• 1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity

    From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 28 11:30:01 2024
    1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity

    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 occurring
    at the same instant, one should be able, at least by considering all the
    fixed components found
    in a given inertial system, to speak of "absolute simultaneity",
    "universal synchronization", or
    "common calendar" - these terms then being capable of acquiring a real
    physical meaning - if
    one could, without it varying, transpose the simultaneity proper to a particular observer to all
    other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.

    It would suffice to find any signal, or any action, by which a body A
    could
    interact instantaneously with a body B, that is to say by means of
    information propagating infinitely quickly, for this notion of "absolute simultaneity" to be experimentally proven. We could then say that
    the action induced by body A was instantly transmitted to body B, or that
    the action produced by
    body A was carried out at the same time as its detection by body B, and
    that there exists, de facto, between A and B, a sort of reciprocal and
    absolute simultaneity.

    We could also imagine a round-trip signal carried out over the distance x separating A and B, and carried out by means of infinitely rapid
    information, in such a way that the instants Ta (departure noted by watch
    A) and Ta' (return noted by watch A) are simultaneous. It would easily
    come that if the two watches A and B are "correctly" tuned (for example by using an electromagnetic signal from the medium M of AB,
    or by slowly moving apart the two watches that we would have previously synchronized at the same place)
    then the instant Tb (instant noted by B for the reflection of the signal)
    would be the same as the instants Ta and Ta',
    since if Ta'-Ta = 0 by definition, then |Tb-Ta| + |Ta'-Tb| = 0, hence Ta =Ta'=Tb, and, by practicing in this way
    step by step, for a multitude of other points C, D, E, F, G, H, I and so
    on, the notion of general coexistence
    in perfect absolute simultaneity of all the fixed components of a given inertial frame R
    could be demonstrated.

    However, this proof does not exist: we know that a body can act at a
    distance on another body - for example in the
    form of an electromagnetic wave, in the form of a mechanical shock
    transmitted along a rigid rod, or
    in the form of a gravitational interaction - but we have never found a
    signal that is infinitely fast,
    or an action at a distance that is instantaneous. It seems rather, in
    fact, that there exists, in nature, a sort of
    uncrossable limit speed that we will find for any Galilean frame of
    reference considered - a limit
    observable speed, the true keystone of modern science - and which will
    extend to all particles and all
    properties of physics.

    We can then suppose, and state, in light of what we have just said, the following fundamental principle:
    "the notion of simultaneity is relative by any change of observer; even
    fixed between them, different
    observers placed in different places, build different systems of
    simultaneity"; and, thus, generally, in a given system, two or more simultaneous events for an observer A will no longer be so, and
    reciprocally, for an observer B, even perfectly inertial.

    From there, the physical impossibility of covering any landmark with fixed clocks
    "absolutely" synchronized with each other will inevitably appear, since
    they will never be able to agree on the notion of simultaneity:
    two benches placed in a public garden, two stations arranged on a national railway network, will never be able to agree on what could be abstractly
    called "the notion of universal present time", and, at best of a desired "coherent" synchronization - for example, by using one of the two
    adjustment methods
    mentioned above - each of the two watches thus synchronized will always consider that the other watch
    is behind it by a value equal to T = x/c; a real, physical measurement, absolutely indicative of itself, and
    implying that the same calendar cannot be valid for the entire universe,
    nor even simply for any given
    geographical landmark.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 28 20:56:53 2024
    Den 28.08.2024 13:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
    1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity

    Precisely defined in:

    https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
    § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
    § 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times

    Richard Hachel has nothing sensible to add.


    <snip babble>


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 28 19:27:09 2024
    XPost: fr.sci.physique

    Le 28/08/2024 à 20:55, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 28.08.2024 13:30, skrev Richard Hachel:

    1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity

    https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf

    § 1. Definition of Simultaneity

    Oui, j'ai très bien lu cela, et malheureusement, je vois qu'Albert
    Einstein va très vite pour poser
    l'hypothèse de la relativité de la simultanéité entre A et B,
    hypothèse qu'il réfute aussitôt par un tour de passe-passe.

    Bref, c'est incroyable comme il gruge son entourage (comme Descartes l'a
    fait dans son discours métaphysique, j'ai expliqué cela aux philosophes
    et aux théologiensn il y a plus de quarante ans) en commençant
    doucement, clairement, et en donnant le coup de graâce dès que le
    lecteurs commence à assoupir ses paupières.

    Einstein, là dessus, c'est du Descartes classique, et remarquablement
    joué.

    L'immense complot universel en marche.

    Python doit jubiler.

