Re: Relativistic synchronisation method

Le 17/12/2024 à 14:31, Mikko a écrit :

 If we say that both "relativistic problem" and "relativistic synchronization
method" are expressions that are intended to sound profoundly meaningful but
don't actually mean anything, isn't that close enough of understanding?
 Mikko

If you want to be understood, you have to say clear things and fair things.
Some things are clear, but they are not fair.
Some things are fair, but they are not clear.
Some things are both unclear and not right at all (for example the way Paul B. Andersen calculates the duration of an accelerated trip to Tau Ceti. It is not very clear (introduction of an unnecessary and theoretically false integration), and the result is wrong.
He finds a very short proper time, while the correct calculation is tau=4.76 years (x=12al, a=10m/s²).
But with Dr. Richard Hachel, the problem is human, not semantic. "We do not want this man to reign over us".
Thus, if I talk about anisochrony, dilation of chronotropies, radial contraction of disks, immediately, I am told that I am not understood.
It is then very obvious that the problem is entirely moral, and not at all scientific. "Doctor Hachel, we REFUSE to understand something, and what does it matter if it is true that a seven-year-old child could understand".
"Relativistic synchronization method". I am told: "We don't understand". A seven-year-old child understands: "It is a basic method for synchronizing watches and which will be used to study the theory of relativity and its consequences".
The question is therefore moral: what is happening? Where does all this human madness come from which wants science to have its Gods, its prophets, and that we must above all not speak of anything else, or in other terms than what has already been said, even if it is full of paradoxes, misunderstandings, and grotesqueries?
To say that a relativistic rotating disk contracts its circumference is logical. To say that its radius remains invariant, and that the figure obtained is an abstract thing which does not exist in our natural spatial representations, is grotesque.
But I repeat, the most grotesque of all this is the immense human stupidity that pees in its pants, as soon as people like me talk about sociology, theology, science, medicine or criminology.
And that, don't laugh my friends, it's the story of my life.
R.H.