Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 22/03/2022 à 23:37, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Your definition of simultaneity involves an observer standing in a
>> schoolyard and gazing around at all the interspersed clocks, each at rest
>> in the school yard, and when this observer looks around, if all the clocks
>> read the same time exactly, then you call them synchronized.
>>
>> That is NOT the definition of simultaneity or synchronization as understood
>> by physicists. Nor is it what Einstein was talking about in his method for
>> testing synchronization.
>>
>> You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what simultaneity means to a
>> physicist, and what synchronization means to a physicist. It is not what
>> you think it means, and it certainly does not mean what you say it means.
>
> The notion of simultaneity is defined by the set of events which, at a
> given moment for an observer, take place at the same time.

No sir. That is YOUR definition. That is not what physicists mean by it at
all.

>
> It is said that "all these events take place simultaneously".
>
> If we find ourselves in the courtyard of a school and a central observer
> simultaneously receives four signals (one at each corner of the square
> courtyard) we can say, both in the Einstein doctrine and in the Hachel
> doctrine, that events have produced simultaneously.

The key ingredient (which you have missed) is that the propagation delay is
EQUAL for all four events by this arrangement. Had the observer been
anywhere but equidistant, then the arrival of all of the signals at once
would NOT have signified simultaneity of the events.

>
> Everyone then understands what this definition means.
>
> Simply, with Hachel (that's me) this notion of simultaneity is relative.
>
> Another observer placed elsewhere in the course will not perceive the four
> beeps simultaneously.
>
> There is a huge difference between Einstein and me, in the sense that
> Einstein BELIEVES (religious notion) that if it is simultaneous for one,
> it is also for another, and that the court is "isochronous" ; and in the
> sense that I say that it is not.
>
> For me, NOT ONLY the different observers will not perceive the beeps at
> the same time, which everyone agrees, but IN ADDITION, these four beeps
> will not have OCCURRED simultaneously for any of the hundreds of possible
> observers present in this courtyard.
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 16:23:16 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> No sir. That is YOUR definition. That is not what physicists mean by it at
> all.

Nobody cares, however.
Two events are simultaneous when their TAI/UTC/GPS
coordinates are equal. That's how things are in the
world we inhabit. Your bunch of idiot can protest as
much as you want, it's not going to change anything.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 13:51:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And you have a fundamental misunderstanding of
>>> what it means for sane people.
>>> In the real world - two events are simultaneous when
>>> their TAI/UTC/GPS coordinates are equal. Your bunch
>>> of idiot can protest as much as you want, it's not going
>>> to change anything.
>>>
>> Most people in the real world do not know what TAI or UTC mean,
>
> I'd bet the whole account of mine that much more people
> know of UTC than of your "proper time" idiocy, Bod.

Oh I doubt that, but we were talking about what simultaneity means, not
what proper time means.

>
>> and most
>> people in the real world have no idea that GPS uses clocks.
>
> Buhahahahahahahahaha. Tell me, poor halfbrain,
> where did you get this information from? Can you
> point many "experiments" for the evidence?
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 16:23:16 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> No sir. That is YOUR definition. That is not what physicists mean by it at
>> all.
>
> Nobody cares, however.

In a physics discussion (here you are, in a physics discussion group, by
the way), it matters.

> Two events are simultaneous when their TAI/UTC/GPS
> coordinates are equal.

Not in physics. Here, we are discussing physics. If you’d like to discuss
pottery or stage acting or other “world we inhabit” activities, then you
can discuss what simultaneity means in those contexts. I’m sure people who
cook in restaurants will be thrilled to hear about UTC/TAI simultaneity as
defined by a ranting goofball.

> That's how things are in the
> world we inhabit. Your bunch of idiot can protest as
> much as you want, it's not going to change anything.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 17:09:12 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 16:23:16 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> No sir. That is YOUR definition. That is not what physicists mean by it at
> >> all.
> >
> > Nobody cares, however.
> In a physics discussion (here you are, in a physics discussion group, by
> the way), it matters.

Why would anyone discuss religious delusions of
some brainwashed morons? For REAL time,
REAL clocks and REAL observations of REAL
observers it doesn't matter; sorry.

> > Two events are simultaneous when their TAI/UTC/GPS
> > coordinates are equal.
> Not in physics.

Of course. Not in physics. As said, I'm talking
about the reality.

