• Crank Doctor Richard Hachel said...

    From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 30 16:09:13 2023
    The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence of
    all events
    occurring at the same time, or even, being characterized by the set of all physical phenomena taking place at the same instant, we should be able, at least
    by considering all the fixed components found in a given inertial system,
    talk about “absolute simultaneity”, “universal synchronization”, “common calendar”
    - these terms then being capable of acquiring a real physical meaning - if
    we
    could, without it varying, transpose the simultaneity specific to a
    particular observer to
    all other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
    It would be enough to find some infinitely fast signal, capable of propagating from
    A to B, or to go back and forth between A and B such that t(AA') = 0, and
    the notion of
    absolute simultaneity would be immediately proven.
    However, this proof does not exist.


    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Fri Dec 1 11:22:55 2023
    On 2023-11-30 16:09:13 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence
    of all events occurring at the same time, or even, being characterized
    by the set of all physical phenomena taking place at the same instant,

    The definition of simultaneity being defined in terms of "at the same
    time" or "taking place at the same instant", the latter should be
    defined first.

    we should be able, at least by considering all the fixed components
    found in a given inertial system, talk about “absolute simultaneity”, “universal synchronization”, “common calendar” - these terms then being
    capable of acquiring a real physical meaning - if we could, without it varying, transpose the simultaneity specific to a particular observer to
    all other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.

    The words "absolute", "universal", "common" are not correct when the simultaneity and related terms are restricted to one inertial frame of reference.

    It would be enough to find some infinitely fast signal, capable of propagating from A to B, or to go back and forth between A and B such
    that t(AA') = 0, and the notion of absolute simultaneity would be
    immediately proven.

    There is no known way to create any such signal and no idea about
    how to look for one. And anyway, if it is not infinitely fase in
    every frame it will not provide absolute simultaneity.

    However, this proof does not exist.

    And probably never will.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 1 15:01:41 2023
    Le 01/12/2023 à 10:22, Mikko a écrit :
    On 2023-11-30 16:09:13 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence
    of all events occurring at the same time, or even, being characterized
    by the set of all physical phenomena taking place at the same instant,

    The definition of simultaneity being defined in terms of "at the same
    time" or "taking place at the same instant", the latter should be
    defined first.

    we should be able, at least by considering all the fixed components
    found in a given inertial system, talk about “absolute simultaneity”,
    “universal synchronization”, “common calendar” - these terms then being
    capable of acquiring a real physical meaning - if we could, without it
    varying, transpose the simultaneity specific to a particular observer to
    all other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.

    The words "absolute", "universal", "common" are not correct when the simultaneity and related terms are restricted to one inertial frame of reference.

    It would be enough to find some infinitely fast signal, capable of
    propagating from A to B, or to go back and forth between A and B such
    that t(AA') = 0, and the notion of absolute simultaneity would be
    immediately proven.

    There is no known way to create any such signal and no idea about
    how to look for one. And anyway, if it is not infinitely fase in
    every frame it will not provide absolute simultaneity.

    However, this proof does not exist.

    And probably never will.

    Mikko

    I'm not sure you understood correctly what I wrote.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sat Dec 2 12:59:46 2023
    On 2023-12-01 15:01:41 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 01/12/2023 à 10:22, Mikko a écrit :
    On 2023-11-30 16:09:13 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence
    of all events occurring at the same time, or even, being characterized
    by the set of all physical phenomena taking place at the same instant,

    The definition of simultaneity being defined in terms of "at the same
    time" or "taking place at the same instant", the latter should be
    defined first.

    we should be able, at least by considering all the fixed components
    found in a given inertial system, talk about “absolute simultaneity”, >>> “universal synchronization”, “common calendar” - these terms then being
    capable of acquiring a real physical meaning - if we could, without it
    varying, transpose the simultaneity specific to a particular observer to >>> all other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.

    The words "absolute", "universal", "common" are not correct when the
    simultaneity and related terms are restricted to one inertial frame of
    reference.

    It would be enough to find some infinitely fast signal, capable of
    propagating from A to B, or to go back and forth between A and B such
    that t(AA') = 0, and the notion of absolute simultaneity would be
    immediately proven.

    There is no known way to create any such signal and no idea about
    how to look for one. And anyway, if it is not infinitely fase in
    every frame it will not provide absolute simultaneity.

    However, this proof does not exist.

    And probably never will.

    Mikko

    I'm not sure you understood correctly what I wrote.

    More likely you didin't understand what you wrote
    and I didn't understand what you failed to write.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)