    Je vais ré-écrire cet article (depuis le temps que je le dis) surtout
    que je n'ai besoin que de quelques lignes.

    Je sais très bien que cela ne servira qu'à me faire cracher à la
    gueule, parce que les hommes sont des hommes, et que 95% sont des singes.
    Tant pis.

    Reste 5%, peut-être, qui comprendront que ce que je dis est peut-être
    juste, chose dont je suis personnellement sûr, puisque je maîtrise le
    concept géométrique de la RR, et PAS les autres intervenants.

    Visiblement toujours dépassés...

    Qui s'appuie alors sur les bonnes bases?

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 29 02:50:08 2024
    Le 28/08/2024 à 21:27, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 28/08/2024 à 20:55, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 28.08.2024 13:30, skrev Richard Hachel:

    1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity

    https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf

    § 1. Definition of Simultaneity

    Oui, j'ai très bien lu cela, et [...]

    Ah ? Voyons ça :

    En 2007, présenté à l'équation t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A tu eus cette
    réponse :

    ?????
    Attends, je rêve, là...
    Cela veut dire qu’Einstein trouve que les montres sont synchronisées si elles
    battent à la même vitesse ? ? ?
    C’est ça que tu veux dire ? ? ?
    *Parce que l’équation dite ici dessus, c’est ça*. [souligné par nous] Mais j’en ai rien à foutre de ça ! Je le sais implicitement, ça ! N’importe quel
    abruti (même Vicnent t’as qu’à voir) le sait implicitement !
    Mais c’est PAS DU TOUT mon propos. J’en parle même pas de ça. C’est tellement évident que je n’en parle pas.

    Plus récemment c'était que t_A, t_B, t'_A dépendaient de
    l'« examinateur » (ce dont tu semble avoir, enfin, saisi
    l'absurdité. Mje n'en suis même pas sûr).

    Donc NON tu ne peux pas décemment dire que l'a "très bien lu", "cela".

    Et il ne s'agit que du paragraphe I.1. du papier d'Einstein !!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 29 03:33:26 2024
    Le 28/08/2024 à 21:27, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 28/08/2024 à 20:55, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 28.08.2024 13:30, skrev Richard Hachel:

    1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity

    https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf

    § 1. Definition of Simultaneity

    Oui, j'ai très bien lu cela, et [...]

    Oh really ? You're "read this very well". Let's see

    En 2007, when presented with the equation t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
    you answered.

    ?????
    Attends, je rêve, là...
    Cela veut dire qu’Einstein trouve que les montres sont synchronisées si elles
    battent à la même vitesse ? ? ?
    C’est ça que tu veux dire ? ? ?
    Parce que l’équation dite ici dessus, c’est ça.
    Mais j’en ai rien à foutre de ça ! Je le sais implicitement, ça ! N’importe quel
    abruti (même Vicnent t’as qu’à voir) le sait implicitement !
    Mais c’est PAS DU TOUT mon propos. J’en parle même pas de ça. C’est tellement évident que je n’en parle pas.

    Translation:

    "This equation means that both clocks beat at the same rate." (+
    idiotic trumpian bragging)

    More recently you claimed that t_A, t_B, t'_A values depended on the
    observer.

    So no, you cannot pretend honestly that "you've read it very well".

    And we are only dealing with paragraph I.1.

    (same remark apply to Heger btw)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Aug 29 11:40:47 2024
    On 2024-08-28 11:30:01 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity

    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 occurring at the same instant,

    You can't define that way unless you first define what "at the same time" means.

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

    The words "ablsolute", "universal" and "common" should not be used for
    concepts that are specific to one inertial frame.

    It would suffice to find any signal, or any action, by which a body A could interact instantaneously with a body B, that is to say by means of information propagating infinitely quickly, for this notion of
    "absolute simultaneity" to be experimentally proven. We could then say
    that
    the action induced by body A was instantly transmitted to body B, or
    that the action produced by
    body A was carried out at the same time as its detection by body B, and
    that there exists, de facto, between A and B, a sort of reciprocal and absolute simultaneity.

    We could also imagine a round-trip signal carried out over the distance
    x separating A and B, and carried out by means of infinitely rapid information, in such a way that the instants Ta (departure noted by
    watch A) and Ta' (return noted by watch A) are simultaneous. It would
    easily come that if the two watches A and B are "correctly" tuned (for example by using an electromagnetic signal from the medium M of AB,
    or by slowly moving apart the two watches that we would have previously synchronized at the same place)
    then the instant Tb (instant noted by B for the reflection of the
    signal) would be the same as the instants Ta and Ta',
    since if Ta'-Ta = 0 by definition, then |Tb-Ta| + |Ta'-Tb| = 0, hence
    Ta =Ta'=Tb, and, by practicing in this way
    step by step, for a multitude of other points C, D, E, F, G, H, I and
    so on, the notion of general coexistence
    in perfect absolute simultaneity of all the fixed components of a given inertial frame R
    could be demonstrated.

    However, this proof does not exist: we know that a body can act at a distance on another body - for example in the
    form of an electromagnetic wave, in the form of a mechanical shock transmitted along a rigid rod, or
    in the form of a gravitational interaction - but we have never found a
    signal that is infinitely fast,
    or an action at a distance that is instantaneous. It seems rather, in
    fact, that there exists, in nature, a sort of
    uncrossable limit speed that we will find for any Galilean frame of
    reference considered - a limit
    observable speed, the true keystone of modern science - and which will
    extend to all particles and all
    properties of physics.

    We can then suppose, and state, in light of what we have just said, the following fundamental principle:
    "the notion of simultaneity is relative by any change of observer; even
    fixed between them, different
    observers placed in different places, build different systems of simultaneity"; and, thus, generally, in a given system, two or more simultaneous events for an observer A will no longer be so, and
    reciprocally, for an observer B, even perfectly inertial.

    We also can do otherwise. It is best to define simultaneity so that it
    can be used for the construction of the time coordinate of a coordinate
    system. If we can find a signal that has the same speed in all directions
    we can use that. For example, sound in a metal bar that is stationary
    with respect to the coordinate system being constructed.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Aug 29 11:47:42 2024
    On 2024-08-28 19:27:09 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 28/08/2024 à 20:55, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 28.08.2024 13:30, skrev Richard Hachel:

    1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity

    https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf

    § 1. Definition of Simultaneity

    Oui, j'ai très bien lu cela, et malheureusement, je vois qu'Albert
    Einstein va très vite pour poser
    l'hypothèse de la relativité de la simultanéité entre A et B, hypothèse qu'il réfute aussitôt par un tour de passe-passe.

    Observation that an unjustified hypothesis can be avoided is
    not "poser l'hypothese".

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 29 11:00:58 2024
    Den 28.08.2024 21:27, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 28/08/2024 à 20:55, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 28.08.2024 13:30, skrev Richard Hachel:

    1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity


    Precisely defined in:

    https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
    § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
    § 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times

    Richard Hachel has nothing sensible to add.>


    <snip babble>



    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 29 10:46:32 2024
    W dniu 29.08.2024 o 10:40, Mikko pisze:

    The words "ablsolute", "universal" and "common" should not be used for concepts that are specific to one inertial frame.

    Otherwise the spirit of our Giant Guru
    will become VERY angry, and his doggies
    will bark, and spit, and wave their arms.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 29 11:32:26 2024
    Le 29/08/2024 à 10:40, Mikko a écrit :

    We also can do otherwise. It is best to define simultaneity so that it
    can be used for the construction of the time coordinate of a coordinate system. If we can find a signal that has the same speed in all directions
    we can use that. For example, sound in a metal bar that is stationary
    with respect to the coordinate system being constructed.

    Mikko

    If I could send a sound along a metal bar from here to the moon (a bar
    3.10^8m long for example). The sound itself would not be constant
    according to the longitudinal direction of travel.
    It would be faster in the return direction. And vice versa for a lunar observer.

    Do you understand this?
    [ ] Yes
    [ ] No

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 29 14:27:02 2024
    Den 29.08.2024 13:32, skrev Richard Hachel:

    If I could send a sound along a metal bar from here to the moon (a bar 3.10^8m long for example). The sound itself would not be constant
    according to the longitudinal direction of travel.


    If we ignore the fact that your scenario as always is impossible by
    a number of different reasons:

    The speed of sound in a steel rod is ca. 5 km/s in both directions.
    T ≈ 3e8/5e3 s = 60000 s = 16.7 h in either direction.


    It would be faster in the return direction. And vice versa for a lunar observer.


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 29 12:50:24 2024
    Le 29/08/2024 à 14:25, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 29.08.2024 13:32, skrev Richard Hachel:

    The speed of sound in a steel rod is ca. 5 km/s in both directions.

    Encore un qui n'a rien compris à ce que je dis.

    Mais c'est pas d'ça qu'on parle!!!

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 29 12:58:36 2024
    Le 29/08/2024 à 14:50, Richard Hachel a écrit :
    Le 29/08/2024 à 14:25, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 29.08.2024 13:32, skrev Richard Hachel:

    The speed of sound in a steel rod is ca. 5 km/s in both directions.

    Encore un qui n'a rien compris à ce que je dis.

    Mais c'est pas d'ça qu'on parle!!!

    R.H.

    C'est triste.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Fri Aug 30 16:47:52 2024
    On 2024-08-29 11:32:26 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 29/08/2024 à 10:40, Mikko a écrit :

    We also can do otherwise. It is best to define simultaneity so that it
    can be used for the construction of the time coordinate of a coordinate
    system. If we can find a signal that has the same speed in all directions
    we can use that. For example, sound in a metal bar that is stationary
    with respect to the coordinate system being constructed.

    Mikko

    If I could send a sound along a metal bar from here to the moon (a bar 3.10^8m long for example). The sound itself would not be constant
    according to the longitudinal direction of travel.
    It would be faster in the return direction. And vice versa for a lunar observer.

    There is no basis to say that the speed of sound is different in different directions or for different pbserves. The speed is the distance divided by
    the duration. But the duration does not exists unless the notion "at the
    same time" is defined, and if the duration doesn't exist then neither does
    the speed.

    EInstein's synchronization is for clocks that are at rest relative to
    each other. Moon and therefore a clock on Moon is not at rest relative
    to a Earth and a clock on Earth. Therefore the defintion of "at the
    same time" must be chosen differently if Moon needs be covered.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 30 15:54:14 2024
    W dniu 30.08.2024 o 15:47, Mikko pisze:
    On 2024-08-29 11:32:26 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 29/08/2024 à 10:40, Mikko a écrit :

    We also can do otherwise. It is best to define simultaneity so that it
    can be used for the construction of the time coordinate of a coordinate
    system. If we can find a signal that has the same speed in all
    directions
    we can use that. For example, sound in a metal bar that is stationary
    with respect to the coordinate system being constructed.

    Mikko

    If I could send a sound along a metal bar from here to the moon (a bar
    3.10^8m long for example). The sound itself would not be constant
    according to the longitudinal direction of travel.
    It would be faster in the return direction. And vice versa for a lunar
    observer.

    There is no basis to say that the speed of sound is different in different directions or for different pbserves. The speed is the distance divided by the duration. But the duration does not exists unless the notion "at the
    same time" is defined, and if the duration doesn't exist then neither does the speed.

    EInstein's synchronization is for clocks that are at rest relative to
    each other. Moon and therefore a clock on Moon is not at rest relative
    to a Earth and a clock on Earth. Therefore the defintion of "at the
    same time" must be chosen differently if Moon needs be covered.

    Must be indeed, too bad for your idiot
    guru and his Holy Procedure.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 30 16:48:18 2024
    Le 30/08/2024 à 15:47, Mikko a écrit :
    On 2024-08-29 11:32:26 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    There is no basis to say that the speed of sound is different in different directions or for different pbserves.

    Absolutely.

    It is no basis.

    Mais lorsqu'on a compris la théorie de la relativité enseignée par le
    bon docteur Hachel,
    on se moque bien de ce que pense le commun des mortels, et même Albert Einstein.

    Le reste n'est pas sceintifique et consiste à dire : "Qui c'est entre
    Albert et Richard avait la plus grosse? qui aurait pu le mieux contenter Mileva?"

    Ces question-là ne sont proposées que par le singerie humaine.

    No, it is no basis.

    But it is.

    Cela s'étant à toutes les lois de la physique.

    Si la lumière a un retard, le son l'aura aussi. Identique.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 30 19:59:30 2024
    Den 30.08.2024 18:48, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 15:47, Mikko a écrit :

    There is no basis to say that the speed of sound is different in
    different
    directions or for different pbserves.

    Absolutely.

    It is no basis.

    But when we understand the theory of relativity taught by the good doctor Hachel,
    we don't care what ordinary people, and even Albert Einstein, think.

    The rest is not scientific and consists of saying:
    "Who between Albert and Richard had the biggest one?
    Who could have satisfied Mileva best?"
    R.H.


    'nuff said!

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sat Aug 31 11:59:06 2024
    On 2024-08-30 16:48:18 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 30/08/2024 à 15:47, Mikko a écrit :
    On 2024-08-29 11:32:26 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    There is no basis to say that the speed of sound is different in different >> directions or for different pbserves.

    Absolutely.

    It is no basis.

    Mais lorsqu'on a compris la théorie de la relativité enseignée
    par le bon docteur Hachel,

    We already understand that there is nothing worth of understanding there
    except that there is noting worth of understanding there.

    --
    Mikko

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