TIME DILATION. WHY do clocks that are

[sisoev]

You will have to explain the difference and the relevance then. How do you transform from the frequency "representation" to the actual speed?

This will come with the experiment I intend to present with graphics.

I will look forward to it. Your description of the garage door paradox is unclear, so a picture would be useful.

DaleSpam, talking to you is like talking to my teacher and I appreciate your patience. I really do.

I cannot add more to the way I see the ladder experiment.
My point is that we cannot treat an overlapping simultaneous events like a simultaneity since the light from them brings information only for one of them.
To elaborate; if the simultaneous events are aligned with the observer, there will not be light information for the back event, because it is simultaneous with the front.
We know about the back event, but we cannot deal with its light information because it is absent for us.
If we take this into account, we will see that the explanation for the ladder paradox fails.
Therefore the rod contraction is false too.
Hence, the theory of relativity stands incorrect.

 

[Dale]

The "turning around" event has no special meaning in the experiment, ghwellsjr
It is "experienced" from the other brother the same way as the brother who executes the event.

This is factually incorrect. An accelerometer carried by one brother detects the g-forces of the turnaround, and an accelerometer carried by the other does not. The frequency of the pulses from the other brother changes immediately for one brother (the same one that detects the g-forces) and not for the other. The experiences of the two brothers are not the same.

 

[Dale]

My point is that we cannot treat an overlapping simultaneous events like a simultaneity since the light from them brings information only for one of them.

What do you even mean by the phrase "overlapping simultaneous events"?

 

[sisoev]

What do you even mean by the phrase "overlapping simultaneous events"?

Aligned with the observer.

 

[Dale]

How is an event aligned with anything, let alone an observer? When I use the word "aligned" I mean that two things which have some associated direction or axis are parallel. Events do not have a direction or an axis. Do you mean something like the event is on the observer's worldline?

 

[sisoev]

How is an event aligned with anything, let alone an observer?

Well, an event is actually light information for an observer.
Now, align the light information for the two simultaneous events with the observer and you'll have the information only for the front event.

 

[Dale]

Well, an event is actually light information for an observer.

No, an event is a given place at a given time. I.e. the airplanes crashed at an altitude of 2 miles, at lattitude 45º, longitude 30º, at 3:00 pm. That is an event. The light emanating from that event forms a light cone with the origin at the event. The event is a 0-dimensional set, the light cone is a 3-dimensional set.

Now, align the light information for the two simultaneous events with the observer and you'll have the information only for the front event.

Are you simply saying something to the effect that opaque objects (like garage doors) absorb light so you lose information about things on the other side of the object? If so, then simply make the doors out of glass.

 

[sisoev]

This is factually incorrect. An accelerometer carried by one brother detects the g-forces of the turnaround, and an accelerometer carried by the other does not. The frequency of the pulses from the other brother changes immediately for one brother (the same one that detects the g-forces) and not for the other. The experiences of the two brothers are not the same.

The g-force doesn't only change the frequency of the emitted signals, but also the frequency of the perceived ones.

 

[Dale]

The g-force doesn't only change the frequency of the emitted signals, but also the frequency of the perceived ones.

Do you agree that only one of the twins measures g-forces?

 

[Denius1704]

I think he is trying to say that how can we see any light reflected from the back door (so as to give the perception of it opening later than the front door) if that said back door opened at exactly the same time as the front one. Where would the information of that back door opening be carried and how would we perceive it? That is if I'm understanding his argument correctly.

 

[sisoev]

No, an event is a given place at a given time. I.e. the airplanes crashed at an altitude of 2 miles, at lattitude 45º, longitude 30º, at 3:00 pm. That is an event. The light emanating from that event forms a light cone with the origin at the event. The event is a 0-dimensional set, the light cone is a 3-dimensional set.

No, an event is a light information.
No light information - no observation of an event.
If we don't observe an event we cannot measure its values.
You can set a values for non-observed event, like in the explanation of the ladder paradox but that holds the risk to create new paradox, and I think that SR has already enough of them ;)

Are you simply saying something to the effect that opaque objects (like garage doors) absorb light so you lose information about things on the other side of the object? If so, then simply make the doors out of glass.

What I am saying is that if you turn two book pages at once you'll see the first and the third.
Hope that this is easy enough to picture it out :)

 

[sisoev]

Do you agree that only one of the twins measures g-forces?

