Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <EQHypnRrrfm9KIsfn1hoIuNDvWw@jntp>
JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Relativistic synchronisation method
References: <4-GlI_h7vkz4Ndsd_KixgDLS7Gg@jntp> <lsati1FireqU1@mid.individual.net>
 <1811b1bbc2b0581a$4009$1258271$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: pppCsuOEHFiFFtPOcnHIbgzmCpM
JNTP-ThreadID: YYnLTqUhhEGH779uk7wevDN2vH4
JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=EQHypnRrrfm9KIsfn1hoIuNDvWw@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/1.0
JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 24 16:06:36 +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="2024-12-16T16:06:36Z/9143717"; 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: 5007
Lines: 79

Le 16/12/2024 à 16:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> 
> And here, well - a problem arises:(
> It can only be applied where no gravity
> is present, on the distant clocks somehow
> secured to have 0 of relative speed.
> Both requirements are unfortunately
> utterly idiotic.
> Considering also the fact that nobody needs
> "synchronization differently" as defined
> by Your insane guru - the method is not
> going to have a lot of applications, I'm
> afraid.

It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even 
stationary ones).
If we synchronize on M, the middle of the two watches A and B, we can say 
that two events have occurred simultaneously FOR M, if M perceives them 
simultaneously (whether we take Hachel's convention or Einstein's for that 
matter): because if they are perceived simultaneously, it is because they 
have occurred simultaneously.
Yes, this is true for M.
BUT...
What about A? What about B?
Hachel explains what a seven-year-old child could understand, but what 
many men cannot understand (because of the Freudian problem that is in 
their underpants, not being able to admit that another man has a prettier 
trilili than them).
The notion of simultaneity is relative, if events occur in different 
locations, it is no longer possible to determine whether they were 
simultaneous, or even which ones are prior or subsequent to others.
We will then say: let's no longer synchronize on M to affirm that events A 
and B were simultaneous, but on A. Now, A will consider with astonishment 
that the events were not simultaneous, and that A occurred first. It is 
the opposite for B. To believe otherwise is to believe in a natural 
isochrony of things, and that the notion of "present" is something flat 
and absolute.
Now we CAN synchronize on A. A can say, event A and event B occurred 
simultaneously for A. Why not.
But B will look with astonishment at A saying these things, and fiercely 
deny that the two events were really simultaneous. B will explain that 
with convention A, setting A, he perceives event A which occurred, this 
time, with a shift t=2AB/c.

A seven-year-old child would understand that, but a physicist formatted to 
the idea of ​​a flat present cannot understand it (see Stephen Hawking 
making a fool of himself in his book "A Brief History of Time" by drawing 
a "flat" present).

A seven-year-old child can very well understand that this moon in this sky 
is perceived instantly, and he will be right.

It is the physicist who will be wrong, by imagining a chimera, and by 
believing that the speed of light between the moon and the earth, for a 
transverse observer placed far away and on the mediator, (v=c), is the 
same for a lunar observer who could apprehend his photon, and a 
terrestrial observer who receives it instantaneously on his retina.

Of course, saying that this galaxy located 13 billion light years away, I 
see it as it exists "today", humanity does not seem ready to swallow it 
yet.

Saying that simultaneity depends on POSITION, and that chronotropy depends 
on speed, this is still today a revolutionary act.

Although this is remarkably logical, and proven by thousands of 
experiments, physicists seem to prefer an incomplete and ugly physics, to 
a coherent and perfectly beautiful physics.

The problem is human.

Why do you think that today people get bogged down by putting rings in 
their noses, and painting their bodies with tattoos as ugly as they are 
stupid?

Because everyone deep down, adopts the cult of ugliness.

This is also true for Albert Einstein's explanations against mine.

R.H.