Relativistic synchronisation method

[Richard Hachel]

It seems that no one has clearly understood the "relativistic problem",
and what a "relativistic synchronization method" is.
It seems especially that even Einstein, don't laugh friends, did not
understand it, but attacking a living God to denounce him is not easy.
We must always, in all things, try to be fair, try to be true.
It is fair to say that Albert Einstein postulates, without explaining it,
the invariance of the speed of the speed of light. It is a postulate.
For Hachel, postulating is not enough. We must explain, at the base, why.
Doctor Hachel, blessed be he and accepted in the Holy Lands of
Aôôôllah, peace be upon him, speaks of a universal anisochrony, and
claims, blessed be he and accepted in the Holy Lands of Aôôôllah, peace
be upon him.
The principle is there, and if we affirm that any receiver receives live,
in perfect cosmic simultaneity, in its hyperplane, any electromagnetic
signal, it will easily come to mind, that this infinite, instantaneous
speed of information is constant for any observer, and that it does not
depend on the speed or direction of the source, nor on that of the
receiver (which is moreover considered, for him, fixed in his frame of
reference).
Once this is accepted (see the pdf of Dr. Hachel, blessed be he and
accepted in the Holy Lands of Aôôôllah, peace be upon him) and accepted
that the escape velocity of the wave is c/2 for any observer who emits, it
comes that in synchronization M, M', M"", the speed of the TRANSVERSELY
observed wave, that is to say neutral, will always be the same, and the
average of the two other speeds.
We fall back, having explained it, on the constancy of the observable
speed (transverse, neutral) of light.
This is what I explain in my pdf, on the question of the relativity of
chronotropy after having discussed anisochrony (the primum movens). The
moment is relative, chronotropy is relative too. It is a double
relativity.
We will see that it is the same thing, with lengths and distances. One
last word: it seems that physicists know perfectly well the notion of
contraction of lengths and dilation of durations. What is very strange is
that they have never been able to take the next step, and apply this also
to DISTANCES and INSTANTS.

Or if they do, they do it badly.

R.H.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Richard Hachel
It seems that no one has clearly understood the "relativistic problem",
and what a "relativistic synchronization method" is.

Einstein defined the the word precisely, in the sense in which he used
it in his analysis. Since it is a definition, it needs only be applied.

As it happens, his definition is very easy to understand, though nothing
turns on that.

Sylvia.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Richard Hachel
It seems that no one has clearly understood the "relativistic
problem", and what a "relativistic synchronization method" is.

Einstein defined the the word precisely, in the sense in which he used
it in his analysis. Since it is a definition, it needs only be applied.

And here, well - a problem arises:(
It can only be applied where no gravity
is present, on the distant clocks somehow
secured to have 0 of relative speed.
Both requirements are unfortunately
utterly idiotic.
Considering also the fact that nobody needs
"synchronization differently" as defined
by Your insane guru - the method is not
going to have a lot of applications, I'm
afraid.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Maciej Wozniak
And here, well - a problem arises:(
It can only be applied where no gravity
is present, on the distant clocks somehow
secured to have 0 of relative speed.
Both requirements are unfortunately
utterly idiotic.
Considering also the fact that nobody needs
"synchronization differently" as defined
by Your insane guru - the method is not
going to have a lot of applications, I'm
afraid.

It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even
stationary ones).
If we synchronize on M, the middle of the two watches A and B, we can say
that two events have occurred simultaneously FOR M, if M perceives them
simultaneously (whether we take Hachel's convention or Einstein's for that
matter): because if they are perceived simultaneously, it is because they
have occurred simultaneously.
Yes, this is true for M.
BUT...
What about A? What about B?
Hachel explains what a seven-year-old child could understand, but what
many men cannot understand (because of the Freudian problem that is in
their underpants, not being able to admit that another man has a prettier
trilili than them).
The notion of simultaneity is relative, if events occur in different
locations, it is no longer possible to determine whether they were
simultaneous, or even which ones are prior or subsequent to others.
We will then say: let's no longer synchronize on M to affirm that events A
and B were simultaneous, but on A. Now, A will consider with astonishment
that the events were not simultaneous, and that A occurred first. It is
the opposite for B. To believe otherwise is to believe in a natural
isochrony of things, and that the notion of "present" is something flat
and absolute.
Now we CAN synchronize on A. A can say, event A and event B occurred
simultaneously for A. Why not.
But B will look with astonishment at A saying these things, and fiercely
deny that the two events were really simultaneous. B will explain that
with convention A, setting A, he perceives event A which occurred, this
time, with a shift t=2AB/c.

A seven-year-old child would understand that, but a physicist formatted to
the idea of ​​a flat present cannot understand it (see Stephen Hawking
making a fool of himself in his book "A Brief History of Time" by drawing
a "flat" present).

A seven-year-old child can very well understand that this moon in this sky
is perceived instantly, and he will be right.

