I anadvertently continued with the word "resulting" in a proposition. ***
Sorry. Here is the amended text.
At 02:34 AM 11/15/2003, Stephen Speicher, you wrote:
>[ Brian Whatcott]
> > Supposing I can point to a causal event that is simultaneous
> > with a resulting event in some frame,
>"Supposing" such is a contradiction of special relativity --
>there cannot be a causal connection between space-like events.
Supposing that the word "causal" is problematic to Relativists,
let me put this proposition:
"Supposing I can point to an event that is simultaneous
with another event in some frame" ***
...does it follow that I can find some frame where either
event precedes the other?
I imagine the answer is
"yes".
>For two events to be causally related a signal must be sent from
>one event to the other, and special relativity places a finite
>limit on the speed of the signal. All observers will agree on the
>temporal ordering of two causally related events.
Thank you. That was helpful.
> > it looks as though /// Stephen
> > is the person to explain why
> > "The relativity of simultaneity" just ain't so?
> >
>
>The fact that in special relativity the speed of physical signals
>are limited by c, implies the invariance of causality. This fact
>does not contradict the relativity of simultaneity. Please see
>any decent introductory text on special relativity for a detailed
>discussion of this.
>
>--
>Stephen
I am glad to be reassured that simultaneous events are not
simultaneous in all frames, but rather, there is a class of
events called "cause" and "effect" events which need more
careful discussion in order to avoid paradoxes.