Yes, how couldn't I :)

 

[Denius1704]

This is factually incorrect. An accelerometer carried by one brother detects the g-forces of the turnaround, and an accelerometer carried by the other does not. The frequency of the pulses from the other brother changes immediately for one brother (the same one that detects the g-forces) and not for the other. The experiences of the two brothers are not the same.

When i suggested the example i thought we all agreed that there is no turnaround event, so what g-forces are we talking about now?

Imagine the guy from Earth was watching the one moving away and then the next second moving towards him. Why would the light need more time to reach the Earth guy all of a sudden if it was reaching him just fine until the last moment of moving away? If we are imagining an uninterrupted flow of light from the moment of departure to the moment the moving brother switches directions, i imagine the image the Earth brother would receive would be a sudden shift from the 1/2 rate to the 2 rate. And the same thing would occur for the moving brother as well, like a "mirror" as sisoev suggested.

Now, apparently my imagination is very wrong and the logic i am using as well, otherwise SR would not exist today. What i am asking for is not answers such as "you are wrong" and "well that doesn't happen because it's been accounted for", but instead to be shown where my logic breaks, at which point? I am not asking for mathematical equations, because when a client comes to me to explain to him a problem with the software i don't start talking to him in 0's and 1's, but instead i try and talk his language, the one he understands. Otherwise we will be sitting on this thread for weeks everyone saying the same things not understanding the others.

And for the sake of eliminating any kind of G-Force let's imagine both brother in space in their own respective space ships, with the moving ship being equipped with inertial dampeners (or whatever they call them in the movies these days) so that if there is ANY kind of change in acceleration it will not be felt at all by either the ship or the person in the ship.

 

[Dale]

No, an event is a light information.
No light information - no observation of an event.
If we don't observe an event we cannot measure its values.
You can set a values for non-observed event, like in the explanation of the ladder paradox but that holds the risk to create new paradox, and I think that SR has already enough of them ;)

No, this is incorrect. An event is something which happens at a given place at a given instant of time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(relativity )
http://www.colvir.net/prof/richard.beauchamp/rel-an/rela.htm
http://www.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/relativity/p112_relativity_7.html

What I am saying is that if you turn two book pages at once you'll see the first and the third.
Hope that this is easy enough to picture it out :)

Sure, pages are opaque. No big deal, just make the garage doors partially transparent.

 

[Dale]

Yes, how couldn't I :)

Since you agree that one twin measures the g forces and the other twin does not then it is clear that the twins experience the turnaround differently. So your earlier claim is not correct:

The "turning around" event has no special meaning in the experiment, ghwellsjr
It is "experienced" from the other brother the same way as the brother who executes the event.

The brother who executes the turn experiences g forces, the other does not. It is not experienced the same way.

 

[Dale]

When i suggested the example i thought we all agreed that there is no turnaround event, so what g-forces are we talking about now?

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the standard twins paradox. If there is no turnaround/no g-forces then the twins never reunite so there is no way to unambiguously compare their ages.

Imagine the guy from Earth was watching the one moving away and then the next second moving towards him. Why would the light need more time to reach the Earth guy all of a sudden if it was reaching him just fine until the last moment of moving away? If we are imagining an uninterrupted flow of light from the moment of departure to the moment the moving brother switches directions, i imagine the image the Earth brother would receive would be a sudden shift from the 1/2 rate to the 2 rate. And the same thing would occur for the moving brother as well, like a "mirror" as sisoev suggested.

If there are no g-forces then there will be no shift in rate at all. The rate will be permanently 1/2.

Now, apparently my imagination is very wrong and the logic i am using as well, otherwise SR would not exist today. What i am asking for is not answers such as "you are wrong" and "well that doesn't happen because it's been accounted for", but instead to be shown where my logic breaks, at which point? I am not asking for mathematical equations, because when a client comes to me to explain to him a problem with the software i don't start talking to him in 0's and 1's, but instead i try and talk his language, the one he understands. Otherwise we will be sitting on this thread for weeks everyone saying the same things not understanding the others.

I think we first need to clarify what scenario we are talking about. Do you want to have two perpetually inertial observers (no reunion, no unambiguous comparison of ages, no change in signal rate, perfectly symmetrical) or do you want to have one of the twins be non-inertial (g-forces, asymmetrical)? You cannot have it both ways.

