Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: Spatial localisation in relativistic theory (part I : t'=t=0)

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Python

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 4:34:23 PM12/2/21
to
Python wrote:
> Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote:
> ...
>> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence
>> of all the events occurring in
>> same time, or again, being characterized by the set of all the
>> physical phenomena taking place
>> at the same time, we should be able, at least by considering all the
>> fixed components found
>> in a given inertial system, to speak of "absolute simultaneity", of
>> "universal synchronization", or of
>> "common calendar" - these terms then being capable of acquiring a real
>> physical meaning - if
>> one could, without it varying, transpose the specific simultaneity of
>> a particular observer to all
>> other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
>
> This is complete gibberish not defining ANYTHING.

A gentle advice for Richard - Lengrand - Hachel, after several
decades of spouting nonsens it may be time for YOU to read
carefully part I.1 (I. Partie cinématique - 1. Définition de
la simultanéité) in 1905 Einstein's paper :

https://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/De-l%C3%A9lectrodynamique-des-corps-en-mouvement.pdf

read it very slowly, one sentence at a time, do not go on
to the next one until you have understood all sentences
before.

This is the KEY part of Einstein's article, which is the real
breakthrough when compared to previous works of Poincaré or
Lorentz.

This is the part that you've always FAILED to understand, the
part that Thomas Heger (another crank down here) completely
overlooked (he sincerely think that Einstein consider simultaneity
in the way YOU do, go figure!)

When you'll (if ever, I'm not very optimistic) get it you'll
threw all your sh*t away and you'll realize you've lost most
of your life making a fool of yourself.

Python

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 5:21:45 PM12/2/21
to
Richard - Lengrand - Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 22:03, Jean-Pierre Messager a écrit :
>
>>> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence
>>> of all the events occurring in
>>> same time, or again, being characterized by the set of all the
>>> physical phenomena taking place
>>> at the same time, we should be able, at least by considering all the
>>> fixed components found
>>> in a given inertial system, to speak of "absolute simultaneity", of
>>> "universal synchronization", or of
>>> "common calendar" - these terms then being capable of acquiring a
>>> real physical meaning - if
>>> one could, without it varying, transpose the specific simultaneity of
>>> a particular observer to all
>>> other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
>>
>> This is complete gibberish not defining ANYTHING.
>
> Oui, mais là, je peux pas faire mieux,

Well, *you* cannot do better, because you are a fool and an idiot.

> C'est impossible.

It can be done, it HAS been done.

> Je définis ce que c'est, pour moi, que la notion d'événements
> simultanés

Ça ne définit rien. You do not define anything.
Tautologie sans signification. Meaningless tautology.

Real definition follows, part I.1.
Une vraie définition est décrite, partie I.1.

FR:
https://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/De-l%C3%A9lectrodynamique-des-corps-en-mouvement.pdf

EN:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies#%C2%A7_1._Definition_of_Simultaneity.

pehache

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 6:36:17 PM12/2/21
to
Le 02/12/2021 à 22:34, Python a écrit :
> Python wrote:

Merci de ne pas faire comme Hachel en postant en anglais sur
fr.sci.physique, qui plus est en crosspostant sur sci.*

Les crossposts entre fr.* et une autre hiérarchie sont annulables.

--
"...sois ouvert aux idées des autres pour peu qu'elles aillent dans le
même sens que les tiennes.", ST sur fr.bio.medecine
0 new messages