It is the physicist who will be wrong, by imagining a chimera, and by
believing that the speed of light between the moon and the earth, for a
transverse observer placed far away and on the mediator, (v=c), is the
same for a lunar observer who could apprehend his photon, and a
terrestrial observer who receives it instantaneously on his retina.

Of course, saying that this galaxy located 13 billion light years away, I
see it as it exists "today", humanity does not seem ready to swallow it
yet.

Saying that simultaneity depends on POSITION, and that chronotropy depends
on speed, this is still today a revolutionary act.

Although this is remarkably logical, and proven by thousands of
experiments, physicists seem to prefer an incomplete and ugly physics, to
a coherent and perfectly beautiful physics.

The problem is human.

Why do you think that today people get bogged down by putting rings in
their noses, and painting their bodies with tattoos as ugly as they are
stupid?

Because everyone deep down, adopts the cult of ugliness.

This is also true for Albert Einstein's explanations against mine.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Maciej Wozniak
And here, well - a problem arises:(
It can only be applied where no gravity
is present, on the distant clocks somehow
secured to have 0 of relative speed.
Both requirements are unfortunately
utterly idiotic.
Considering also the fact that nobody needs
"synchronization differently" as defined
by Your insane guru - the method is not
going to have a lot of applications, I'm
afraid.

It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even
stationary ones).

Maybe for you. Anyone can check GPS, the
professionals manage.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Richard Hachel
It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even
stationary ones).

Maybe for you. Anyone can check GPS, the
professionals manage.

Tu ne peux pas synchroniser deux montres ENTRE ELLES.

Ce n'est pas PHYSIQUE.

Dans notre univers, c'est quelque chose d'absurde.

C'est comme si tu cherchais un carré rond, ou que tu t'épuisais à
trouver à repeindre ta façade en blanc écarlate.

Le problème, avec les hommes, c'est qu'ils s'imaginent un univers où le
présent est "plat" et absolu.

Ou tout le monde vit à chaque instant dans une sorte d'hyperplan de
simultanéité généralisé.

Cette vision est un a priori faux et ridicule.

Ce n'est pas PHYSIQUE. Ce n'est pas de la physique.

Tu vas dire : "Oui, mais dans le cas des GPS, on synchronisent les montres
entre elles".

C'est faux, et par une torsion du langage, on fait passer un mensonge pour
une vérité.

On ne les synchronise pas ENTRE ELLES (ce qui est impossible).

On les synchronise sur UNE montre abstraite, placé idéalement loin et à
égale distance de tous les points du repère à synchroniser, c'est à
dire dans une quatrième dimension spatiale virtuelle.

C'est ça qu'on fait (sans s'en rendre compte d'ailleurs). C'est ce qu'
Einstein a fait, c'est ce que tous les physiciens du monde font.

MAIS...

Ne pas comprendre que :
1. C'est ça qu'on fait
2. qu'il est impossible sinon d'avoir une synchronisation absolue réelle
(anisochronie universelle)

c'est ne rien comprendre aux principes même de la théorie.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Richard Hachel
It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even
stationary ones).

Maybe for you. Anyone can check GPS, the
professionals manage.

Tu ne peux pas synchroniser deux montres ENTRE ELLES.
Ce n'est pas PHYSIQUE.

Take your precious PHYSIQUE and put it
straight into your dumb ass, where it belongs.
The clocks, their synchronization, time - have
nothing to do with it.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Richard Hachel
It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even
stationary ones).

Maybe for you. Anyone can check GPS, the
professionals manage.

Tu ne peux pas synchroniser deux montres ENTRE ELLES.
Ce n'est pas PHYSIQUE.

Take your precious PHYSIQUE and put it
straight into your dumb ass, where it belongs.
The clocks, their synchronization, time - have
nothing to do with it.

J'aurais tenté de t'expliquer.

Je vois que c'est peine perdue.

R.H.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel
It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even
stationary ones).

Your wristwatch and my wristwatch are both showing UTC + 1 hour.

To synchronise my wristwatch, I used this: https://time.is/clock

How did you synchronise your wristwatch to show UTC + 1 hour, Richard?


You will ignore this, but I will ask you again.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel
stationary ones).

Your wristwatch and my wristwatch are both showing UTC + 1 hour.
To synchronise my wristwatch, I used this: https://time.is/clock
How did you synchronise your wristwatch to show UTC + 1 hour, Richard?
You will ignore this, but I will ask you again.

Paul, Paul, I beg you to understand something.

There is no absolute simultaneity. To say that two events occurred at the
same time only makes sense locally and for ONE given observer.

An observer placed in another location will not have the same notion of
what is simultaneous or not, and various events that are placed in a given
hyperplane of simultaneity (the set of events that occur in the local
present time of an individual), will no longer be in a hyperplane of
present time for another individual.

Each hyperplane can only be unique.

