Boy, did I ever underestimate.

I should also mention, MacM, that it makes no sense to call me names when all I did is quote your own words for everyone to see in one place. I have a feeling kind souls like Pete would not have wasted their time with you if they knew in advance how pointless it really is.

Your mental deficiencies have been laid out in six easy pieces (Feynman would be proud). Together, I believe they describe every part of your argument:

1. You don't accept (or understand) the relativity of simultaneity. Your experiment makes the clocks stop simultaneously as seen by one observer, but not to all three. To say otherwise is to lie, or at least to discuss something other than relativity. You have repeatedly used some silly argument about F=ma still being valid even when a=0. Well, the relativity of simultaneity is still alive and well (and totally valid) even when you make two events happen simultaneously in one observer's view. The same events are not simultaneous in any other view but that one.

2. You believe in absolute, universal time. Relativity and absolute time are entirely incompatible. If you believe in absolute time, relativity is nonsense. If you believe in relativity, absolute time is nonsense. As Pete has said, you're welcome to believe in absolute time, but arguing about it is pointless. Either time is absolute, or it isn't. Experiment has shown that it isn't.

3. You believe in instantaneous communication. Instantaneous communication and relative simultaneity are entirely incompatible. Instantaneous communication and relativity as a whole are thus entirely incompatible. You're welcome to believe in instantaneous communication, but arguing about it is pointless. To create thought experiments which depend on instantaneous communication is to argue something other than relativity.

4. You believe, even after two years of debate, that information can be transmitted via quantum entanglement. You could have finished the better part of a bachelor's of physics in that time, and you'd be actually able to make cogent arguments by now. Instead, you've chosen a life of hot-headed ignorance and selective hearing. To each his own.

5. You love the idea that instantaneous communication is incompatible with relativity. I can feel the glee in your words when you tell people how you've disproven relativity with a thought experiment that depends on instantaneous communication. You feel like some kind of valiant defender of truth, a clairvoyant among animals, when you announce that relativity cannot explain your instantaneous-communication thought experiment. No wonder -- relativity doesn't even apply anymore!

6. I can give you 10,000 thought experiments that involve instantaneous communication, and they will all be at odds with relativity. What a surprise! This is a child's game, MacM. The fact that you think you've come across something deep and novel by realizing that instantaneous communication and relativity are incompatible is absolutely hilarious.

- Warren

 

[MacM]

4. MacM chooses to believe that quantum entanglement is such a
method of
instantaneous communication.

I'll not harp on the BIG PRINT issue hereafter. I think people get the
idea. But please stop telling people what I think. You don't seem to know.
I'll tell you what I think, not the other way around - imbecile.

He simply doesn't understand quantum entanglement well enough
to see his own
error.

Two false statements here.

1 - I damn well do understand the functioning of particle entanglement.

2 - There is no error.

The problem with your post is you are deciding for me what it is I am
supposed to believe. That has been your favorite modius-operandi. Make
your own false case then argue it against another person. Well that doesn't
slip by me. You will be corrected each time.

While everyone else on the planet is telling him he's not
understanding the situation, he's more than happy to just stick his fingers
in his ears and keep repeating his belief.

Another way of expressing the reality here is that I have enough
intelligence to not be bamfusooled and reject your off point replies. Does
not believing chroot make all persons subhuman in your view?

: "What it means is that it may be
possible to send signals between the
three clocks in the "three clock paradox" instantaneously using quantum
entanglement.

You again have misquoted my true position.

: "Information HAS been sent FTL.

This sort of quote is out of context. I have repeatedly stated that my
meaning here is in terms of "Particle Communication". Clearly entangled
particles communicate in an instaneous fashion, which we yet do not
understand, nor can take advantage of. But that certainly doesn't make it
impossible - EXCEPT by standards of a mathemaical concept called Relativity.

:Measurement, of any sort, destroys the entanglement. You
cannot
poll your particle to see when it changes, because the first such
measurement will destroy its entanglement. No, there is no way to poll it
without destroying its entanglement.

Again stating the current facts of particle entanglement is not in any form
a "Correction" of me or my view. I have maintained only the possibiity of
such instantaneous communication in the future. Only your limited vision
(Blindness due to faith in Relativity) causes you to state otherwise.

: "We could claim a link via particle
entanglement (spooky action at a
distance) control system which would cause the clocks to physically
"Actually" stop the instant clock "A" reached 10 hours... For
theoretical
purposes it should be more than acceptable.

: Quantum entanglement cannot be used to transmit information
instantaneously... So forget Quantum entanglement, there is no way you can
use it to transmit useful information, or even a time marking
signal.

