Re: Relativistic synchronisation method

Den 31.12.2024 11:58, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 31/12/2024 à 11:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 30.12.2024 21:59, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 30/12/2024 à 21:41, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
 

In physics "synchronous" means that two clocks simultaneously
show the same.
>
When two clocks are side by side and show the same,
they are synchronous by definition.

 Absolutely.
 

At home you set your clock to  UTC+1h.
You know the station clock shows UTC+1h.
You expect the clocks will be synchronous within a second
when you arrive at the station.
 It would be ridiculous to claim that the clocks were not
synchronous when you were at home, but in some mysterious
way became synchronous when you arrived at the station.
Or wouldn't it? :-D

 If the watches are well tuned, it is logical that when I find myself in the presence of the station clock, my watch will note the same time.
The opposite would also be absurd, since by definition they must be tuned.

OK. So we can sum it up:
At home you "tune" your clock to show UTC+1h.
You know the station clock is "tuned" to show UTC+1h.
Since your clock and the station clock are well "tuned",
you expect the clocks will show the same when you arrive
at the station.
It would be ridiculous to claim that the clocks were not
"tuned" to show the same when you were at home, but in some
mysterious way became "tuned" to show the same when you arrived
at the station. The clocks which side by side show the same
must by definition be "tuned".
If the reader thinks that "being tuned" is the same as
"being synchronous", he is wrong, as Richard will explain below:

 But you still do not seem to have understood something about the nature of time (the notion of anisochrony).
 I remind you and those who read: "Paul B. Andersen is not an idiot, he understood very well what the concept of chronotropy is, which is the study of the relativity of the internal beats of watches. He knows that by permutation of reference, it is the opposite watch that beats less quickly and that t'(its time for me) = tau (its time, for it) / sqrt (1- Vo² / c²).
 But to this is added ANOTHER concept, the concept of anisochrony, that no one (not Paul any more than the others WANTS to understand).
 It is not a question of mental capacity, I understood that at the age of seven by reading the Superman books, it is a question of will.
 I explained everything in my pdf (for those who read French, and in my posts on usenet).
 The rest is just discriminatory will: "We do not want Dr. Hachel to reign over us", and this does not only affect theoretical physics, it also affects theology, sociology, medicine and politics.
 Man does not WANT new data.
 We have the same thing in religion.
 What is the most widespread prayer in the world?
 You will faint, I give it to you, the true, the real one:
"Our Father.
Who art in heaven.
Above all, stay there".
 Note that when you say: "I tune my watch to the universal watch" you are making a conceptual error. You do not tune your watch to it, but it is it that tunes to you.
 All the synchronizations of the universe that are done on it, it is just it that agrees on all these watches by specifying that FOR HER, everything that is agreed on it at this moment constitutes HER present moment, HER hyperplane of universal simultaneity.
 I implore you to have three cups of coffee and to think about what I have just said, which seems very simple and very logical to me.
 This is the primum movens of the theory of relativity, and if we do not understand that, we teach a theory that can still be interesting, but whose basis is lame.
 If you do not understand why the synchronization of physicists (universal time) is an infinitely useful creation, but abstract, virtual, and representing nothing in itself (this watch is nowhere in our 3D universe), you still have not understood the theory of relativity.
 R.H.

--
Paul
https://paulba.no/