Thus, I could never synchronize your watch with mine in absolute terms,
and for example five or ten simultaneous events for me (in the same
hyperplane if I draw a 3D diagram) will necessarily no longer be
simultaneous for you, and vice versa.

It is therefore necessary to synchronize on something abstract, and to
refer to what this watch NOTES of the various events. This watch, I call
it watch M, it is the abstract, virtual watch that all physicists adopt
without knowing that it is the one they are adopting.

It is the one that gives "a certain coherence", and gives "usable labels"
to things.

But two watches, in themselves are incongruous without going through this.
A fortiori billions of watches placed in our universe (even stationary
ones).

All are set to this virtual watch M, which is used to consider that there
is a "flat" present, and therefore that we can synchronize things.

But it is abstract, OUTSIDE-WORLD.

Useful, yes. Very useful. But outside-world.

I beg you (vain hope) to understand this before criticizing something that
you have not previously understood.

R.H.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel
stationary ones).

Your wristwatch and my wristwatch are both showing UTC + 1 hour.
To synchronise my wristwatch, I used this:  https://time.is/clock
How did you synchronise your wristwatch to show UTC + 1 hour, Richard?
You will ignore this, but I will ask you again.

You ignored my question, so I will ask again.

Post by Richard Hachel
Paul, Paul, I beg you to understand something.
There is no absolute simultaneity. To say that two events occurred at
the same time only makes sense locally and for ONE given observer.

Richard, I an not criticising you or your theory.
I am only asking simple questions I would like you to answer,
So please do.

Richard, you have a watch of some kind, haven't you?

How did you set your clock to show what it shows, so
that you can reach your bus or train at the right time?


Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock
on the wall of the railway station (within a minute or so)?

Post by Richard Hachel
I beg you (vain hope) to understand this before criticizing something
that you have not previously understood.
R.H.

I do neither.

Please answer my simple questions.

If you ignore them yet again, I will ask you again.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel
stationary ones).

Your wristwatch and my wristwatch are both showing UTC + 1 hour.
To synchronise my wristwatch, I used this:  https://time.is/clock
How did you synchronise your wristwatch to show UTC + 1 hour, Richard?
You will ignore this, but I will ask you again.

You ignored my question, so I will ask again.

Post by Richard Hachel
Paul, Paul, I beg you to understand something.
There is no absolute simultaneity. To say that two events occurred at
the same time only makes sense locally and for ONE given observer.

Richard, I an not criticising you or your theory.
I am only asking simple questions I would like you to answer,
So please do.
Richard, you have a watch of some kind, haven't you?
How did you set your clock to show what it shows, so
that you can reach your bus or train at the right time?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock
on the wall of the railway station (within a minute or so)?

Post by Richard Hachel
I beg you (vain hope) to understand this before criticizing something
that you have not previously understood.
R.H.

I do neither.
Please answer my simple questions.
If you ignore them yet again, I will ask you again.

I have already answered all these questions, except that you do not read
my answers.
So we are in an insurmountable problem.
Especially since my posts are in French, and my pdfs in French.
There are of course French people, who should love Henri Poincaré and
Richard Hachel.
No! They love Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Why? Because they are
not French.
Those are the race below the race of toads. They hate their own culture
out of a desire to hate their own culture.
We have a good example here with the idiot "Python".
Who hates France and would love a cession of France into various entities,
must have a Breton entity.
So as soon as the scent of France is felt a little, he goes crazy.
I have already answered your questions many times. When you post pdfs, I
ask readers to read them carefully.
When I think I see inaccuracies, I explain them, and I try to correct it
(even the notion of integration which is incorrect in one of your pdf).
What more do you want to ask me?

R.H.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Richard, I an not criticising you or your theory.
I am only asking simple questions I would like you to answer,
So please do.
Richard, you have a watch of some kind, haven't you?
How did you set your clock to show what it shows, so
that you can reach your bus or train at the right time?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock
on the wall of the railway station (within a minute or so)?
If you ignore them yet again, I will ask you  again.

You have still not answered my questions, so I will ask again.

Post by Richard Hachel
I have already answered all these questions, except that you do not read
my answers.

The answers you repeat below?

Post by Richard Hachel
So we are in an insurmountable problem.
Especially since my posts are in French, and my pdfs in French.
There are of course French people, who should love Henri Poincaré and
Richard Hachel.
No! They love Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Why? Because they are
not French.
Those are the race below the race of toads. They hate their own culture
out of a desire to hate their own culture.
We have a good example here with the idiot "Python".
Who hates France and would love a cession of France into various
entities, must have a Breton entity.
So as soon as the scent of France is felt a little, he goes crazy.
I have already answered your questions many times. When you post pdfs, I
ask readers to read them carefully.
When I think I see inaccuracies, I explain them, and I try to correct it
(even the notion of integration which is incorrect in one of your pdf).

