Strange

It is true that the Schwarzschild solution makes a number of simplifying assumptions, such as the black hole being eternal and in an empty space. But the fact that those are only approximations does not invalidate the results. After all, simple ballistics calculations work despite the fact that Newtonian gravity is an approximation. By the way, you might want to look up the word "transfinite"; you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. This just isn't true. You seem to take one bit of a theory (from those "Gugus", whatever that means) and try to use it to disprove another bit of the same theory. Is relativity that inconsistent? No. And that can be proved (because it is math not science.) An object will fall through the event horizon in finite proper time. Surprisingly, it will also be seen to disappear in finite time, even by a distant observer. The idea that matter is "stuck" just outside the event horizon is a fallacy created by poor journalism.

Let me see... Explanatory power? No. Quantitative predictions? No. Predictions tested and confirmed? No. Perhaps you could explain what you think the words "science" and "theory" mean, because you seem to be using them in a slightly non-standard way..

Of course you didn't. You just repeated the same insane guff that Ray spouts. What next "−1 x −1 = +1 is stupid and evil" ?

What do you think the word "scientist" means? Can you tell us what quantitatively testable predictions his "theory" makes? And where are the results of such tests reported, reviewed and replicated by others? I suspect that says more about you than the validty of his ideas which are, frankly, insane.

Scientist? I don't think so: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gene_Ray It would have to make sense and be a testable hypothesis before that bet made any sense (but nothing he says makes any sense, so that's OK). I bet you the same amount that you can't prove that frombles don't kromnitz (except when tunglised with prootles).

I didn't say I hadn't looked at the source. I said I wasn't going to go and find an online copy to find the context you are misquoting from. Oddly enough, I haven't perfectly memorised the text for 40 years. Plenty of people. I have read many better explanations. A conclusion based on the evidence. Which you have only gone on to reinforce. I don't know who "Tom" is. But he seems to agree that coordinates are arbitrary and therefore you cannot have an absolute frame of reference. And therefore you are wrong. Feel free to open your mind and read the bits of Einstein's text you appear to have skipped over.

I'm not sure what that means. There are no co-located observers in the example and there are no observers co-located with the flash(es). You seem to be making almost random statements in order to defend an untenable position. The train example is exceedingly simple. Why not use it?

You seem to be selectively reading and/or quoting from Einstein's work (I'm not going to try searching for an online copy to check the context. And anyway, there are far better sources to learn relativity from.) The whole point of his work is to show that such absolute synchronization is not possible; there is no absolute time. If you haven't understood that, then clearly you haven't understood the theory of relativity. There is little point you arguing against it from this position of relative (see what I did there) ignorance. You need to study the theory first, then ask for help with parts you have a problem with. Starting out with a closed mind is not going to get you very far. I don't know how to respond to this. It appears to be a case of thinking that your intuition trumps objective evidence. I'm afraid that the timing of events is observer dependent (as are many other things such as length, energy, ...) whether you like it or not. The universe apparently doesn't care about your opinion.

Ah, I see where you are coming from now. You are basing your belief on the vagaries of human perception rather than objective evidence. That makes sense (as in, that explain why it is a personal belief rather than science). Not that I think it is relevant, but it seems fairly clear that even the human perception of a single "now" is an illusion. No, you only perceive it in the present, which isn't the same thing at all. Your use of words like past and future indicates that, really, you know that time exists (even if you try and pretend it doesn't by putting them in scare quotes). Give it up: you've been rumbled. That is a very limited definition of existence. There are all sorts of things we consider to exist that we have no direct experience of. All of which explains why science relies on objective tests rather than personal opinions, which can be so flawed.

"in a paper entitled "Reflections on Trusting Trust", Ken Thompson, co-author of UNIX, recounted a story of how he created a version of the C compiler that, when presented with the source code for the "login" program, would automatically compile in a backdoor to allow him entry to the system. This is only half the story, though. In order to hide this trojan horse, Ken also added to this version of "cc" the ability to recognize if it was recompiling itself to make sure that the newly compiled C compiler contained both the "login" backdoor, and the code to insert both trojans into a newly compiled C compiler. In this way, the source code for the C compiler would never show that these trojans existed." http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/hh/thompson/trust.html

See Janus's answer above. Huh? Of course it is part of nature. Physics is a description of nature. It is not about whether one sees a single light before the other. That is obviously, and trivially, true. It says nothing. The relatively of simultaneity is about how the two observers see the relationship between two different events. Of course they will see them at different times. But one will consider the two events to have happened at the same time, and the other will consider the two events to have happened at different times. This is AFTER taking into account the arrival time of the light. How is this being ignored. This is fundamental to Einstein's example. (BTW I should stress that this is just a nice simple example to explain the concept; it is not a derivation or a proof.) Which he then goes on to demonstrate is incompatible with reality. You can stick with your mistaken beliefs, but I am going to go with reality. Even if it is surprising and rather marvellous.