This simply is a misrepresentation of the state of affairs. True it has not
been achieved yet. However, there has just this past year been advances in
what they can and cannot do. They have for example learned how to
predetermine the "setting" of entangled particles. They are no longer just
entangled without knowing the state of entanglement.

They have recently been able to actually manipulate the particles without
destroying the entanglement.

These are all requirements to the ultimate capability of using the
technology. Frankly I suggest it is time you and others get off your high
horse and start to help finding ways to take advantage of such potential.
And to stop making absolute statements about what can and what cannot be
done based on nothing more than a faith in mathematics. We already know
that the mathematics doesn't appear to be applicable in the QM range. So
don't be applying your Relativity restriction into a regime that it is no
longer applicable.

 

[Janus58]

chroot,



But before going there I would have to remind you of your own adminations when I first arrived.

"BIG BOLD LETTERS DOESN'T MAKE YOU CORRECT. IT IS CHILDISH AND A SIGN OF INSECURITY"

The difference here is that Chroot is using The larger font correctly, as a heading for his post, where you were using it indiscriminately in the middle of posts.

1. MacM doesn't believe in relative simultaneity.

Absolutely false. I believe in fact that it is primarialy nothing more than the product of delayed information via the invariance of and finite speed of light. As a consequence you are taking perception and calling it reality. Because you are watching my clock and claim it is running slower, does not in fact mean I am aging slower because you have not affected my proper time at my clock what-so-ever. And the mathematics of Relativity be damned, "That is the true status of reality in nature."

I know damn well what Relativity says.

If you really "damn well knew what Relativity says" you would understand just how silly the paragraph above that claim is.

 

[chroot]

Is it really in your best interest to respond to my posts by providing MORE juicy quotes for me to copy and paste?

- Warren

 

[MacM]

5. MacM is delighted that instantaneous communication itself
would be an
indication of the failure of relativity.

Not true. I would be delighted to see such a developement. The fact that
Relativity is incompatable is simply a side issue. Do I think we would
better off without Relativity? Yes, with the understanding that we have
learned a more meaningful method.

Since he believes instantaneous communication is possible, he
thus believes
relativty is flawed.

False. I believe simulating it allows us to see the falsehoods of
Relativity. It doesn't matter if it is ever achieved or not.

 

[Persol]

I would be delighted to see such a developement.

You must be very happy considering you think that this has already happened....

 

[Paul T]

1 - Relavistic mass concept.

2 - v = c absolute limit, which is based on nothing but math and relative velocity energy inputs vs an accelerated frame carrying its own energy source.

I'm sure there are others

MacM, you felt that those things (mass concept, c-limiting speed, etc.) in relativity have not been investigated thoroughly is simply because you do not understand relativity.

 

[chroot]

The fact that Relativity is incompatable is simply a side issue.

It's not a side issue. It's the basis of your entire argument.

I believe simulating it allows us to see the falsehoods of
Relativity.

A universe where instantaneous communication is possible is a universe where relativity cannot apply. All you're showing is that the two are incompatible. Duh. Everyone already knows this.

- Warren

 

[MacM]

6. MacM does not seem to recognize that everyone already knows
that relativity is not compatible with instantaneous communication, and
somehow feels that he is showing everyone something new and worthy of praise
by pointing it out.

That has been pretty much my opinion. Absolutely. Why else would you and
others go through the months of arguement about it cannot be achieved,
rather than just say "Look, this has been studied in depth and determined
that Relativity is not compatiable with instantaneous communication, but
since we can't achieve it now and likely never will it is a moot point".

But now your arguement has been I could never produce a system that could
perform (simulate) by instant communication. The fact is I have. Even if
you choose to continue to ignore that fact, that doesn't change the fact.

: You hold, as an article of faith, that instants are universal.
Fine -
you are welcome to do so. If we begin with the premise that instants are
universal, that simultaneity is not relative, then the conclusion must be
that SR is nonsense

Not at all that bad of an assessment."

: "In a fantasy world where FTL information transference is
possible,
then paradoxes may very well arise... If we ever discover that FTL travel or
information transfer is possible in the real world, we may need to rethink
relativity. But until that happens, there's no
need.

Again a very fair assessment, except for the close in red. There is no
excuse for turning off our brains and accepting relativity as the last word.
Not anymore.

: "I agree that IF FTL communication of information was
possible,
then there would be problems with causality. This MAY mean that relativity
would need to be revised.

These are fair assessment. It is a shame you can't learn to conceed a point
and move on also.

 

[Persol]

There is no excuse for turning off our brains and accepting relativity as the last word.

We should consider the effect pink flying elephants have on relativity. There is no excuse for turning off our brains and accepting relativity as the last word.

You can't just make things out which can't exist in reality and then think that it tells you something about relativity.