And for the sake of eliminating any kind of G-Force let's imagine both brother in space in their own respective space ships, with the moving ship being equipped with inertial dampeners (or whatever they call them in the movies these days) so that if there is ANY kind of change in acceleration it will not be felt at all by either the ship or the person in the ship.

That cannot be done in flat spacetime, and if you are struggling with the twins paradox then we definitely do not want to go to curved spacetime as that cannot be done effectively without some rather hairy math.

 

[sisoev]

No, this is incorrect. An event is something which happens at a given place at a given instant of time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(relativity )
http://www.colvir.net/prof/richard.beauchamp/rel-an/rela.htm
http://www.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/relativity/p112_relativity_7.html

I'm not even considering reading the links :)
The argument takes philosophical turn.
We couldn't talk about given place and given time if we didn't observe the event at given place and given time.
So "given place" and "given time" are properties of known event.
It becomes known through observation.
Observation becomes such through light information delivered to conscious mind or apparatus which will deliver the recorded information for the event to a conscious mind.

Sure, pages are opaque. No big deal, just make the garage doors partially transparent.

That won't change anything, DaleSpam :)
It is not the front door that prevents you to see the delayed opening of the back door.
It is the simultaneity of the aligned with you events which does not leave information except for the front event (the one which is closed to you)

Earlier I tried to explain it with light attached to the inside of the back door.
The light turns on by a switch on the front door when it is completely open.
Since the events are simultaneous, the light will be directed down when the back door is opened.
If you insist that you'll see the front door open and the back door closed, then you'll have to see the light from the source attached on the back door (the front door is opened and switched it on).
Because we cannot have two 90 degree positioned light beams from one light source, we end up with new paradox, which does not help solving the ladder paradox.

 

[Dale]

I'm not even considering reading the links :)

You do not appear to be interested in learning physics. You seem to be a crackpot with an anti-relativity agenda. That is not permitted on this forum. If you become interested in learning relativity then I would be glad to help. If you just want an anti-relativity soapbox then I suggest sciforums instead.

The fact is that the term "event" has a clearly defined meaning in relativity and it is very distinct from the concept you are describing. The concept you are describing is called a "light cone" in relativity.

It is not the front door that prevents you to see the delayed opening of the back door.
It is the simultaneity of the aligned with you events which does not leave information except for the front event (the one which is closed to you)

How does simultaneity block the information? Simultaneity is not opaque. If the doors are transparent then the fact that they are closed doesn't stop any information.

 

[sisoev]

You do not appear to be interested in learning physics. You seem to be a crackpot with an anti-relativity agenda. That is not permitted on this forum.

If you become interested in learning relativity then I would be glad to help. If you just want an anti-relativity soapbox then I suggest sciforums instead.

That is not good attitude, DaleSpam :)
I showed gratitude and respect to you.
I can say that I'm not considering to read something only if I have enough knowledge about the subject.
You should not treat me as completely ignorant person.
I may know a little bit more than you in some fields of the science and philosophy.
Have that in mind and don't lose your nerves ;)

 

[sisoev]

How does simultaneity block the information? Simultaneity is not opaque. If the doors are transparent then the fact that they are closed doesn't stop any information.

Read again two posts back.
It appears that simultaneity is "opaque" when the events are aligned with the observer.
Comment on my explanation and I'll know how to clear it for you.

 

[PAllen]

Read again two posts back.
It appears that simultaneity is "opaque" when the events are aligned with the observer.
Comment on my explanation and I'll know how to clear it for you.

This has no meaning for anyone who has studied physics. To try to get at what you might mean, consider the following:

I have a 1 meter stick. In the middle I have red light that flashes every second. At the far end I have blue light that flashes every second. I am at the 'near' end. All synchronization of clocks done by slow transport. I see blue flashes arrive a tiny bit later than red flashes. Accounting for light speed, I conclude the emission events were simultaneous. Where is the opaqueness of simultaneity?

[Dalespam is not being rude for reminding you of forum rules. These forums are intended to discuss physics, specifically defined as peer reviewed theories in established journals. There are other places on the web to discuss theology, 'alternative science', or whatever. But when you register here you agree to discuss mainstream science. ]

 

[ghwellsjr]

When i suggested the example i thought we all agreed that there is no turnaround event, so what g-forces are we talking about now?