I don't understand your answers to my questions.

Post by Richard Hachel
What more do you want to ask me?

I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.

I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".

Here we go:

Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
'yes' or 'no', please!

Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
'yes' or 'no', please!

Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
'yes' or 'no', please!

Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
'yes' or 'no', please!

Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)

Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
'yes' or 'no', please!

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Richard, I an not criticising you or your theory.
I am only asking simple questions I would like you to answer,
So please do.
Richard, you have a watch of some kind, haven't you?
How did you set your clock to show what it shows, so
that you can reach your bus or train at the right time?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock
on the wall of the railway station (within a minute or so)?
If you ignore them yet again, I will ask you  again.

You have still not answered my questions, so I will ask again.

Post by Richard Hachel
I have already answered all these questions, except that you do not read
my answers.

The answers you repeat below?

Post by Richard Hachel
So we are in an insurmountable problem.
Especially since my posts are in French, and my pdfs in French.
There are of course French people, who should love Henri Poincaré and
Richard Hachel.
No! They love Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Why? Because they are
not French.
Those are the race below the race of toads. They hate their own culture
out of a desire to hate their own culture.
We have a good example here with the idiot "Python".
Who hates France and would love a cession of France into various
entities, must have a Breton entity.
So as soon as the scent of France is felt a little, he goes crazy.
I have already answered your questions many times. When you post pdfs, I
ask readers to read them carefully.
When I think I see inaccuracies, I explain them, and I try to correct it
(even the notion of integration which is incorrect in one of your pdf).

I don't understand your answers to my questions.

Post by Richard Hachel
What more do you want to ask me?

I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
'yes' or 'no', please

Everything you say is true.

So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.

The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a
synchronization process consists of in our universe.

When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a
single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given
place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in
the cosmos).

This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the
watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.

Breathe, blow.

This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature, and
will always remain so, but that the basic watch serves to give the whole a
false, but COHERENT system.

That is to say that we are dealing with a type M synchronization if you
follow what I wrote in French in my pdf.

In Einstein, the explanations do not exceed three lines, and in Poincaré
one line. This is not enough to understand, teach and explain what is
happening.

To understand, you have to reread what I wrote, calmly, neither too slowly
nor too quickly.

It is absolutely abnormal that I am told that we do not understand what is
said, when everything is clearly defined, even defined several times with
the most precise words possible.

pdf here ---> <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Richard Hachel
To understand, you have to reread what I wrote, calmly, neither too slowly
nor too quickly.

The O'l Great One has spoken.

Post by Richard Hachel
It is absolutely abnormal that I am told that we do not understand what is
said, when everything is clearly defined, even defined several times with
the most precise words possible.

You have to 'watch out' wit dis guy Richard Hachel, [WHISPER] He's a religious fanatic.


When Richard Hachel ses "... I am told that we do not understand..."

dats gangster religion. Religious scientists trying to indoctrinate the sciences with their gangster religion.



https://biblehub.com/luke/18-34.htm


"I am Oz, the Great and Terrible. Why do you seek me?"


'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.'



If I go to France, do you think dat Hachel Wizard will give me a brain???




With the thoughts you'd be thinkin' You could be another Lincoln If you only had a brain.





Hooray! We're off to see a Wizard!

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
  'yes' or 'no', please

Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.

OK. Thanks for a clear answer.

You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.

That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)

Post by Richard Hachel
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a
synchronization process consists of in our universe.
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a
single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given
place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in
the cosmos).

Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA

https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/

Post by Richard Hachel
This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the
watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.

It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.

Richard, I am in the real world.

I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:

https://time.is/clock

It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed time will be correct
within a second.

You answered yes to these questions:
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?

So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
(I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)

So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.

How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D

Post by Richard Hachel
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature,
and will always remain so,

You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?


Merry Christmas Richard.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
 'yes' or 'no', please

Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.

OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)

Post by Richard Hachel
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a
synchronization process consists of in our universe.
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a
single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given
place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in
the cosmos).

Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/

Post by Richard Hachel
This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the
watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.

It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
Richard, I am in the real world.
https://time.is/clock
It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed time will be correct
within a second.
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
(I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.
How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D

Post by Richard Hachel
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature,
and will always remain so,

You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
Merry Christmas Richard.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/

I synchronise my clock to the first 3 seconds of the big bang...

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
 'yes' or 'no', please

Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.

OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)

Post by Richard Hachel
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a
synchronization process consists of in our universe.
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a
single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given
place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in
the cosmos).

Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/

Post by Richard Hachel
This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the
watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.

It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
Richard, I am in the real world.
https://time.is/clock
It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed time will be correct
within a second.
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
(I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.
How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D

Post by Richard Hachel
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature,
and will always remain so,

You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
Merry Christmas Richard.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/

I synchronise my clock to the first 3 seconds of the big bang...

