Re: Galilean transformation of time

Le 07/01/2025 à 07:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

What does it say?
It says that good/correct/proper/well tuned clocks should
indicate t'=t.
 Now, let's take another rule. We need clocks to be synchronized.
What does it mean?
It means that  that good/correct/proper/well tuned clocks should
indicate t'=t.
 It is not another rule, it is the same rule.
 And yes, you're idiots. All of you.

We cannot "absolutely" synchronize two watches placed in different places, and even less two watches evolving in different stationary systems.
To synchronize them with each other, it would be necessary not only to synchronize them in the same place, but that once this is done, they not only remain in the same place, but that in addition they have no relative speed (for example one rotating around the other).
If we move them apart, we change their hyperplane of simultaneity; and if we place them in relativistic frames of reference with high speed in them, we change, moreover, their chronotropy (the internal mechanisms of the watches no longer beat at the same speed).
The only way to tune two watches with each other is not to make them move and to leave them in the same place.
This means that we remain on the same watch and that the two form only one.
I refer you to what I wrote in pdf on the nature of simultaneity (I don't know of any article in the world that is truer and more precise than mine on this).
I also refer you to the study of what I said about the Langevin traveler, and how, in this example, Terrence is 30 years old, and that when Stella returns, she is only 18.
I described this with prodigious precision and great mathematical beauty (unheard of because physicists have never resolved the paradox that imposes the use of the relativistic spatial zoom effect that they do not understand, and in the way in which space is a Hachel-type reference mollusk (and not Lorentz-type).
The Lorentz contraction imposes a global and fixed contraction of D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) which makes the apparent speeds absurd.
The Hachel elasticity (I prefer this term because here the distances to be covered expand) is much more logical and truer, and it goes through D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c).
It is this forgetting of equation directly deduced from Poincaré transformations that has made that for 120 years, physicists have been in perfect blindness and have stuffed the RR with paradoxes and falsehoods that should not be there.
R.H.