Imagine the guy from Earth was watching the one moving away and then the next second moving towards him. Why would the light need more time to reach the Earth guy all of a sudden if it was reaching him just fine until the last moment of moving away? If we are imagining an uninterrupted flow of light from the moment of departure to the moment the moving brother switches directions, i imagine the image the Earth brother would receive would be a sudden shift from the 1/2 rate to the 2 rate. And the same thing would occur for the moving brother as well, like a "mirror" as sisoev suggested.

Now, apparently my imagination is very wrong and the logic i am using as well, otherwise SR would not exist today. What i am asking for is not answers such as "you are wrong" and "well that doesn't happen because it's been accounted for", but instead to be shown where my logic breaks, at which point? I am not asking for mathematical equations, because when a client comes to me to explain to him a problem with the software i don't start talking to him in 0's and 1's, but instead i try and talk his language, the one he understands. Otherwise we will be sitting on this thread for weeks everyone saying the same things not understanding the others.

And for the sake of eliminating any kind of G-Force let's imagine both brother in space in their own respective space ships, with the moving ship being equipped with inertial dampeners (or whatever they call them in the movies these days) so that if there is ANY kind of change in acceleration it will not be felt at all by either the ship or the person in the ship.

OK, we'll make sure the moving ship has inertial dampeners so that no change in direction will be felt by the traveling twin.

You and sisoev are so close to understanding this, I think the best way to help you is to use an analogy to sound Doppler. We're all familiar with the shift in the pitch of an emergency vehicle's siren as it passes by us going from a higher rate to a lower rate. To make things easier, let's assume that the siren is putting out a single frequency sound instead of the typical siren that is modulated all over the place, and let's assume that it is very loud so we can hear it from a great distance away. Once that vehicle has passed us and we are hearing the lower rate sound, it will stay at that same low rate as long as the vehicle maintains a constant speed. But let's suppose that after it has gone a mile from us, the vehicle shuts off its emergency lights and its siren at the same time. What will we see and hear? Well, even kids know that it takes about five seconds for the sound to travel a mile so it will take five seconds for us to hear the sound drop out after the lights turn off, correct? But now let's suppose that instead of turning off the siren, the vehicle turns around very quickly, in a fraction of a second, what will we see and hear? Well, again, about five seconds after we see it turn around, we will hear the pitch change from its lower rate to the higher rate, correct? And it will stay at the higher rate until it reaches us, I'm sure you will agree.

Now let's consider a slightly different situation where the emergency vehicle is stopped with its siren blaring out a loud constant frequency. Then suppose we are in a vehicle approaching it. No matter how far away we are, we will hear the higher rate sound, and just like before, as we pass it the sound will drop from the higher rate to the lower rate, correct? But then suppose a mile down the road, we make a quick turn around. What will we hear? If you give it a little thought, I think you will conclude that we immediately hear the pitch go from the lower rate to the higher rate, don't you agree? If you don't agree, then when will we hear the switch from the lower rate to the higher rate, because remember, when we get to the siren and pass it, the pitch has to pass from the higher rate to the lower rate.

So what have we learned? When we are colocated with the source of the sound, we immediately hear the change in the rate of the sound's pitch but when we are located a distance from the source of the sound, we will hear the pitch change immediately if we're the one changing speed but we will hear it sometime later if the source of the sound is changing speed.

Now, is there anything in this analogy that you don't understand or don't agree with?

 

[sisoev]

This has no meaning for anyone who has studied physics. To try to get at what you might mean, consider the following:

I have a 1 meter stick. In the middle I have red light that flashes every second. At the far end I have blue light that flashes every second. I am at the 'near' end. All synchronization of clocks done by slow transport. I see blue flashes arrive a tiny bit later than red flashes. Accounting for light speed, I conclude the emission events were simultaneous. Where is the opaqueness of simultaneity?

[Dalespam is not being rude for reminding you of forum rules. These forums are intended to discuss physics, specifically defined as peer reviewed theories in established journals. There are other places on the web to discuss theology, 'alternative science', or whatever. But when you register here you agree to discuss mainstream science. ]

Imagine that you observe red light and blue light behind it. I don't know what mixture of color will be your observation, but when the lights simultaneously stop, you'll not see blue light coming to you.

