XPost: sci.physics.relativity

Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 23/08/2024 � 13:23, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
Quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity: -------------------------------------------
"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at
A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
are simultaneous with these events.
If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
neighbourhood of B.
But it is not possible without further assumption to compare,
in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B.
We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.”
We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for
the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
by definition that the “time” required by light to travel
from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.
"

If you can read, you will see that Einstein did say what I said.

Here is finally a solid basis.
And that is very well said.
The small drawback that remains is that Einstein proposes a definition,
but without explaining which observer will be able to consider the proposition as true.
Einstein proposes an interesting synchronization, and that I take up again
by speaking of synchronization of type M,
based on an imaginary observer placed in M ​​in a teletransverse way
in an abstract fourth dimension.
The problem is that he does not say it or at worst, he does not know it. Saying "Between A and B, the speed of light is c, we know it, because we
have measured it" does not make sense. Who measures this speed? A? No. B? Neither. We must therefore define things. Saying:
"My dear Jane, I bought an animal", is ridiculous.
We must say "My dear Jane, I bought for your birthday this white horse
that you wanted".
This is why, for 40 years, I have been saying that this introduction needs
to be rewritten in a clearer, more understandable and more obvious way.

R.H.

What about...not A, not B, but C.

C measures the speed.


C measures...everything.


I'm C


see?

do you C?

i can C


..furthermore, i don't understand how anyone thinks
they can sync two clocks if Time Dialation will always
UN-sync...a clock?

Even if I put my watch 5 minutes ahead...
i'm still going to be late!













--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

Now, common sense would tell you
that it is not possible to Sync two clocks...

in order to sync 2 clocks
both clocks would have to
occupy the same space...in time.

but a clock over here and
the other clock over there are
in two different points in
space and time.

There are too many forces
affecting each clock in
different direction
in space and time.


common sense would tell you
that it is not possible to Sync two clocks...


How about one clock that runs
slow and fast in sync????

(it works with einstein's theory of relativity)



The Starmaker wrote:

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 23.08.2024 13:57, skrev Doctor Richard Hachel:

Le 23/08/2024 � 13:23, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 22.08.2024 21:12, skrev Doctor Richard Hachel:

Can you explain to me, in the greatest clarity, as Python recommends, >>> what you mean, what you understand by the following words:
"In special relativity, the notion of simultaneity is relative"?

"The notion of simultaneity" is a very basic concept in SR.

So I seriously think that:

It is remarkable that a person who pride himself of having studied
relativity issues for 40 years is ignorant of the most basic concepts
in the Special Theory of Relativity.

You can't expect me to teach you the basic concepts of SR in this forum.

So:

I am not going to teach you SR (or GR).
If you really want to learn, read a book.

This is my serious advice, I am not joking.

Please, a little more seriousness and dignity in your answers.

More dignity? Should I address you with "Doctor" or "Sir"?

"Monsieur"

"Monsieur Hachelllll"

Cher Monsieur

ooh la la

Sacre le blu!

Monsieur Hachelllll

Mec Hachel

Je me casse....

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

W dniu 25.08.2024 o 18:36, The Starmaker pisze:

Now, common sense would tell you
that it is not possible to Sync two clocks...

It's not common sense, it is some
brainwashed madness of some moronic
church.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

Now, common sense would tell you
that it is not possible to Sync two clocks...

in order to sync 2 clocks
both clocks would have to
occupy the same space...in time.

but a clock over here and
the other clock over there are
in two different points in
space and time.

There are too many forces
affecting each clock in
different direction
in space and time.

common sense would tell you
that it is not possible to Sync two clocks...

How about one clock that runs
slow and fast in sync????

(it works with einstein's theory of relativity)

Now, I'll explain einstein's 'one-clock' theory of relativity
where one clock runs slow and fast at the same time...


Einstein is sitting
on a hot stove...
at the same moment
A girl is also siting
on Einstein's lap.

So, time (his clock, his frame of reference) is going slow and fast for
him at the same time. Relativity speaking.




am i wrong?









--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)