Well that's ignorant, both Big Bang and Steady State
are neither falsifiable, neither "scientific",
both merely exercises in tuning, furthermore
now it's stopped.


The JWST has roundly paint-canned expansion theory
and most of inflationary theory since it was already
for decades and decades that astronomy just has
only one variable "redshift" that redshift bias
is removable because of optical effects and now
all the old Cold Lambda have a sort of speculative
way of reading them.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
 'yes' or 'no', please

Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.

OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)

Post by Richard Hachel
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a
synchronization process consists of in our universe.
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a
single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given
place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in
the cosmos).

Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/

Post by Richard Hachel
This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the
watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.

It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
Richard, I am in the real world.
https://time.is/clock
It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed time will be correct
within a second.
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
(I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.
How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D

Post by Richard Hachel
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature,
and will always remain so,

You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
Merry Christmas Richard.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/

I synchronise my clock to the first 3 seconds of the big bang...

Well that's ignorant, both Big Bang and Steady State
are neither falsifiable, neither "scientific",
both merely exercises in tuning, furthermore
now it's stopped.
The JWST has roundly paint-canned expansion theory
and most of inflationary theory since it was already
for decades and decades that astronomy just has
only one variable "redshift" that redshift bias
is removable because of optical effects and now
all the old Cold Lambda have a sort of speculative
way of reading them.

You have to understand..

Time (as you know it) had it's beginging with space and time.


The first 3 seconds is universal time.


Local time is Einstien's Time.


In other words, you have your clock synchronized to a
Cuckoo clock that sits outside looking out of
Einstein'ts window.


Just take the first 3 seconds and add additional seconds until
you reach...Now. That would be the correct time...now.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
  'yes' or 'no', please

Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.

OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.

Of course, your idiot guru has forbidden that.
But even the hardest fanatics of The Shit
are not stupid enough to really treat the idiot
seriously.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
'yes' or 'no', please

Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.

OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)

Post by Richard Hachel
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what
a synchronization process consists of in our universe.
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a
single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a
given place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative
speed in the cosmos).

Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/

Post by Richard Hachel
This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the
watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.

It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
Richard, I am in the real world.
https://time.is/clock
It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed time will be correct
within a second.
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
(I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.
How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D

Post by Richard Hachel
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature,
and will always remain so,

You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
Merry Christmas Richard.

There are a lot more corrections to the clock,
the time-of-day, than is given in usual accounts.

"Zulu" time, say.

The "naval" observatory in Colorado,
..., the most land-locked state, ....


Heh, "Washington DC's latitude and longitude"
are known to vary.

Many long-running timekeeping apparatuses
do not agree, yet, clocks only ever slow or meet.


Then, the clock, as with regards to
time-of-day, terrestrial, are two different things.


Lattices of atomic clock lattive arrays
readily demonstrate space-contraction,
because of GR, not SR.

About light falling, or Pound-Rebka,
you'll notice it also falls "up".


Einstein in Einstein's Relativity
has a "the time", a clock hypothesis.

There are no closed time-like curves,
and furthermore never negative time,
as with regards to space contraction
and the differences space-contraction-linear
and space-contraction-rotational, which
may have experimental verification
readily defined.

GPS does operate on a principle of relativity -
it says how the clocks changed because of
presuming dead reckoning and comparing clocks,
figuring it's cheaper to keep the satellite
array synchronized than updating zillions
of ground-based receivers.

It's like "the JPL Ephemeris is constantly
updated according to detected clock changes
reflecting space-time continuum flexing,
it's called Parameterized Post-Newtonian".

Hey, have you heard that "Relativity of
Simultaneity is non-local"? It follows
from "SR is local", which is part of
Einstein's Relativity since Einstein
said so, which most people didn't notice.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
  'yes' or 'no', please

Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.

OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)

Post by Richard Hachel
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a
synchronization process consists of in our universe.
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a
single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given
place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in
the cosmos).

Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/

Post by Richard Hachel
This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the
watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.

It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
Richard, I am in the real world.
https://time.is/clock
It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed time will be correct
within a second.
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
(I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.
How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D

Post by Richard Hachel
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature,
and will always remain so,

You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
Merry Christmas Richard.

You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (it's been four
decades).

We breathe, we blow.

We have a little coffee, and we hold our heads in our hands.

WE CANNOT absolutely synchronize two watches with each other, because it
is physically impossible.

This is like saying: "draw me a round square".

We must therefore synchronize the two watches on a third virtual watch for
which the two events watch A marks noon, and watch B marks noon are
SIMULTANEOUS.

It is on the universal simultaneity of this abstract watch that physicists
build their usable universe.

This watch does not exist, it is virtual, although very useful.

I repeat it again and again, watches A and B cannot be tuned to each
other. If I agree A on B (I say that the two events A1 and B1 are
simultaneous) for A, but they will no longer be for B.

And so on for the entire universe.

