Go...

EDIT: Still waiting.

This post was edited by Heeeey on Apr 8 2009 08:35pm

Ok. Special relativity requires that there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. Well there is such a thing as absolute simultaneity with quantum entanglement. There you go.

I'm here with the large picket sign reading

"1+1 =/= 2! Under the assumption that 1 ~ 0.9999 !This thread is pointless!"

Quantum entanglement is largely a theoretical assumption to explain the interaction between time and very small particles. Good luck proving causes at planck length without a CERN accelerator.

This post was edited by Jazz_Thing on Apr 8 2009 08:41pm

Nope. It's been observed.

http://www.physorg.com/news8891.html

Still doesn't disprove e=mc2 or that light bends as a function of space/time. Those two points are much more crucial to the theory than "absolute simultaneity"

You're talking about general relativity, not special relativity. I believe general relativity is right.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Apr 8 2009 08:52pm

Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K.

– Albert Einstein: The foundation of the general theory of relativity, Section A, §1

How does this somehow assume that there could never be two things occurring at the same time?Sounds like an assumption train taking a stop in non-sequitur logic.

This post was edited by Jazz_Thing on Apr 8 2009 08:55pm

No, you just try too hard.

Here, this is from wikipedia.

"Special relativity (SR) (also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein ... This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified,[4] including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation andrelativity of simultaneity, contradicting the classical notion that the duration of the time interval between two events is equal for all observers."

and then it says

"The relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneity is not absolute, but dependent on the observer."

Therefore it's wrong because there IS absolute simultaneity with quantum entanglement.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Apr 8 2009 09:00pm

ISO your uber smart rebuttal.

Wow, just WOW again. Listen, if something is not absolute then its SUBJECTIVE. Dependent on the observer = subjective. I'm merely stated that the truth of special relativity is subjective to relativity and the observer. If anything quantum entanglement proves that the relationship between observer and reality is never the same in every case.

This post was edited by Jazz_Thing on Apr 8 2009 09:12pm