Le 23/03/2022 à 16:05, rotchm a écrit :
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 9:45:56 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> The notion of simultaneity is defined by the set of events which, at a
>> given moment for an observer, take place at the same time.
>
> And here, 'observer' means a given coordinate system (reference frame RF ).
>
>> It is said that "all these events take place simultaneously".
>
> Given a RF, two events are simultaneous if the clocks at the events indicate the
> same value.
> Use that definition.

It's true in Newton and it's true in Einstein.

It is no longer with Hachel.

This is not at all how I consider the notion of simultaneity.

I repeat: the notion of simultaneity is defined by the existence of all
events that occur at the same time for a given observer.

EVERYONE agrees on this universal definition. Newton, Einstein, Hachel.

Where we no longer agree is on how we think about the created universe.

Newton sees it like this, Einstein sees it like that, Hachel in a third
way.

The three visions are incompatible with each other.

The notion of simultaneity and the notion of chronotropy (speed of clocks)
ARE NOT the same there.

R.H.

Le 23/03/2022 à 16:05, rotchm a écrit :

> Although it is true in that example, the four events are simul because the
> clocks at the four events (emission of the 4 signals) indicate the same value.

No !!!

Please stop!

R.H.

Le 23/03/2022 à 16:05, rotchm a écrit :
> if two events are simultaneous for one, they are simul is for the other. If two
> observers are in relative motion, then the events are not simultaneous for at
> least one of the observers.

C'est l'inverse. Les scientifiques ne comprennent pas correctement la
théorie qu'ils proposent.

On ne peut pas synchroniser deux montres placées en des endroits
différents (notion d'anisotropie universelle).

Au mieux de la synchronisation utilisée, chacune verra l'autre retarder
sur elle.

C'est une IMPOSSIBILITE PHYSIQUE.

Par contre, je le répète encore, si une multitude d'observateurs se
croisent au même endroit
(par exemple dans le système solaire) à des vitesses relativistes très
différentes les uns des autres,
tous les observateurs auront une notion commune de la simultanéité de
l'univers.

Merde!

C'est quand même pas dur à comprendre.

Les physiciens disent les choses à l'envers !!!

Il faut le dire comment?

Vous êtes incapable de suivre un raisonnement aussi simple?

Vous êtes une réelle bande de malades, les mecs.

R.H.

Le 23/03/2022 à 16:23, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> The key ingredient (which you have missed) is that the propagation delay is
> EQUAL for all four events by this arrangement. Had the observer been
> anywhere but equidistant, then the arrival of all of the signals at once
> would NOT have signified simultaneity of the events.

I see that you still do not understand what I write.

You are really sick.

R.H.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 17:09:12 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 16:23:16 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> No sir. That is YOUR definition. That is not what physicists mean by it at
>>>> all.
>>>
>>> Nobody cares, however.
>> In a physics discussion (here you are, in a physics discussion group, by
>> the way), it matters.
>
> Why would anyone discuss religious delusions of
> some brainwashed morons? For REAL time,
> REAL clocks and REAL observations of REAL
> observers it doesn't matter; sorry.

If you don’t want to discuss physics in a physics discussion group, there’s
some doubt about your sanity. Perhaps you should go to a gardening
discussion group and refuse to discuss gardening, loudly and frequently.

>
>>> Two events are simultaneous when their TAI/UTC/GPS
>>> coordinates are equal.
>> Not in physics.
>
> Of course. Not in physics. As said, I'm talking
> about the reality.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 23/03/2022 à 16:05, rotchm a écrit :
>> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 9:45:56 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>> The notion of simultaneity is defined by the set of events which, at a
>>> given moment for an observer, take place at the same time.
>>
>> And here, 'observer' means a given coordinate system (reference frame RF ).
>>
>>> It is said that "all these events take place simultaneously".
>>
>> Given a RF, two events are simultaneous if the clocks at the events indicate the
>> same value.
>> Use that definition.
>
> It's true in Newton and it's true in Einstein.
>
> It is no longer with Hachel.

And that right there is where you abandon communicate with physicists,
using your own meanings for words.

>
> This is not at all how I consider the notion of simultaneity.

That may be true, but no one here (or in the physics community) will care
about your own meaning. In the community you wish to communicate with, it’s
important to use the shared language of that community. Refusal to do that
jus puts you in a blind alley.

>
> I repeat: the notion of simultaneity is defined by the existence of all
> events that occur at the same time for a given observer.
>
> EVERYONE agrees on this universal definition. Newton, Einstein, Hachel.