A synchronization of type M is then necessary, and we imagine, without
realizing it, a point M placed very far away in a hypothetical fourth
dimension and at an equal distance from all points A, B, C, D, etc... of
the universe.

This point M has its own hyperplane of present time, in which all events
take place at the same instants and we note tM(e1)= tM(e2)=tM(e3)=etc...

And it is on this virtual point that we refer when synchronizing all the
watches.

Synchronizing the watches (let's breathe, let's blow) does not mean
"agreeing to say that all the watches mark noon at the same time", it is
grotesque, false, and absurd. This is NOT what it means. Believing this is
an idea as religious as it is false.

It simply means that for M, all events occurred at the same present
moment.

I repeat it again because it is so important, and because it is the very
basis of the theory of relativity well understood:
It simply means that for M, all events occurred at the same present
moment.

Paul, Paul, I beg you to understand this concept which, I know
unfortunately confuses 99.9% of those who read me.

Paul, Paul, I beg you to make an effort to understand, and to UNDERSTAND
the simple notion of universal anosochrony and the usefulness of this
abstract virtual watch that the whole world uses without understanding
that it is a useful watch, but virtual and that NEVER two events can be
RECIPROCALLY SIMULTANEOUS.

It is only by abstract convention that we use the notion of synchronized
watches.

If you understand French, you will see that I write in my pdf: "Just as
all consciousness is consciousness of something, all synchronization is
synchronization ON something". Here, it is the point M as described in my
pdf.

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?6s8YJGP42H0C-***@jntp/Data.Media:1> ---> direct acces here <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=6s8YJGP42H0C-***@jntp>

Merry Christmas for all.

R.H.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
'yes' or 'no', please

Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.

OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)

Post by Richard Hachel
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and
what a synchronization process consists of in our universe.
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on
a single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a
given place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative
speed in the cosmos).

Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/

Post by Richard Hachel
This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all
the watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.

It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
Richard, I am in the real world.
https://time.is/clock
It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed time will be correct
within a second.
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
(I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.
How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D

Post by Richard Hachel
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by
nature, and will always remain so,

You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
Merry Christmas Richard.

You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (it's been four
decades).
We breathe, we blow.
We have a little coffee, and we hold our heads in our hands.
WE CANNOT absolutely synchronize two watches with each other, because it
is physically impossible.
This is like saying: "draw me a round square".
We must therefore synchronize the two watches on a third virtual watch
for which the two events watch A marks noon, and watch B marks noon are
SIMULTANEOUS.
It is on the universal simultaneity of this abstract watch that
physicists build their usable universe.
This watch does not exist, it is virtual, although very useful.
I repeat it again and again, watches A and B cannot be tuned to each
other. If I agree A on B (I say that the two events A1 and B1 are
simultaneous) for A, but they will no longer be for B.
And so on for the entire universe.
A synchronization of type M is then necessary, and we imagine, without
realizing it, a point M placed very far away in a hypothetical fourth
dimension and at an equal distance from all points A, B, C, D, etc... of
the universe.
This point M has its own hyperplane of present time, in which all events
take place at the same instants and we note tM(e1)= tM(e2)=tM(e3)=etc...
And it is on this virtual point that we refer when synchronizing all the
watches.
Synchronizing the watches (let's breathe, let's blow) does not mean
"agreeing to say that all the watches mark noon at the same time", it is
grotesque, false, and absurd. This is NOT what it means. Believing this
is an idea as religious as it is false.
It simply means that for M, all events occurred at the same present moment.
I repeat it again because it is so important, and because it is the very
It simply means that for M, all events occurred at the same present moment.
Paul, Paul, I beg you to understand this concept which, I know
unfortunately confuses 99.9% of those who read me.
Paul, Paul, I beg you to make an effort to understand, and to UNDERSTAND
the simple notion of universal anosochrony and the usefulness of this
abstract virtual watch that the whole world uses without understanding
that it is a useful watch, but virtual and that NEVER two events can be
RECIPROCALLY SIMULTANEOUS.
It is only by abstract convention that we use the notion of synchronized
watches.
If you understand French, you will see that I write in my pdf: "Just as
all consciousness is consciousness of something, all synchronization is
synchronization ON something". Here, it is the point M as described in
my pdf.
---> direct acces here
Merry Christmas for all.
R.H.

This is science, we don't "understand" anything.

("Unnerstand, unnerstand, unnerstand ...?" No I do not.)

We may make a generous yet critical reading, ....

Christmas might be a little different this year
since the North Pole recently moved.

Clocks either procede, slow, or meet.

The fastest clock is at rest, ....

... and, every one observes each other
as were it each so.

Just because the Lorentzian is a Laplacian
with a "negative time term"

(x'' + y'' + z'') = 0 (Laplacian, harmonic, metric)

(x'' + y'' + z'') - t'' = s'', ..., = 0 (Lorentzian, metric)

because the invariant about electrodynamics
pretty much only needs such a term, and the
rotational in the kinematic makes one, -t'',
has that it's never negative so time only
slows, while mostly it's zero.

