Re: the notion of relativity of simultaneity

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.