No. Physicists do not agree with that definition.

>
> Where we no longer agree is on how we think about the created universe.
>
> Newton sees it like this, Einstein sees it like that, Hachel in a third
> way.
>
> The three visions are incompatible with each other.
>
> The notion of simultaneity and the notion of chronotropy (speed of clocks)
> ARE NOT the same there.
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 23/03/2022 à 16:23, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> The key ingredient (which you have missed) is that the propagation delay is
>> EQUAL for all four events by this arrangement. Had the observer been
>> anywhere but equidistant, then the arrival of all of the signals at once
>> would NOT have signified simultaneity of the events.
>
> I see that you still do not understand what I write.
>
> You are really sick.
>
> R.H.
>

I understand what you write. I am favoring the physics definition of
simultaneity over your definition of simultaneity, intentionally.

I am using the shared language of physics. You are not.

You want people to use the words as YOU mean them. That will not fly here,
and will not fly in the physics community.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 18:23:05 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 17:09:12 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 16:23:16 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> No sir. That is YOUR definition. That is not what physicists mean by it at
> >>>> all.
> >>>
> >>> Nobody cares, however.
> >> In a physics discussion (here you are, in a physics discussion group, by
> >> the way), it matters.
> >
> > Why would anyone discuss religious delusions of
> > some brainwashed morons? For REAL time,
> > REAL clocks and REAL observations of REAL
> > observers it doesn't matter; sorry.
> If you don’t want to discuss physics in a physics discussion group, there’s
> some doubt about your sanity.

No surprise. Still, two events are simultaneous when
their TAI/UTC/GPS coordinates are equal. That's
how things are in the world we inhabit. Your bunch
of idiot can protest as much as you want, it's not
going to change anything.

> Perhaps you should go to a gardening
> discussion group and refuse to discuss gardening, loudly and frequently.

Perhaps, but for some resons too complicated
for your tiny, fanatic halfbrain I won't.

On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 18:23:06 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 23/03/2022 à 16:23, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >> The key ingredient (which you have missed) is that the propagation delay is
> >> EQUAL for all four events by this arrangement. Had the observer been
> >> anywhere but equidistant, then the arrival of all of the signals at once
> >> would NOT have signified simultaneity of the events.
> >
> > I see that you still do not understand what I write.
> >
> > You are really sick.
> >
> > R.H.
> >
> I understand what you write. I am favoring the physics definition of
> simultaneity over your definition of simultaneity, intentionally.

Unfortunately, the reality doesn't care for your
intensions, and two events are simultaneous when
their TAI/UTC/GPS coordinates are equal. That's how
things are in the world we inhabit. Your bunch of
idiot can protest as much as you want, it's not
going to change anything.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 18:23:05 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 17:09:12 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 16:23:16 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No sir. That is YOUR definition. That is not what physicists mean by it at
>>>>>> all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody cares, however.
>>>> In a physics discussion (here you are, in a physics discussion group, by
>>>> the way), it matters.
>>>
>>> Why would anyone discuss religious delusions of
>>> some brainwashed morons? For REAL time,
>>> REAL clocks and REAL observations of REAL
>>> observers it doesn't matter; sorry.
>> If you don’t want to discuss physics in a physics discussion group, there’s
>> some doubt about your sanity.
>
> No surprise. Still, two events are simultaneous when
> their TAI/UTC/GPS coordinates are equal. That's
> how things are in the world we inhabit. Your bunch
> of idiot can protest as much as you want, it's not
> going to change anything.
>
>> Perhaps you should go to a gardening
>> discussion group and refuse to discuss gardening, loudly and frequently.
>
> Perhaps, but for some resons too complicated
> for your tiny, fanatic halfbrain I won't.
>

I’m sure it has to do with your doubtful sanity.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Le 23/03/2022 à 18:23, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 23/03/2022 à 16:23, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>> The key ingredient (which you have missed) is that the propagation delay is
>>> EQUAL for all four events by this arrangement. Had the observer been
>>> anywhere but equidistant, then the arrival of all of the signals at once
>>> would NOT have signified simultaneity of the events.
>>
>> I see that you still do not understand what I write.
>>
>> You are really sick.
>>
>> R.H.
>>
>
> I understand what you write. I am favoring the physics definition of
> simultaneity over your definition of simultaneity, intentionally.
>
> I am using the shared language of physics. You are not.
>
> You want people to use the words as YOU mean them. That will not fly here,
> and will not fly in the physics community.

