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.