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.