Re: The problem of relativistic synchronisation

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 21:13:10 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

>
Le 23/08/2024 à 21:51, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :

>
Insufficient -for you-.

>
Yes
>

For Einstein and Poincare it sufficed,
because it is so blindingly obvious.
>
No competent reader has had any problem with it, ever since,

I was required to write two high school term papers, one in English
and one in Physics.  They were both on relativity and each earned
an A, but they were pretty naive.  I've never taken a relativity
class and I never got straightened out about it until I joined a
discussion group several years ago.  Tom Roberts was a big help,
but relativity deniers were also (I had to study and learn to be
able to answer their objections).

Which is still a big problem in the history of humanity, but it
seems obvious to me that it will necessarily be corrected.

Although I found Saint Albert's papers a bit obtuse in my naive
years, I don't find them so now.  I understand what he was trying
to say.  The answer to the problem is to read copiously and try
to understand the criticism you receive.  IOW, be humble (i.e.,
teachable).
“Education isn’t something you can finish.” – Isaac Asimov
And if you think you've finished, you're finished.
“Changelessness is decay.” – Isaac Asimov

We will not be able to always remain in Minkowskian belief, the
absurdity will fall.
>
R.H.

Perhaps, but Minkowski spacetime will remain an approximation to
reality.
“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite
different.” – Steven Carlip