Abstract

Beauregard claims that Bowman and I were mistaken in saying that “… if the empirical predictions of the Special Theory regarding clock transport are correct, [then] a slow transport definition of simultaneity can be constructed that is logically independent of any signal definition, but is in fact equivalent to the standard signal definition” His objection is not to the empirical concordance of the two criteria, but to the claim that the two are logically independent. His argument is that we fail to take account of Winnie's Passage Time Principle, and that if due account is taken of this principle, then “the concordance between the two criteria is logically guaranteed by the synchrony-free factual core of the STR”. However, one cannot show that A is not logically independent of B by showing that it is not independent of B and C. Hence, Beauregard's argument fails against the quoted passage.