Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <2ZL-MB6LRXL_aFvUnN6z1W7CWks@jntp>
JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Understanding the theory of special relativity
References: <pLY2g2cfZDGOOQgmeYWzTah-WZA@jntp> <vmgv7s$12co1$1@dont-email.me> <yxs7n05hOm2IBIUkKaNrnVBOppA@jntp>
 <vmivft$28k2a$1@dont-email.me> <P34uo7fZOF85O-SfjYojnrCRX_8@jntp> <vmm7t2$3cgdv$1@dont-email.me>
 <BJ6Q9nUU0bo9Nwlif25X1jQzfd8@jntp> <vmob71$54vk$1@dont-email.me> <IFzu48FyPqxIuz1SjqxEczJXtvA@jntp>
 <vmrmts$175ja$1@dont-email.me>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: uRskR1NY2rnKsvFauKuqo2Yrlq8
JNTP-ThreadID: 1FRaoRGN0eH3eoNV1O2MkPi-jt8
JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=2ZL-MB6LRXL_aFvUnN6z1W7CWks@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/1.0
JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 25 07:50:31 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2025-01-23T07:50:31Z/9183732"; posting-account="4@nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid>
Bytes: 3436
Lines: 56

Le 22/01/2025 à 22:11, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 21.01.2025 17:51, skrev Richard Hachel:

> But you are very confused, and understand nothing.

  :))
 
> You are referring to the phenomenon that when two _inertial_ clocks
> are in relative motion, then, in the _inertial_ rest frame of each
> clock, the other clock will be measured to run slow.

 That' what I said 
> 
> This phenomenon is called "mutual time dilation".

 Absolutely.

 But the term is slightly improper, because it can make you think that we 
are talking about the times noted on watches.

Paul, Paul, I see that you still haven't understood, and you are still 
repeating the same inaccuracies, the same bad judgments about what I say.

The term "mutual dilation of chronotropies" is more accurate, but 
apparently, the scientific community should be afraid of it, because, 
except in the medical field, it is very difficult to pronounce. LOL.
> 
> =========================================================
> There is reciprocity because _both_ clocks are inertial.
> ==========================================================

 Sure. 

> 
> But the rate of each clock isn't affected in any way by the speed of
> of the other clock, each of the clocks is _always_ running at its
> normal pace, one second per second.

Absolutely. And? 
 
> There is no "internal mechanism" in the clocks which
> is affected by the speed of the other clock.
> 
> This should be blatantly obvious for anybody who can think.
> There are millions of clocks in the world, and each clock
> can't be affected in millions of different ways at the same time.

 That's not what I said. It's an absurd thought that belongs to no one.
> 
> See:
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> 
> Read it!

 Je l'ai lu depuis longtemps. 

R.H.