Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <YKFF2myiPNj7W16S3lYEGpjDy_A@jntp>
JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: the notion of relativity of simultaneity
References: <t5AySA2aWT46Ra7AsAZqm8Hc3GM@jntp> <lm6u8sFg6sqU3@mid.individual.net> <yaZ0cAHFJUuBPEnLxaR54rNTkeQ@jntp>
 <lmc9i4Fas80U3@mid.individual.net> <Rl69eBWAWqiMMrespZGn0TKf208@jntp> <lmeu49Fn5ciU1@mid.individual.net>
 <dATDb3Ns-EM_md7VuYudUGCGh3c@jntp> <lmk622Fg9nrU9@mid.individual.net>
 <17fc6d2cc8f6cfb7$227011$853305$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <lms39kFmmimU7@mid.individual.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: 46lQ4YsuGzAU-W3TfsxxE9u776Y
JNTP-ThreadID: M03ir3sQnaKnoNUOGTo8wLgKNI8
JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=YKFF2myiPNj7W16S3lYEGpjDy_A@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/1.0
JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 24 13:01:25 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-10-11T13:01:25Z/9056696"; 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: 3673
Lines: 53

Le 11/10/2024 à 09:43, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> 
> I was thinkering around with various concepts about relativity and 
> found, that 'local time' would be best.
> 
> This wasn't based on any other influence, but was my assumption, which I 
> regarded as appropriate for SRT and GR.
> 
> So, I took 'local time' for granted and didn't regard this as a big deal.
> 
> Sure, there are other ideas floating around, too.
> 
> But in 'my world' time should be a local parameter.
> 
> The opposite idea was the concept of Newton, who regarded time as 
> uniform and universaly valid.
> 
> My view was therefore 'relativistic' enough (at least enough for me).
> 
> Interstingly, the time-concept of Einstein in his SRT version is not 
> 'relativistic', but actually 'Newtonian'.
> 
> 
> TH

Indeed, the notion of simultaneity in Einstein remains very Newtonian, he 
"admits" a universal present time hyperplane inside (I do not say outside 
but inside) any inertial frame of reference (the word being moreover 
improper in French).
This is obviously false and not very relativistic, because the theory of 
relativity, as it should be taught, implies a relative simultaneity 
between Romeo and Juliet, yet seated wisely on their benches, thirty 
meters apart.
As misfortune never comes alone, physicists will then push the error even 
further, and say that simultaneity is relative by change of frame of 
reference! This is false. Two observers, at the very moment of their 
crossing have the same time component for their hyperplane of 
simultaneity. This plane is simply deformed in x.

In short, the following prophecy has arrived: "They will say everything 
upside down".

Here, it is obvious, since the position is judged isochronous, and the 
speed giving a relative simultaneity of universes. While it is the 
opposite: simultaneity depends on the position, chronotropy depends on the 
speed.

I have been begging physicists to understand this for 40 years.

Impossible.

Their stupidity has become universal.

R.H.