| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<YKWwOGme4kISW0uD1yjYsJzsyRs@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: <YKWwOGme4kISW0uD1yjYsJzsyRs@jntp> JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net JNTP-DataType: Article Subject: Re: Relativistic synchronisation method References: <4-GlI_h7vkz4Ndsd_KixgDLS7Gg@jntp> <lsati1FireqU1@mid.individual.net> <kQ0LSPYPi-eXWvUX1l430FGQz6g@jntp> <lscd99FrdlmU1@mid.individual.net> <nbIKxzcTXKviqKHe3MOYkBQMjII@jntp> <1WtCff6_rqltbeqcBsoo9BvDMqg@jntp> <6U3NAOIgT2D2_6uy86xLkb7mEgk@jntp> <pSBDN09gUYiBuRXuhy7L_GCs1Bk@jntp> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity JNTP-HashClient: ooezLwGIqFjk4W7k3oh58tq1zvs JNTP-ThreadID: YYnLTqUhhEGH779uk7wevDN2vH4 JNTP-ReferenceUserID: 190@nemoweb.net JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=YKWwOGme4kISW0uD1yjYsJzsyRs@jntp User-Agent: Nemo/1.0 JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net Date: Tue, 17 Dec 24 17:50:50 +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="2024-12-17T17:50:50Z/9145127"; 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: 3362 Lines: 43 Le 17/12/2024 à 18:32, Python a écrit : >> >> Tu dis que tA'-tA=2AB/c et tu as raison. > > I didn't say that. It can be the case or not. The POINT is that if it is the > case, it is the case. Everyone agrees on that. And that if is not the case then > everyone agrees on that. > > Same for tB - tA = t'A - tB it is either true or false for everyone. This is necessarily true, and this is an experimental fact. You yourself said that what watch A noted was invariant by change of observer. I added that it was a joint event (the signal leaves when A displays tA, and returns when A displays tA'). A joint event is a joint event for all observers in the universe. I cannot see, if I photograph from a distance, a clock that marks something other than what it marks at this moment. Similarly, the duration e(3)-(e1) will be the same for all observers in the frame of reference, it is only for observers placed in other frames of reference that the duration will be modified, since the chronotropy is modified there, and that, moreover, the return of the signal is not in the same place, which leads to a double correction. But that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the fact that if we practice a type M synchronization, the events will not take place at the same time on the other observer's watch. Of course the train enters the station at noon, on the local watch, but on the distant watch, if it SEES that the station watch is showing noon (otherwise it's absurd), this distant watch does not show noon, but noon and one second (it is 3.10^8 meters away). We'll say: yes, but it's the transfer of the signal that added a second. Dying of laughter... In short, "they still haven't understood the principle". It's sad. R.H.