Then, that being only about the various exchanges
or transits of energy, and about the kinetic,
helps fix that various manufactured problems
are as of their own making, when really it's
that under-neath in the theory it's not a problem.


Besides that classical theories have a clock hypothesis,
where the classical theory is a continuum,
also Einstein's Relativity does, if not "popular Relativity".

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
  'yes' or 'no', please

Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.

OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)

Post by Richard Hachel
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and
what a synchronization process consists of in our universe.
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on
a single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a
given place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative
speed in the cosmos).

Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-
Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/

Post by Richard Hachel
This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all
the watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.

It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
Richard, I am in the real world.
https://time.is/clock
It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed  time will be correct
within a second.
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
(I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.
How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D

Post by Richard Hachel
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by
nature, and will always remain so,

You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
Merry Christmas Richard.

You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (it's been four
decades).
We breathe, we blow.
We have a little coffee, and we hold our heads in our hands.
WE CANNOT absolutely synchronize two watches with each other, because it
is physically impossible.
This is like saying: "draw me a round square".
We must therefore synchronize the two watches on a third virtual watch
for which the two events watch A marks noon, and watch B marks noon are
SIMULTANEOUS.
It is on the universal simultaneity of this abstract watch that
physicists build their usable universe.
This watch does not exist, it is virtual, although very useful.

It is important to notice, that time should be local, hence 'universal
simultineity' does not make sense.

It is actually a very important thing, that time is local, because you
could explain all kinds of observations with this assumption.

see here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

Post by Richard Hachel
I repeat it again and again, watches A and B cannot be tuned to each
other. If I agree A on B (I say that the two events A1 and B1 are
simultaneous) for A, but they will no longer be for B.

It is in fact possible to chose kind of 'mid-point-time' from M, in
which A and B-events are simulteinious.

The problem:

if you have more than two points to compare, this does not work, because
the midpoint of a triangle is not lying uopn its edjes.

IaW: the mid-point of a triangle ABC is not in the middle between any
two of the end-points.

This would exclude the possibility to generallize the mid-point-time
from M (in the middle between A and B) from above.


...


TH

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger
if you have more than two points to compare, this does not work, because
the midpoint of a triangle is not lying uopn its edjes.
IaW: the mid-point of a triangle ABC is not in the middle between any
two of the end-points.
This would exclude the possibility to generallize the mid-point-time
from M (in the middle between A and B) from above.
TH

It's not always easy, but I've always thought that we shouldn't state,
teach, or divulge scientific theories without a clear idea of ​​what
we're saying.

If I say that, I'll have the entire scientific community with me, and
they'll all cheer my words and say that since Newton and Poincaré, I'm
the greatest scientist to have lived on earth.

Except that if I ask them to apply the principle, they'll all run away
with their tails between their legs, from the best Nobel Prize winner to
the smallest sci.physics.relativity poser

We call that a contradiction.

So let's clearly explain what time dilation is (it's NOT AT ALL what is
taught). If we want a clearer idea and a better understanding of the
things we like to teach others, we should say: "chronotropy dilation".

This means that the internal mechanism of watches turns reciprocally less
quickly for an opposite watch (the one that is in the other frame of
reference).

This is what Dr. Richard Hachel calls the internal Doppler effect on
chronotropies.

It is very simple to understand.

The equation is known to all: To'=To/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

But what does this mean, which Dr. Hachel understands perfectly but
physicists do not?

This means that point M of frame of reference R is in a relativistic
chronotropy relationship with point M' of frame of reference R'.

Now, we must not forget that these points are abstract and virtual
creatures, and that they do not exist in nature.

It is the false belief in their real existence that has caused much damage
to modern physics. We confuse the time of watches (the one on this table,
the one down there in the rocket) with the time noted, that is to say the
relative internal chronotropy, by the abstract and virtual watches M and
M' resulting from our fanatical belief in the notion of absolute
simultaneity.

This is what led for 120 years to the extraordinary Langevin paradox,
which no one has ever been able to explain clearly.

Never.

Now, "we must say clear things".

We then come to make the statement: "The two watches of Stella and
Terrence beat reciprocally faster than the other watch" and we say:
"However, Stella comes back younger".

This is obviously doubly absurd, and for forty years, I have not ceased to
see physicists answer me that "if it is absurd, it is because I do not
understand".

Telling this to Richard Hachel is just one more absurdity, and showing
oneself to be particularly arrogant, grotesque, as well as idiotic.

Let's go back to our explanation.

And let's pay attention to the WORDS, to the fog of words.

We say: "For thirty years, Terrence will observe that Stella's watch will
beat less quickly, and for eighteen years, Stella will observe that
Terrence's watch beats less quickly".

