Le 07/07/2024 à 23:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 07.07.2024 o 23:05, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
Those who insist that time is absolute (as in Newtonian Mechanics)
will obviously claim that all equal synchronised clocks will
stay synchronous irrespective of how they are moved relative
to each other.
What an impudent slander. But what to
expect from relativistic scum.
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in France, but I can respond to him via the responses reported by Maciej.
Paul talks about synchronization, and it is this notion that we all stumble upon. Some speak black (Paul), others speak white (Doctor Hachel), others orange (Maciej) and, in the end, no one can agree on anything.
What do we mean by "synchronize"?
For Maciej, for example, the word synchronization is a word that does not mean much, as for Hachel (but not for the same reasons).
So for him, this word is stupid, because it is obvious that t'=t, as he keeps saying, and, thus, all watches always beat at the same speed, there is no theory of relativity, and everything is very simple and very practical: the world is Newtonian.
But it is a very archaic position, and it is impossible to defend it today without ignoring the posts or laughing about it.
For Paul, the intellectual position is very different. According to him, by changing the frame of reference, the watches no longer beat at the same speed in relation to each other. Paul is obviously right when he says "they no longer beat at the same speed", but unfortunately his definition stops there, because he cannot go any further in understanding the phenomenon.
Paul understands the idea of reciprocal relativity of internal chronotropies (Lorentz factor) but this is NOT enough for a completely clear view. He never talks about spatial anisochrony. It doesn't exist for him.
I have explained this phenomenon dozens of times, apparently with total indifference.
It is difficult to change entrenched ideas, I know that.
Paul seems to think that each watch, placed in a frame of reference different from another watch, beats faster than the other, or, which is the same thing, observes that the other watch has an internal mechanism which beats less quickly than the other. He calls this phenomenon “breakdown of simultaneity”.
It is on this word “simultaneity” that I no longer get along with him.
For me, the notion of simultaneity is not when two watches beat at the same rhythm, I call that isochronotropy.
Not simultaneity.
Simultaneity is when two events occur together
for a given observer.
It's not the same thing.
Thus two different observers who meet observe the universe in perfect simultaneity. They see exactly the same universe. But their chronotropy is different. Proof that simultaneity and chronotropy are two very different things and that it is their confusion which has posed many problems to physicists for more than 120 years.
It is the term "clocks are synchronous" which poses a real and very serious problem, because by this we sometimes mean that they beat at the same speed. Now, that's not the meaning of "synchronizing watches" to me.
Synchronizing watches can only have one meaning. Put them at the same time at the same time and in the same place.
The watches are thus truly synchronized, and, if left together, they will always mark the same time (great deal!)
To say that watches will be synchronous is certainly not false, but in physics, it is utter uselessness. This is like saying that a swallow is a swallow.
You don't have to be a physicist to know that.
But let's ask the right question. Let's separate two watches by a distance of 30 meters, one on this bench, the other on this other bench.
Are they synchronous?
Some will say yes, others will say no.
The problem is a problem of definition: what do we mean by synchronous? If it means that they beat at the same speed, yes, obviously they are synchronous.
But this is not the meaning of the word synchronous, or the word simultaneous for Doctor Hachel.
For Hachel, certainly they beat with the same chronotropy, they measure time in the same way, otherwise it is absurd, since they are on different benches, but in the same schoolyard. But they will undoubtedly remain asynchronous, that is to say they will never mark the same time.
Each time we observe them, each will affirm that the other delays by a value of t=x/c.
The error of physicists is then to say: “But no, there is no delay, it is simply that information takes time”.
No, information does not take time. It is instantaneous and nothing can move faster than instantaneous information.
The relationship is simply anisochronous.
It is this anisochrony which is the very basis of the entire theory of relativity.
R.H.
…