Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Space-time interval (2)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 19:34:13 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <v9ippa$hon2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <YqTjbAPdSf8P-veYFHQCI8eskLU@jntp> <v9dmer$3dtvr$3@dont-email.me>
 <3lzcd1NKCT13xkV8yvlh8oaa3Mg@jntp> <v9fdeg$3rh2a$1@dont-email.me>
 <jBxUcP6BzIhx3lL1WyQctHmm7jo@jntp> <v9g6ij$3vsfg$1@dont-email.me>
 <AVa827R_LOez7mc5Ad3CT6GyhiA@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 19:33:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="90160ebd63760c5441a6b92651f046ab";
	logging-data="582370"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zTY7SfFKWB54FUMX6bN/J"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sQfEQVvG5UVCq7Ht6MRQiUtSmOc=
In-Reply-To: <AVa827R_LOez7mc5Ad3CT6GyhiA@jntp>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 6938

Den 14.08.2024 00:01, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 13/08/2024 à 19:53, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>
>> So you have given up gesticulating about universal anisochrony
>> and why that makes it impossible to have synchronous clocks
>> in Oslo and Paris?
>>
>> Try to explain it again?
>>
>> |> Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
>> |>>
>> |>> You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
>> |>> are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
>> |>> showing UTC + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
>> |>> synchronous.
>> |>>
>> |>> Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
>> |>> (To within few seconds|
>> |
>>
>> |> Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
>> |>> But I keep explaining it to you.
>> |>>
>> |>> This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.
>> |>>
>> |>> This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time”
>> |>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
>> |>> logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.
>> |>>
>>
>> Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second.
>>
>> I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on
>> the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s
>> I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when
>> the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s.
>> The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s
>> The distance in the ground frame between the airports is
>> L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km
>>
>> v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h
>>
>> Please explain why this is not a real speed
>> in the ground frame.
>>
>> Richard, will you flee yet again? :-D
> 
> No, no, I am not trying to escape. 

You are not only trying to escape, you are fleeing like hell
to evade answering the questions.

STOP FLEEING AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE!

Is the time T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s
the correct time (temporal interval) measured in
the ground frame, between the events "Departure from Oslo"
and "Arrival in Paris"?

Is the speed v = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h
the correct speed of the aeroplane, measured in the ground frame?

The point is that if the clocks in Oslo and Paris are not
synchronous within a second, you have to answer "no" to both
questions.

Repeating the tirade below is to keep fleeing.


> I have forty years of relativistic 
> concepts behind me, and I have a perfect grasp of how things should be 
> taught.
> There are several keys to understanding RR, and either none of these 
> keys are understood, or they are half understood, and that is not 
> satisfactory.
> The first key, which is absolutely necessary to open the theory, is the 
> notion of universal anisochrony.
> This made a lot of people laugh 40 years ago, because people did not 
> understand this term, nor what I meant by it.
> Today, it is a little less funny, and many ask me to explain it in a 
> simple way, because the concept, although elementary, is not obvious to 
> everyone.
> What is universal anisochrony?
> It is a property of space, just as universal gravitation is a property 
> of bodies.
> This means that the notion of absolute universal present is an abstract 
> thought.
> There is no present moment at this moment that is at the level of a 
> planet that orbits Altair, for example, and that corresponds 
> reciprocally to my present moment.
> In short, the notion of a flat present does not exist.
> It is a thought anchored in man (like the flat earth before), but which 
> is only a human a priori.
> Strangely, this simple idea, which corresponds perfectly to an 
> intelligent physics, is abandoned by men, while they understand very 
> well a more difficult concept which is the relativity of the internal 
> chronotropy of watches by change of inertial reference (gamma factor).
> 
> We come back to Paris, and to Oslo.
> 
> There is therefore a natural anisochrony between Paris and Oslo.
> 
> There is no "flat present", "horizontal plane of present time" between 
> Paris and Oslo. I repeat, it is useless, false and abstract.
> 
> So there is a natural, irreversible gap between the two. If we 
> synchronize the watches on Paris, an event that will occur in Oslo will 
> not exist for Paris.
> 
> An event that will occur in Paris will not exist in Oslo.
> 
> This event is only found in the "future of the other".
> 
> And so on for the entire universe.
> 
> We will always have a time interval, an anisochrony,
> 
> which will be related to the distance.
> 
> "My present is not your present, and your present is not my present, 
> there is no absolute universal simultaneity"
> 
> So how do we make all this agree anyway?
> 
> We will create a universal time, an abstract universal present, which 
> does not exist, and which corresponds to a synchronization made by an 
> observer placed in a fourth spatial dimension which does not exist, but 
> which is very useful, because mathematically,
> if it is placed very far, perpendicular, and at an equal distance
> from all the points of the three-dimensional metric universe which is 
> ours, it observes all the points in a constant perfect simultaneity.
> 
> This point is abstract, does not exist, but allows us to use a universal 
> time and a perfect present time plan.
> 
> But this perfect present time does not exist.
> 
> This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in 
> general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for 
> me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and 
> without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
> 
> R.H.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/