I know the rules.
What I did not expected was to be forced to agree or to leave the forums.
Further more, the moderator can decide to close the topic if he/she decides that it becomes meaningless.
I am learning in discussion.
You guys have the chance to answer my arguments and convince me otherwise.
That will be the best way to educate me :)

 

[Denius1704]

Now, is there anything in this analogy that you don't understand or don't agree with?

Thank you ghwellsjr, i do understand the analogy and i do see the whole problem a bit clearer now, it helped.

Basically that would also mean that in a system of only two bodies, one moving and one stationary, even without the effect of an acceleration being felt we would still be able to say which one is moving and which one isn't, because of this effect? Am i right in assuming this?

Thanks again for the lengthily explanation.

 

[Dale]

That is not good attitude, DaleSpam :)
I showed gratitude and respect to you.

It has nothing to do with gratitude and respect. It has to do with the rules of the forum, which you agreed to when you signed up for your account. Please click on the link labeled "Rules" at the top of the page and re-read the section on Overly Speculative Posts.

We welcome students who have a question and come hear to learn, we do not welcome crackpots who have an agenda and come here to argue. You have shown signs of the latter (claims that contradict experimental observations) and you have not shown signs of the former (willingness to learn when information is provided).

I can say that I'm not considering to read something only if I have enough knowledge about the subject.
You should not treat me as completely ignorant person.

But you are ignorant of relativity. You do not even know the definition of very basic terms in relativity like "event". What is worse, you are deliberately ignorant and unwilling to learn, even when the information is spoon-fed to you. Ignorance is fine and easily overcome, but unwillingness to learn is not.

I may know a little bit more than you in some fields of the science and philosophy.
Have that in mind and don't lose your nerves ;)

If we were discussing those fields then that would be relevant and I would seek to learn from you and I would read the links you provided in order to better educate myself and overcome my ignorance in those fields. But we are not discussing those fields, we are discussing relativity.

 

[Dale]

the light will be directed down when the back door is opened ... Because we cannot have two 90 degree positioned light beams from one light source

Do you mean that the lights on the door are lasers or other tightly-collimated sources that only point in one direction rather than spherical waves that point in all directions? If so, then just use standard light bulbs that radiate spherically.

You seem to be trying to come up with specific tiny details that avoid the essence of the physics. The usual formulation of the ladder paradox never even mentions any lights. The existence and position of any light bulbs and the material of the door are irrelevant to whether or not the door is open or closed at a given time. Turning on or off the lights will not prevent you from crashing into a closed door nor will it make you crash into an open door.

IMO, the lights are just a red herring, but if you insist on having them for some reason then simply make them spherical-wave sources and make the doors transparent.

 

[PAllen]

Imagine that you observe red light and blue light behind it. I don't know what mixture of color will be your observation, but when the lights simultaneously stop, you'll not see blue light coming to you.

That is absurd. You will see a moment of pure red light, then a mixture of red and blue, then pure blue light. Even though each flash's start and stop are simultaneous, one emitter is further away.

If you deny this, there is no point of discussion - forget relativity, you are denying observable reality.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Thank you ghwellsjr, i do understand the analogy and i do see the whole problem a bit clearer now, it helped.

Basically that would also mean that in a system of only two bodies, one moving and one stationary, even without the effect of an acceleration being felt we would still be able to say which one is moving and which one isn't, because of this effect? Am i right in assuming this?

Thanks again for the lengthily explanation.

No, it's not a matter of which one is moving, it's a matter of which one is changing speed or direction and where the two are in relation to each other when this happens.

So let's extend the analogy a little bit to include your question:

Suppose you are stopped and the vehicle with the siren passes you and you hear the sound drop in pitch from the high rate to the low rate and after it is a mile down the road, you take off after it at the same speed it is going. Now you will hear the pitch go from the low rate to the actual pitch of the siren, won't you? So there you both are separated by a mile, both moving and it's just like you were both stationary in terms of what you are hearing. But now if you increase your speed, you will immediately hear the pitch go higher, right? But instead of that, suppose the other vehicle slows down, will you immediately hear the pitch get higher? No, not until five seconds goes by.

Once you grasp the idea that distance causes a delay in what you observe if the other person changes speed but no delay if you are the one that changes speed, then you can easily understand the Twin Paradox with no math, no equations, no formulas.

