Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail
From: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Einstein synchronisation
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 22:01:37 -0800
Organization: To protect and to server
Message-ID: <65DD7AC1.35B8@ix.netcom.com>
References: <S_mOZSVVV5xbwe2044yjthG8mWg@jntp> <65DD6F4F.1644@ix.netcom.com>
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="4031899"; posting-host="nLYg9UBeoMWa070gP9wQcw.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";
Cancel-Lock: sha256:J1MnFqW7SNBuYAihyfqZRI50uP8dL1PiBfZM/ik2CYg=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240226-2, 02/26/2024), Outbound message
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U)
Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:651816 sci.physics:885484 sci.math:625696

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> 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 shorest distance between two points is a straight line.

But Nature does not display any straight lines.


Otherwise, ...ants would travel in staight lines...but they don't.


Only Platonists see straight lines. 

(just another cult)





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.