It's not their language that's bad, it's their principles.

Saying for example that there is a time gap in the Langevin, I understand
the terms, but the problem is that there is NO time gap.

To say that my equation To²=Tr²+D² is not good in accelerated
repositories, I understand that very well. I know what D, Tr and To are. I
also know what it means: "Your equation, Dr. Hachel, is not good".
The problem is that it is good.

And so on for many things.

R.H.

On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 18:38:05 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 18:23:05 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 17:09:12 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 16:23:16 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> No sir. That is YOUR definition. That is not what physicists mean by it at
> >>>>>> all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nobody cares, however.
> >>>> In a physics discussion (here you are, in a physics discussion group, by
> >>>> the way), it matters.
> >>>
> >>> Why would anyone discuss religious delusions of
> >>> some brainwashed morons? For REAL time,
> >>> REAL clocks and REAL observations of REAL
> >>> observers it doesn't matter; sorry.
> >> If you don’t want to discuss physics in a physics discussion group, there’s
> >> some doubt about your sanity.
> >
> > No surprise. Still, two events are simultaneous when
> > their TAI/UTC/GPS coordinates are equal. That's
> > how things are in the world we inhabit. Your bunch
> > of idiot can protest as much as you want, it's not
> > going to change anything.
> >
> >> Perhaps you should go to a gardening
> >> discussion group and refuse to discuss gardening, loudly and frequently.
> >
> > Perhaps, but for some resons too complicated
> > for your tiny, fanatic halfbrain I won't.
> >
> I’m sure it has to do with your doubtful sanity.

If a brainwashed religious maniac is sure - it
simply has to be true; doesn't it?

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 23/03/2022 à 18:23, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 23/03/2022 à 16:23, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>> The key ingredient (which you have missed) is that the propagation delay is
>>>> EQUAL for all four events by this arrangement. Had the observer been
>>>> anywhere but equidistant, then the arrival of all of the signals at once
>>>> would NOT have signified simultaneity of the events.
>>>
>>> I see that you still do not understand what I write.
>>>
>>> You are really sick.
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>>
>> I understand what you write. I am favoring the physics definition of
>> simultaneity over your definition of simultaneity, intentionally.
>>
>> I am using the shared language of physics. You are not.
>>
>> You want people to use the words as YOU mean them. That will not fly here,
>> and will not fly in the physics community.
>
> It's not their language that's bad, it's their principles.

Nope. The first problem is language, which you are not using properly.

>
> Saying for example that there is a time gap in the Langevin, I understand
> the terms, but the problem is that there is NO time gap.

No one reputable says there’s a time gap. I suggest choosing resources
other than the internet cesspool.

>
> To say that my equation To²=Tr²+D² is not good in accelerated
> repositories, I understand that very well. I know what D, Tr and To are. I
> also know what it means: "Your equation, Dr. Hachel, is not good".
> The problem is that it is good.
>
> And so on for many things.
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 19:10:16 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Nope. The first problem is language, which you are not using properly.

Michelson&Morley experiment shows it clearly:
the language of Odd Bodkin and his moronic
church is the proper one, one and only.

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 3:37:40 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >> Le 22/03/2022 à 19:16, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >>> Which has nothing to do with what an Earth observer would see on a Krypton
> >>> clock and on an Earth clock.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, in relativity, both facts are false.
> >>>
> >>> No, that’s not the case. What’s the case is that these are false if viewed
> >>> in relatively moving inertial frames. However, in the case that both clocks
> >>> are at rest in a common inertial reference frame, then the clocks are
> >>> perfectly capable of being synchronized and will run at the same rate as
> >>> seen by the other.
> >>>
> >>> You’ve thrown the baby out with the bath water, thinking that relativity
> >>> breaks this in all cases.
> >>
> >> But not at all !!!
> >
> > Yes you have. You have misstated what relativity claims. You have made a
> > mistake.
> >
> > This does not make you stupid. It makes you erroneous.
> >
> >>
> >> That's what I keep telling myself.
> >>
> >> The notion of chronotropy is invariant for all the clocks present in a
> >> reference frame.
> >>
> >> Let's take this schoolyard, and line it with little, very precise atomic
> >> clocks.
> >>
> >> It is clear that all clocks will beat at the same speed.
> >>
> >> Otherwise, an absurd cause would have to be found.
> >>
> >> Of course all the little atomic clocks are beating at the same speed in
> >> this playground.
> >>
> >> I don't even think anyone in the world has ever thought otherwise.
> >>
> >> When I talk about anisotropy, I'm necessarily talking about something
> >> else.
> I get that.
>
> Here is the problem.
>
> Your definition of simultaneity involves an observer standing in a
> schoolyard and gazing around at all the interspersed clocks, each at rest
> in the school yard, and when this observer looks around, if all the clocks
> read the same time exactly, then you call them synchronized.
>
> That is NOT the definition of simultaneity or synchronization as understood
> by physicists. Nor is it what Einstein was talking about in his method for
> testing synchronization.