Does this make perfect sense to you now?

 

[sisoev]

That is absurd. You will see a moment of pure red light, then a mixture of red and blue, then pure blue light. Even though each flash's start and stop are simultaneous, one emitter is further away.

If you deny this, there is no point of discussion - forget relativity, you are denying observable reality.

You are building your experiment on wrong analogy, PAllen.

Imagine that sometime in the past a red light (in the front) and blue light (behind the red) were mixed for you.
Now we deal with two different information (red and blue) mixed into one information (let say purple)
Now imagine that both information(colors) are simultaneously extracted.
What will be left?
Non.

Taking this to a transparent doors (red and blue) you'll see a purple door which opens.
Behind it we will see what ever is behind the blue door

 

[Denius1704]

No, it's not a matter of which one is moving, it's a matter of which one is changing speed or direction and where the two are in relation to each other when this happens.

So let's extend the analogy a little bit to include your question:

Suppose you are stopped and the vehicle with the siren passes you and you hear the sound drop in pitch from the high rate to the low rate and after it is a mile down the road, you take off after it at the same speed it is going. Now you will hear the pitch go from the low rate to the actual pitch of the siren, won't you? So there you both are separated by a mile, both moving and it's just like you were both stationary in terms of what you are hearing. But now if you increase your speed, you will immediately hear the pitch go higher, right? But instead of that, suppose the other vehicle slows down, will you immediately hear the pitch get higher? No, not until five seconds goes by.

Once you grasp the idea that distance causes a delay in what you observe if the other person changes speed but no delay if you are the one that changes speed, then you can easily understand the Twin Paradox with no math, no equations, no formulas.

Does this make perfect sense to you now?

Thanks for extending the explanation, but those are just variations of the same principle. My last question about two objects in a system was just to satisfy a philosophical question and you did answer it (albeit i didn't formulate the question as properly as it was in my head :) ). In the extended example you give, if those two cars are isolated in a system with just themselves, when they are both moving with the same speed that would be equal to being stationary, so when the one "slows" down as it is in your example that would translate that it is actually accelerating towards the other "stationary" car. Doesn't mattet, i get the example :)

 

[sisoev]

OK PAllen, I know where is the deceiving point in your thinking (no offence applied)

When you think SIMULTANEITY in your experiment, think that when the back(blue) light cease to exits the front(red) line die simultaneously with it

 

[ghwellsjr]

Thanks for extending the explanation, but those are just variations of the same principle. My last question about two objects in a system was just to satisfy a philosophical question and you did answer it (albeit i didn't formulate the question as properly as it was in my head :) ). In the extended example you give, if those two cars are isolated in a system with just themselves, when they are both moving with the same speed that would be equal to being stationary, so when the one "slows" down as it is in your example that would translate that it is actually accelerating towards the other "stationary" car. Doesn't mattet, i get the example :)

Great, now do you think you could explain the Twin Paradox to someone who doesn't understand it?

 

[PAllen]

You are building your experiment on wrong analogy, PAllen.

Imagine that sometime in the past a red light (in the front) and blue light (behind the red) were mixed for you.
Now we deal with two different information (red and blue) mixed into one information (let say purple)
Now imagine that both information(colors) are simultaneously extracted.
What will be left?
Non.

Taking this to a transparent doors (red and blue) you'll see a purple door which opens.
Behind it we will see what ever is behind the blue door

You write gibberish and deny reality. Truly no further discussion is possible.

 

[sisoev]

You write gibberish and deny reality. Truly no further discussion is possible.

Just in case you missed my previous post;
When you think SIMULTANEITY in your experiment, think that when the back(blue) light cease to exits the front(red) line die simultaneously with it.

Now it should make sense to you :)

 

[PAllen]

Just in case you missed my previous post;
When you think SIMULTANEITY in your experiment, think that when the back(blue) light cease to exits the front(red) line die simultaneously with it.

Now it should make sense to you :)

No this is total nonsense. Suppose each pulse is one femtosecond. Then there is no overlap at all between two simultaneously emitted pulses, one right behind the other. They will be received separately, and the receiver (having set up the experiment and measured everything) can easily determine that the delay between them verifies simultaneous emission.

Try to write clear English. That is a real problem - much of what you write is incomprehensible as English.