Does it say "Moderator" under his avatar?

The point about Einstein's example is that you have two events which are very obviously and unambiguously simultaneous in one frame of reference. Trying to identify a frame of reference where DimaMazin's two observer events are seen to be simultaneous is possible but not as simple. Why complicate things by introducing more events which do not form such a simple example?

IF that is true, then you are dealing with three events: the flash of light, detection by one observer, detection by the other observer. I have no idea how you expect to define or test the simultaneity of any of these. They don't start in relative motion. They are always in relative motion. I'm not sure why you are going on this weird diversion as the concept simultaneity is clearly defined (as quoted by swansont). Why make up you own version (which is not obviously useful or even meaningful)?

But you can only measure the times that the event is observed in different frame with respect to some other event. Then it becomes a matter of relativity of simultaneity (between the two events).

And the singular of anecdote is not data. I'm not even sure there is a meaningful correlation. Of those top 10 rice consumers, only 3 are in the top 100 for fertility rate. Japan isn't even in the top 200. What does correlate with lower birth rates is health, wealth and education.

You don't seem to understand that the relativity of simultaneity is caused by the effects of motion that you are talking about (combined with the constant speed of light for both observers). When the two observers take into account all the measurements they can make (distance from the point where the flashes occurred, speed of light, etc. they will come to different conclusions about the relative timing of the two flashes. (See that neat animation earlier.) It doesn't matter how often you deny that, it is still true. What do you mean by observers "see the light differently"? No one is refusing to take the movement of the observers into account. That relative movement is the cause of relativity of simultaneity (and time dilation, length contraction, etc)

But the big bang theory doesn't imply that. We can model what happened at earlier and earlier times; the universe was hotter and denser. At some point the conditions become such that we cannot say, with current theories, what happened before then. The "beginning from nothing" idea is just a bad extrapolation beyond where the data is valid.

They will see things differently because of their relative motion. One of the things they will see differently is whether things are simultaneous or not. You can't analyse this with half the experiment because what the example shows is that the two lightning strikes will be seen as either simultaneous or not simultaneous by the two observers.

Citation needed. You can't have one without the other. Why not just answer the question? It would have taken less words than waffling about why you don't want to answer it,. a) You haven't demonstrated anything; you have just asserted it. b) We have evidence (a working theory) that time is a dimension c) We have no evidence (beyond your assertions) that time is not a dimension d) Hoping that a future theory might change that is just wishful thinking, not science or rational argument. If it is a subject you enjoy thinking about and discussing, I would have thought you might have come up with something other than an assertion.

Yes, that regularity is what is technically known as "time" (I realise that might be a tricky concept). So, having defined time, you say it doesn't exists. Hmmm.... And yet, when used in that way it provides us with a remarkably successful (arguably, the most successful) model of the universe. Not bad for something that doesn't exist. You weren't asked if the universe had no spatial dimensions. Do you want to answer the question asked? (I think it is a good one.) I think this sort of petty hair-splitting over the meanings of words like "time", "exist", etc belongs more in philosophy than physics. In physics, time is a dimension. You might not like that but ... <shrug> ... I don't suppose either physicists or the universe care that much. I am curious why, in another thread, you don't seem to object to what you call the "block universe" (1) which appears to rely on time existing (2). But in this thread you claim that time doesn't exist. Are these views inconsistent? (1) not a term I have come across before, but it seems to be pretty much equivalent to "space-time manifold" (2) whatever "existing" means You keep making this assertion: "X is not temporally extended". You have yet to provide any support for it. A clock, very obviously, is temporally extended because it keeps making those regular cyclic chnages you used to define time. It made them in the past and will continue to make them in the future. That is what temporally extended means.

Just because you believe it doesn't make it true. Science has to be testable. Your picture isn't. That is fine for art, but it is no use in science or engineering. Yes, without your pictures. Theories are not proved. "Mere theories" are as good as it gets in science.

Of course not. Do you know what science is? Clue: it isn't just making stuff up. It is about making testable predictions. Something you have admitted you cannot do. (Ignoring the fact that your claims are contradicted by existing evidene.) You really think your doodles are going to help design fusion reactors?

In other words, it is not testable. Therefore it is not science. Maybe you should post it on an art forum.

It doesn't help that it is upside down, I suppose. Except it doesn't. Unless you can cite some evidence for this? There is no aether. Or at least, there is no eveidence for an aether. Unless you would like to rpesent some? It's a pretty picture, but I think you should lay off the drugs before they do some permanent damage.