Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Einstein synchronisation Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:12:47 -0800 Organization: To protect and to server Message-ID: <65DD6F4F.1644@ix.netcom.com> References: Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="4027028"; posting-host="nLYg9UBeoMWa070gP9wQcw.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A"; Cancel-Lock: sha256:UlqIwd4rSIyEQojn/0bxayLZvH34kikXmttxb540J2w= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3 X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240226-2, 02/26/2024), Outbound message Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:651814 Richard Hachel wrote: > > https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf > > The problem with Einstein's synchronization is that it is defined in a > Galilean way. > Einstein presupposes in his frame of reference, a flat and absolute > present time, and therefore goes very quickly to definition, to move on to > the next paragraph. > What is he really saying new? Nothing. > The great thing is to say: > tA'-tA=2AB/c > I can also add, in the same sense, that a swallow is a swallow. > Then Einstein will commit the enormous relativistic error of immediately > and without paying attention to t(AB)=t(BA), a proposition which can only > be true for a neutral observer placed at an equal distance from A and B, > and having to take into account only identical anisochrony, and perfect > simultaneity of the two watches. > The equality that he posits is therefore completely false, intellectually > false, physically false, for the enormous majority of points in his space > that he will take as reference. > > His synchronization method, but he does not say it, is ONLY valid for a > given point P, and the simultaneity of various events occurring in the > frame of reference is ONLY valid for this point and not the integrity of > the frame of reference. > > He doesn't explain this. > > Or worse, he doesn't know it. > > R.H. Nature forgot to synchronize. Nature does not display any...clocks. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.