Le 22/09/2023 à 11:24, Mikko a écrit :
EInstein's (or Poincaré's) procedure is correct as it is the definition
of correct synchronization. Any procedure that gives the same result
is also correct, e.g., slow clock transport.
Mikko
You are right, and basically I myself use this form of synchronization to
deal with what we call observable velocities (Vo).
What I criticize about the small passage (a few lines) in his 1905
article, largely copied from the same article by Poincaré which bears the
same name (dynamics of the electron), is that it does not explain anything
at all about the way in which he believes himself authorized to practice
this mode of synchronization.
He sets tA'-tA=2AB/c
Which is perfectly correct.
He then poses, without thinking about what he is doing, and without
explaining under what conditions he can do it, t(AB)=t(BA).
This is both very right, and at the same time absolutely false and
conceptually catastrophic.
It is correct if we define who is the observer who triggers the watches,
and if we specify clearly that it is an abstract, imaginary observer,
ideally located in a hypothetical fourth dimension and who observes the universe with its own notion of “present time”.
It is false if we believe that even two points in the universe apprehend something like an absolute and reciprocal simultaneity of existence.
We must correctly redefine this notion of watch synchronization, which is valid, usable, but whose concept, nature and limits must be explained.
I thank you for your remark, because it raises the most important point of
the theory of relativity: the notion of synchronization and relative simultaneity.
Its very important.
It is the absolutely fundamental stone.
Doctor Richard Hachel
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)