Post 2

“Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening toward the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence, the observer will see the beam of light coming from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important result:

Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train (and vice versa)…” —Albert Einstein, Relativity

An observer might come to such a conclusion in the unlikely event he’s unaware that he’s on a moving train, and unaware as well that his motion is carrying him toward the first light even as he recedes from the second. But either our observer is an ignorant clod who is unaware of the existence of a wider universe, or is merely an unfortunate who is totally ignorant of his motion—so what? Does our ignorance alter objective, real facts? The fact is that both A and B took place simultaneously, Einstein is careful to stipulate that. Our confusion or our inability to determine simultaneity does not alter the objective, natural fact of the simultaneity.

If we subscribe to the relativity of simultaneity, which Einstein urges us to do based on the fact that the speed of light puts a limit on how fast we can send and receive information, then we are committing ourselves to a foolish notion. A similar analogy is this: I’m speaking on the telephone with a friend on the other side of the world. I ask a question, there is a long pause, and then a response from my friend. I ask another question, and at the same time, my friend talks over me. Anyone who’s ever spoken to someone in another country has likely had such a conversation. Now, when I’m talking to my friend, do I conclude that he’s being rude by talking over me, constantly interrupting? No, of course not. I’m aware that there’s a lag in the time it takes for the phone signal to travel around the world and back. My friend started talking a few seconds earlier, and the signal just happens to reach my phone at the same time I start talking, and so it appears that he’s talking over me, when in reality he isn’t. Einstein, in urging us to subscribe to the relativity of simultaneity, would basically have me conclude that, because I heard my friend speaking over me, he didn’t speak until several seconds after he actually did. (This would be the situation where the observer on the train concludes that lightning flash A took place later than lightning flash B). In other words, if my friend does something at, say, 2:00, and I do something identical at that that same time according to our previously synchronized clocks, if I don’t learn until a few hours later that my friend did his thing at 2:00, then I can’t conclude that our acts were simultaneous. Even though they were. Which is a patently absurd thing to expect a person to believe. Just because I learn of two simultaneous events at different times doesn’t mean I must conclude that they weren’t simultaneous.

I am not misunderstanding Einstein’s assertions. I’m giving valid illustrations of the meaning behind his assertions. Reread the quotation above. He’s saying that whichever of two simultaneous events we learn of first, we must conclude that that one happened first, because the light from that event reached us first. He would have us believe that the medium (light) used to convey information about an event regulates the timing of that event.

But again I say: our inability to receive timely information regarding distant events doesn’t alter the objective fact of the simultaneity (or lack thereof) of those events. Simultaneity is not relative. Our ability to receive information regarding simultaneity may be relative, but simultaneity itself isn’t. In the above quotation, Einstein is right: the observer on the train will see one flash before the other. But that he “must therefore come to the conclusion” is asinine. No we mustn’t therefore come to the conclusion, because we know better. And even if we didn’t know better, our ignorance wouldn’t change the facts. Ignorance, as they say, is no defense. Just because our hapless observer reaches an erroneous conclusion based on the misleading data available to him doesn’t alter the reality of the simultaneity of the two events in question. Come on, Albert.