Re: the notion of relativity of simultaneity

On 2024-10-12 06:40:33 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

Am Freitag000011, 11.10.2024 um 11:28 schrieb Mikko:

On 2024-10-10 12:33:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
 

Le 10/10/2024 à 10:01, Mikko a écrit :

The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words
are only needed when the equations need be connected to the real world.
For that purpose one should use well known words as much as possible and
definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.
 

Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for

 It is sometimes the fog of concepts that can generate the fog of words.
I think that this is what has been happening first in relativity since 1905.
Henri Poincaré had given the right equations, of great mathematical and physical perfection (mathematics must be applied to physical reality).
We have the right equations, we know that it works, but we do not understand why it works.

 Special Relativity does not try to answer why God created the world the
way He did. It only attempts to describe how the world behaves, and only
about certain aspects of that behaviour.

This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes isn't the world we live in.

A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.

SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and starless void,

No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.

in which any given velocity is indistiushable from being at rest

Only for velicities less than the speed of light.

and where all things move along a streight line.

It does not say that.

That not quite how the real world functions.

Your strawman is not. SR comes closer.

In that real world there are, for instance, no streight lines.

You cannot know that there are no invisible streight lines somewhere.
--
Mikko