Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #666376

Re: Universal anisochronism

Message-ID	<lFSFlPT2W0OI66gAcJTJc2um5LI@jntp> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Universal anisochronism
References	<b7GfLGeT6J4bGflGjf12RMdqpAQ@jntp>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Date	2025-09-29 13:29 +0000
Organization	Nemoweb
From	Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Le 28/09/2025 à 13:19, Richard Hachel  a écrit :
> The problem of synchronization.
> Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different positions 
> within an inertial frame of reference?

We have to start with what synchronization means and how it is useful for 
in practice.

Go deep to the ground, what you NEVER do. You're paying yourself with 
words.

You can label with a time value any event you want, in any way you want, 
but not all labeling systems are useful. 

The starting point is to have a clock colocated with the events you are 
recording (ANY measurement in physics is about a specific local event, at 
the end of the day, even if the measurement device is remote you end up 
receiving a signal at your place from this device).

Attributing to a remote event a time label is basically considering that 
the measurement device we've put there is also a clock. 

A clock we've build at our place with the same technical process as the 
one we kept. But how to set it up ? This is what synchronization means.

This is partly conventional, but there are properties of this setup we 
tend to prefer, because without these properties they would be useless :

- A is synch with itself
- if A is synch with B then B is synch with A
- if A is synch with B and B is synch with C then A is synch with C

Einstein-Poincaré's method insure (this is a mathematical FACT) this 
under the condition of invariance of light speed in Galilean frames of 
references.

Another constraint we may want to impose is to makes Newton's laws of 
motion correct. These laws are about speed, they involve positions at 
remote places and times when an object was there.

Again, so far, Einstein-Poincaré's method is experimentally in line with 
experiments.

> In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered independent 
> entities.
> In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock has its 
> own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own frame of reference.

This is a paralogism. Newtonian absolute time => Possibility of 
synchronization (trivial) but
the fact that Newtonian absolute time does not exist does not imply that 
synchronization is impossible.Synchronizing clocks is a 


A => B
A false
You cannot conclude anything about the truth of B.

What follows "since" : "each clock has its own concept of universal 
simultaneity, specific to its own frame of reference" is an unjustified 
statement.

> Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and B.  It is 
> clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes the signal was 
> received by the two other points, the two events tA and tB would have been 
> simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it knows "that they were, 
> by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and MB are equal."
> However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are not 
> simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. For A, event tB occurs in the future of 
> tA. And conversely, for B, event tA occurs in the future of tB.

tB, tA are not events, they are value. You've been doing this ridiculous 
confusion repeatedly.

> In short, the concept of a universal, absolute present, the foundation of 
> Newtonian physics, does not exist.

In the sense that different frames of reference cannot agree on 
simultaneity of events yes, but within  single frame of reference (i.e. a 
network of clocks) it does exists. It is done routinely for train stations 
accros Europe.

> This is the concept of universal anisochronism, and this is the fundamental 
> principle of the theory of relativity.

This is a word you made up that describes something which is wrong. This 
is completely unrelated to the theory of Relativity which is a sound 
theory, while your bunch of nonsense is not.

Thread

Universal anisochronism Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-28 11:19 +0000
  Re: Universal anisochronism Harold Babosov <sava@ob.ru> - 2025-09-28 12:56 +0000
    Re: Universal anisochronism Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-28 13:12 +0000
      Re: Universal anisochronism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-28 16:36 -0700
        Re: Universal anisochronism "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 17:14 -0700
  Re: Universal anisochronism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-28 10:23 -0700
    Re: Universal anisochronism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-28 10:32 -0700
      Re: Universal anisochronism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-29 16:11 -0700
        Re: Universal anisochronism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-30 00:41 -0700
        Re: Universal anisochronism Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-15 11:03 +0100
  Re: Universal anisochronism Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-29 12:43 +0300
    Re: Universal anisochronism Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-29 14:18 +0000
      Re: Universal anisochronism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-29 08:46 -0700
      Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 15:52 +0000
        Re: Universal anisochronism Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-29 19:19 +0000
          Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 21:35 +0000
      Re: Universal anisochronism Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-30 16:02 +0300
        Re: Universal anisochronism Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-30 13:37 +0000
          Re: Universal anisochronism Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-01 13:22 +0300
        Re: Universal anisochronism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-30 15:47 +0200
          Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 14:00 +0000
            Re: Universal anisochronism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-30 16:10 +0200
              Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 14:22 +0000
                Re: Universal anisochronism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-30 16:31 +0200
                Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 14:39 +0000
                Re: Universal anisochronism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-30 16:50 +0200
                Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 14:52 +0000
                Re: Universal anisochronism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-30 17:10 +0200
                Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 15:18 +0000
                Re: Universal anisochronism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-30 17:47 +0200
                Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 16:24 +0000
                Re: Universal anisochronism Oleander Sadowski <nadre@ilasa.pl> - 2025-09-30 22:02 +0000
  Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 13:29 +0000
    Re: Universal anisochronism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-29 15:50 +0200
  Re: Universal anisochronism Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-02 08:46 +0200
    Re: Universal anisochronism Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-02 10:31 +0000

csiph-web