Shubee says...
>
>On Jul 27, 6:31 am, stevendaryl3...***yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
>wrote:
>>
>> Einstein didn't consider "Lorentz coordinates" to be sacrosanct.
>
>Then what excuse is there for Einstein using the oxymoronic phrase,
>"simultaneity is relative"? Isn't that just a peculiarity of
>Lorentzian coordinates?

To say that something is relative *is* to say that it is a
peculiarity of a particular coordinate system. Two events that
are simultaneous according to one set of coordinates are
not simultaneous according to another set.

>On Jul 28, 6:29 am, stevendaryl3...***yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
>wrote:

>> All of your examples are introductory lessons in relativity.
>
>I appreciate your professional opinion that introductory relativity,
>as taught in major colleges and universities, is confused and
>contradictory.

I didn't say confused and contradictory, I said that they were
misleading.

>> The approach that is not misleading is to focus on physical
>> predictions, where a physical prediction is a prediction that
>> does not depend on a particular choice of coordinate system.
>
>I agree that elementary physics should emphasize physical, coordinate
>independent predictions that have been validated empirically. Students
>should learn the difference between reality and fantasy.
>Unfortunately, Einstein's emphasis on "relative simultaneity" is
>misleading because he suggests strongly that the properties of light
>somehow is proof for the nonexistence of instantaneousness.

It's not proof for the nonexistence of instantaneousness.
Rather, the concept of absolutely instantaneous events is
not not necessary for physics.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY