1. On the notion of simultaneity in special relativity
<snip babble>
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
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 [...]
?????
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.
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 [...]
?????
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.
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.
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.
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>
The words "ablsolute", "universal" and "common" should not be used for concepts that are specific to one inertial frame.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 73:29:55 |
Calls: | 7,775 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,911 |
Messages: | 5,749,961 |