Re: Relativistic synchronisation method

Le 23/12/2024 à 10:16, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Sonntag000022, 22.12.2024 um 22:15 schrieb Richard Hachel:

Le 22/12/2024 à 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

The problem:
 if you have more than two points to compare, this does not work, because the midpoint of a triangle is not lying uopn its edjes.
 IaW: the mid-point of a triangle ABC is not in the middle between any two of the end-points.
 This would exclude the possibility to generallize the mid-point-time from M (in the middle between A and B) from above.

TH

It's not always easy, but I've always thought that we shouldn't state, teach, or divulge scientific theories without a clear idea of ​​what we're saying.
If I say that, I'll have the entire scientific community with me, and they'll all cheer my words and say that since Newton and Poincaré, I'm the greatest scientist to have lived on earth.
Except that if I ask them to apply the principle, they'll all run away with their tails between their legs, from the best Nobel Prize winner to the smallest sci.physics.relativity poser
We call that a contradiction.
So let's clearly explain what time dilation is (it's NOT AT ALL what is taught). If we want a clearer idea and a better understanding of the things we like to teach others, we should say: "chronotropy dilation".
This means that the internal mechanism of watches turns reciprocally less quickly for an opposite watch (the one that is in the other frame of reference).
This is what Dr. Richard Hachel calls the internal Doppler effect on chronotropies.
It is very simple to understand.
The equation is known to all: To'=To/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
But what does this mean, which Dr. Hachel understands perfectly but physicists do not?
This means that point M of frame of reference R is in a relativistic chronotropy relationship with point M' of frame of reference R'.
Now, we must not forget that these points are abstract and virtual creatures, and that they do not exist in nature.
It is the false belief in their real existence that has caused much damage to modern physics. We confuse the time of watches (the one on this table, the one down there in the rocket) with the time noted, that is to say the relative internal chronotropy, by the abstract and virtual watches M and M' resulting from our fanatical belief in the notion of absolute simultaneity.
This is what led for 120 years to the extraordinary Langevin paradox, which no one has ever been able to explain clearly.
Never.
Now, "we must say clear things".
We then come to make the statement: "The two watches of Stella and Terrence beat reciprocally faster than the other watch" and we say: "However, Stella comes back younger".
This is obviously doubly absurd, and for forty years, I have not ceased to see physicists answer me that "if it is absurd, it is because I do not understand".
Telling this to Richard Hachel is just one more absurdity, and showing oneself to be particularly arrogant, grotesque, as well as idiotic.
Let's go back to our explanation.
And let's pay attention to the WORDS, to the fog of words.
We say: "For thirty years, Terrence will observe that Stella's watch will beat less quickly, and for eighteen years, Stella will observe that Terrence's watch beats less quickly".
There is a tremendous twist of the concept here. It is NOT Stella's or Terrence's watch that beats less quickly than the other, it is the chronotropy of point M relative to point M', and the chronotropy of point M' relative to point M.
It is the confusion of concepts that causes a paradox that does not really exist.
Chronotropy is not everything, we must also consider anisochrony.
Having a different INTERNAL chronotropy is not everything, we must also consider external anisochrony, and the fact that two watches placed in different places have different notions of simultaneity, and that, logically, crossing spaces in the frame of reference of the other watch, they modify their time a second time, and that we must add this modification to the chronotropic effect.
We then find ourselves in a clearer, more logical theory, and experimentally magnificently proven.
Only, we must clearly explain things.
Same thing with the relativistic zoom effect (physicists seem to me incapable of understanding the elasticity of lengths and distances). This is not normal.
It is unworthy of them.
If I say that down there, when Stella turns, and rushes back towards the earth, there is a relativistic zoom effect for her, and that she SEES the earth at 36 light years, since D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) if we take D=12 and Vo=0.8c, they go crazy and start laughing.
They look like monkeys who have been thrown bananas, and that makes you laugh.
R.H.