| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<P4z_-A80_6ccApaOtMBkRUjnq3k@jntp> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp Message-ID: <P4z_-A80_6ccApaOtMBkRUjnq3k@jntp> JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net JNTP-DataType: Article Subject: Re: The problem of relativistic synchronisation References: <m_uze6jFLkrMPuR4XaNmQntFPLY@jntp> <vaa4om$sicr$16@dont-email.me> <tAXYNx1-wzYUg_H0N6FWnLiQgFs@jntp> <vasgsq$go2j$1@dont-email.me> <TjDY9uUVn5uYrwKeP_H1Mk0G5x8@jntp> <ljfrjfF3hr1U1@mid.individual.net> <IqoVDZIyxVoLReItZ3sD4aYyQ64@jntp> <ljifq8FfkpfU4@mid.individual.net> <n1NunzaSneGRSHWe2aSXzpS1tkE@jntp> <vb1poa$1gil5$1@dont-email.me> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity JNTP-HashClient: YonZ156QqUljvKnGvha6rENRDIM JNTP-ThreadID: 76aXiNOmFXLuhuEL0ulE9Z2aOsc JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=P4z_-A80_6ccApaOtMBkRUjnq3k@jntp User-Agent: Nemo/1.0 JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net Date: Sun, 01 Sep 24 21:47:38 +0000 Organization: Nemoweb JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Injection-Info: nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-09-01T21:47:38Z/9007904"; 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@wanadou.fr> Bytes: 3612 Lines: 46 Le 01/09/2024 à 15:21, Mikko a écrit : >> Le 01/09/2024 à 08:27, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Samstag000031, 31.08.2024 um 09:05 schrieb Richard Hachel: >>> >>> This is the set of all places, which can use the same kind of clocks. >>> >>> They do not need to show the same time, however, but need to tick at >>> the same rate. >> >> This is called a relativistic reference frame. >> >> All clocks there have the same chronotropy: that is to say, they turn >> at the same speed. >> >> I do not use the term reference frame like physicists, > > That's OK but you should not use it any other way, at least not here > or any other physics group. > > Mikko The term reference frame carries within itself a huge bias in relativistic physics, and explains all by itself all the problems that will arise in the history of modern aphysics. At the beginning, in the time of Newton and Descartes, there was no problem using this term, because we did not go too far, and above all, because we did not travel very fast. Today, telescopes see very far, much better (apparent speeds of supernovae extensions), and above all, electrons and protons go very fast in particle accelerators. The word reference frame then becomes a dubious term, because if at the beginning, we could represent a reference frame as four axes perpendicular to each other, we know today from Dr. Hachel, that this notion is no longer possible because of the time component. It is no longer possible to conceive of the universe as a vast four-dimensional hypervolume, since each point of the universe that composes it is at the base (at the origin O) of its own hypervolume (because of the time component). Thus, if the term "stationary frame" remains correct, the term referential is only correct if we admit that we are talking about the referential centered on a single object, and that a simple little metric translation from wherever it starts destroys the referential to create another one. R.H.