4 ms·
No, I don’t think you’re quiet understanding what they are saying. They aren’t talking about the different speeds of earth or Mars. Simultaneity is not “perfec
by jtsiskin 6y ago
No, I don’t think you’re quiet understanding what they are saying. They aren’t talking about the different speeds of earth or Mars.
Simultaneity is not “perfectly well defined in a single intertidal reference frame”. That is just a convention.
If the RTT of earth to Mars is 20 minutes, then we can say that it takes us 20 minutes for our message to reach the rover, and the rover’s message arrives instantly, and that’s a consistent definition of simultaneity.
https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance_conv_sim/index.html https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/si...
- unanswered 6y agoExcept that an observer located in the (hypothetical/approximate) common reference frame, but situated halfway to Mars, will report observations inconsistent with this definition (NB of course we receive their report at a time consistent with the definition, but the contents of the report are not consistent). So yes, you can play games with your definition of simultaneity, but you will win stupid prizes like observers in the same reference frame no longer agreeing about simultaneity when such a result is worse than what relativity requires. Your link points this out. You can play these games; I don't dispute it. But it's a separate matter entirely from anything to do with relativity, as your link points out, which is itself separate from the classical problem I originally posed. So we are now two steps removed from anything relevant to the Mars rover; I guess we get a sense of pride and accomplishment?