Einstein even specifically points to this method of synchronisation as
impractical: "...the disadvantage [of this method] is that it is not
independent of the standpoint of the observer" (p. 39 of the Dover ed.)

--
Jan

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 12:54:46 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:

> > Given a RF, two events are simultaneous if the clocks at the events indicate the
> > same value.
> > Use that definition.
> It's true in Newton and it's true in Einstein.

No, it is not true in Newtonian mechanics. Newton himself specifically emphasizes, not the values displayed by clocks do not represent time. Newtonian mechanics (Newton's area, theory) does not involve clocks. In modern physics (your 'Einsteinian'), clocks are involved; The above definition of 'simultaneous' uses clocks.

> This is not at all how I consider the notion of simultaneity.

Then, call it something else. Because here, in physics, we have a well-established language.
Since you want to speak our language, use the meanings we use. don't make up new meanings for The Words which already have a specific meaning.

> I repeat: the notion of simultaneity is defined by the existence of all
> events that occur at the same time for a given observer.

Use **our** definition of simultaneity (the one I gave you above suffices).

> EVERYONE agrees on this universal definition.

You are lying; that is not true. For example, I do not agree with the above definition you gave, since it is ambiguous, and your intended meaning of the words you use are not the standard meanings as used in physics. Again, learn to use the appropriate language.

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 23/03/2022 à 16:05, rotchm a écrit :
> > Although it is true in that example, the four events are simul because the
> > clocks at the four events (emission of the 4 signals) indicate the same value.
> No !!!

Yes.

If however in your scenario, the clocks there do not indicate the same value, then the events are not simultaneous, even if the center Observer received the four signals together.

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 1:06:28 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:

> > if two events are simultaneous for one, they are simul is for the other.. If two
> > observers are in relative motion, then the events are not simultaneous for at
> > least one of the observers.
> C'est l'inverse.

You are confused.

> On ne peut pas synchroniser deux montres placées en des endroits
> différents

Yes you can. It's just a simple reenactment of the operational definition of 'simultaneity'.

For matters of respect and coherence, we shall continue in English. Your deviations into another language shows that you are dishonest and trying to shift the conversation away. Be respectful by continuing in the already started language.

Le 23/03/2022 à 21:14, rotchm a écrit :
>
> If however in your scenario, the clocks there do not indicate the same value,
> then the events are not simultaneous, even if the center Observer received the
> four signals together.

If the four clocks are out of sync, the central observer will not note a
simultaneity of the dials, but he will nevertheless note that the four
beeps reached him simultaneously.

So we don't care what the screens show.

Now, I repeat, the theory of relativity has a huge bias: it only talks
about the relativity of local chronotropy.

The theory tells us, with accuracy, that two watches in rapid motion
relative to each other each see the other watch beat less quickly (I say
the same thing, and the idea is perfectly correct).

This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the relativity of
chronotropy.

But physicists ignore a property of space which is anisochrony.

It is as if we were ignoring the principle of universal gravitation.

And that, I don't understand. It is obvious that this property exists and
that we must talk about it.

But if you talk about it, you have to talk about it properly.

And this requires an unfailing understanding that we can never match two
watches placed in different places, and that their notion of the
simultaneity of the world is entirely their own.

In short, the notion of relativity of simultaneity is PURELY positional,
and that the notion of relativity of chronotropy is PURELY kinetic.

R.H.

On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 21:17:43 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:

> Yes you can. It's just a simple reenactment of the operational definition of 'simultaneity'.

Put your "operational definition" straight into
your dumb, fanatic, lying ass, where it belongs.
Two events are simultaneous when their
TAI/UTC/GPS coordinates are equal. That's how
things are in the world we inhabit. Your bunch of
idiot can protest as much as you want, it's not
going to change anything.