Re: Relativistic synchronisation method

Le 16/12/2024 à 16:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

 And here, well - a problem arises:(
It can only be applied where no gravity
is present, on the distant clocks somehow
secured to have 0 of relative speed.
Both requirements are unfortunately
utterly idiotic.
Considering also the fact that nobody needs
"synchronization differently" as defined
by Your insane guru - the method is not
going to have a lot of applications, I'm
afraid.

It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even stationary ones).
If we synchronize on M, the middle of the two watches A and B, we can say that two events have occurred simultaneously FOR M, if M perceives them simultaneously (whether we take Hachel's convention or Einstein's for that matter): because if they are perceived simultaneously, it is because they have occurred simultaneously.
Yes, this is true for M.
BUT...
What about A? What about B?
Hachel explains what a seven-year-old child could understand, but what many men cannot understand (because of the Freudian problem that is in their underpants, not being able to admit that another man has a prettier trilili than them).
The notion of simultaneity is relative, if events occur in different locations, it is no longer possible to determine whether they were simultaneous, or even which ones are prior or subsequent to others.
We will then say: let's no longer synchronize on M to affirm that events A and B were simultaneous, but on A. Now, A will consider with astonishment that the events were not simultaneous, and that A occurred first. It is the opposite for B. To believe otherwise is to believe in a natural isochrony of things, and that the notion of "present" is something flat and absolute.
Now we CAN synchronize on A. A can say, event A and event B occurred simultaneously for A. Why not.
But B will look with astonishment at A saying these things, and fiercely deny that the two events were really simultaneous. B will explain that with convention A, setting A, he perceives event A which occurred, this time, with a shift t=2AB/c.
A seven-year-old child would understand that, but a physicist formatted to the idea of ​​a flat present cannot understand it (see Stephen Hawking making a fool of himself in his book "A Brief History of Time" by drawing a "flat" present).
A seven-year-old child can very well understand that this moon in this sky is perceived instantly, and he will be right.
It is the physicist who will be wrong, by imagining a chimera, and by believing that the speed of light between the moon and the earth, for a transverse observer placed far away and on the mediator, (v=c), is the same for a lunar observer who could apprehend his photon, and a terrestrial observer who receives it instantaneously on his retina.
Of course, saying that this galaxy located 13 billion light years away, I see it as it exists "today", humanity does not seem ready to swallow it yet.
Saying that simultaneity depends on POSITION, and that chronotropy depends on speed, this is still today a revolutionary act.
Although this is remarkably logical, and proven by thousands of experiments, physicists seem to prefer an incomplete and ugly physics, to a coherent and perfectly beautiful physics.
The problem is human.
Why do you think that today people get bogged down by putting rings in their noses, and painting their bodies with tattoos as ugly as they are stupid?
Because everyone deep down, adopts the cult of ugliness.
This is also true for Albert Einstein's explanations against mine.
R.H.