| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<ROeUjTT4bIm0NWgUfSQxbQwlvtI@jntp> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fdn.fr!usenet-fr.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp Message-ID: <ROeUjTT4bIm0NWgUfSQxbQwlvtI@jntp> JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net JNTP-DataType: Article Subject: Re: Why a time of the real world must be galilean References: <180f1778e64eec8d$354$1238888$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <xCziMg3j9uZQYXe2wMbruh7Grkk@jntp> <180f679ba2214b38$30$1234847$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <q_tA9UFX02u5-3B010MCiLA7Ark@jntp> <180fa0ddc9b0360f$31$1234847$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <ox0jyhk1mc_KBOCrib7_6M0bkbI@jntp> <180fc4a84f1891a8$1162$1228337$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <jHWvZ3O-GEB5fyb9dVjRPDx9Ivg@jntp> <UOQw3j0qCEbnd-UMEAbwaS2KgOE@jntp> <zBxKaStM-Rn591lslDojmfFJ6og@jntp> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity JNTP-HashClient: rzgHhOCatH88E7PvZw_DTnUOxHI JNTP-ThreadID: 180f1778e64eec8d$354$1238888$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com JNTP-ReferenceUserID: 190@nemoweb.net JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ROeUjTT4bIm0NWgUfSQxbQwlvtI@jntp User-Agent: Nemo/1.0 JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net Date: Tue, 10 Dec 24 22:47:10 +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="2024-12-10T22:47:10Z/9137036"; 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: 5182 Lines: 55 Le 10/12/2024 à 20:50, Python a écrit : > Le 10/12/2024 à 20:01, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> Le 10/12/2024 à 19:04, Python a écrit : >> >>> How do you practically check your "t = t'" equations for clocks standing next to >>> each other? Then for distant mutually at rest clocks with no gravity involved? >> >> There are things that can be solved with simple common sense, and others that >> require minimal Cartesian thinking. >> First a priori: the earth is flat, because it is MANIFEST that there is water in >> the seas. If it were round, the water would fall on the sides, and there was no >> water in the seas when God created the sky and the earth. Now, QED, there is water >> in the seas, THEREFORE the earth is flat. >> Second a priori (Ole Römer): "the speed of light is a limiting speed because >> when we approach Jupiter we observe moons that rotate faster and faster, and the >> opposite when we move away from it (which is true so far), THEREFORE (and here >> comes a huge bias) the speed of light is a limiting speed, and Mr. Hachel, as the >> Nostradamic prophecies specify, should not be believed when he contradicts me". >> Now, we must introduce here Descartes' methodical doubt. There is certainly a >> longitudinal Doppler effect, you would have to be really stupid not to notice it. >> But one can doubt its origin: "Is it a classic Doppler effect, photons being small >> things that go at a certain speed from here to there crossing a rigid and absolute >> hyperplane of "present time"? which is the universal belief, or on the contrary >> "small instantaneous transfers of energy in the hyperplane specific to the >> receiver?". Who is lying? Who is telling the truth? >> Römer or Hachel? >> As for the equality t'=t, that does not mean much. >> However, one should not doubt for long the fact that two clocks placed in the >> same place and stationary between them mark the same time, and have the same >> chronotropy, because apart from the fact that the watchmaker did his job badly, it >> is difficult to see why one watch would differ from the other and why. >> It is also not necessary to doubt that two watches far apart >> but placed in the same inertial frame of reference will have different >> chronotropies. >> By on the other hand, one can doubt, without given proof, that two watches >> placed in different places of the same stationary system RECIPROCALLY mark the same >> time for the same event, and one can also doubt that two watches even close to each >> other, beat at the same speed if they evolve in significant relativistic >> displacement. >> >> R.H. > > Irrelevant, and idiotic, bunch of nonsense. Two clocks placed in the same place and in the same inertial frame of reference, therefore stationary, necessarily have the same notion of simultaneity (they are isochronous, that is to say that they mark the same time in a reciprocal way), and they have the same chronotropy (that is to say that the internal mechanism of their watch beats in the same way). But saying this, we say nothing, or rather that a swallow is a swallow. It is perfectly obvious that two watches placed in the same place, at the same time, and in the same frame of reference are nothing but the same watch, and it is perfectly stupid to think that there can exist differences with itself in a single watch. R.H.