There is a tremendous twist of the concept here. It is NOT Stella's or
Terrence's watch that beats less quickly than the other, it is the
chronotropy of point M relative to point M', and the chronotropy of point
M' relative to point M.

It is the confusion of concepts that causes a paradox that does not really
exist.
Chronotropy is not everything, we must also consider anisochrony.

Having a different INTERNAL chronotropy is not everything, we must also
consider external anisochrony, and the fact that two watches placed in
different places have different notions of simultaneity, and that,
logically, crossing spaces in the frame of reference of the other watch,
they modify their time a second time, and that we must add this
modification to the chronotropic effect.

We then find ourselves in a clearer, more logical theory, and
experimentally magnificently proven.

Only, we must clearly explain things.

Same thing with the relativistic zoom effect (physicists seem to me
incapable of understanding the elasticity of lengths and distances). This
is not normal.

It is unworthy of them.

If I say that down there, when Stella turns, and rushes back towards the
earth, there is a relativistic zoom effect for her, and that she SEES the
earth at 36 light years, since D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) if we
take D=12 and Vo=0.8c, they go crazy and start laughing.

They look like monkeys who have been thrown bananas, and that makes you
laugh.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
To synchronise my wristwatch, I used this: https://time.is/clock

Toute conscience est conscience de quelque chose.

Il n'existe pas de conscience qui ne soit conscience de rien.

Il n'existe pas non plus de carré rond, d'eau deshydratée, de blanc
écarlate.

De même qu'il n'existe pas de conscience qui ne soit conscience de
quelque chose, de savoir qui ne soit savoir de quelque chose (même si je
sais que je ne sais rien de la vie de Jean-Michel Affoinez, je sais que je
n'en sais rien), il n'existe pas de synchronisation absolue, même (et
surtout) dans un univers stationnaire.

Il faut donc synchroniser sur un biais, biais utile, mais abstrait.

L'heure universelle des physiciens et des astrophysiciens (le temps
présent local) est une construction
intellectuelle abstraite, visant à donner une étiquette aux choses.

Mais cette étiquette est basée sur un observateur abstrait.

Lorsque ta montre marque 12:23'45" et 444458723 ns et que la mienne
marque aussi 12:23'45" et 444458723 ns,
c'est une erreur de penser que cet instant est simultané pour moi et pour
toi, et réciproquement.

Que nous vivons dans le même instant présent (idée a priori tenace).

Non, cela veut simplement dire que pour un point M virtuel, placé
idéalement très loin dans une quatrième dimension spatiale, nos deux
montres sont accordées, et que les deux événements sont simultanés.

Mais ta montre n'est pas pour moi accordée sur la tienne, ni l'inverse.

Le point M est ce fédérateur extérieur abstrait qui permet une
synchronisation cohérente, mais rien de plus.

J'ai expliqué cela cent fois.

Le reste n'est que refus de gens qui ont des comportements scientifiques
bêtes à pleurer.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Sylvia Else
Einstein defined the the word precisely, in the sense in which he used
it in his analysis. Since it is a definition, it needs only be applied.
As it happens, his definition is very easy to understand, though nothing
turns on that.
Sylvia.

Einstein does not define anything at all. For the speed of light, Einstein
postulates that it is invariant, but he does not explain WHY.
Hachel explains it.
The whole world is then taken with fear in front of such intelligence, and
is afraid that Hachel, blessed be He, may the peace of Aôôôllah be upon
him, is considered a luminary in the power of thought.
What a bunch of idiots men are!
Einstein postulates that to synchronize two watches, it is enough to send
them a signal. LOL.
Hachel, blessed be He, peace be upon him, may he taste the paradise of
Aôôôllah in the company of 72 eternal virgins, explains that watches
are all insynchronizable, that they can never be synchronized, because it
is the nature of space-time to be "like that".
He explains that this interesting but abstract synchronization consists in
synchronizing on a point M outside our three-dimensional space, and placed
virtually at an equal distance from all the points composing a given frame
of reference.

Hachel, peace be upon him, may Aôôôllah invite him to taste his
paradise and his 72 houris for intense sexual pleasures, is rewriting the
theory of relativity by taking up its bases and explanations, to give a
simpler and clearer vision, freed from all paradoxes and errors (the way
scientists teach accelerated and rotating frames of reference is truly
shameful).

No, no, no, we must not say that Eisntein defines things well.

Not only is it false, but it also prevents us from looking further and
discovering another truth.

Il you can read french text without hatred and with interest, I explain
the things here :

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?IXvZ3BOW3q3Gj3IwlW-1rMcg-***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Sylvia Else
Einstein defined the the word precisely, in the sense in which he used
it in his analysis. Since it is a definition, it needs only be applied.
As it happens, his definition is very easy to understand, though nothing
turns on that.
Sylvia.

Einstein does not define anything at all. For the speed of light, Einstein
postulates that it is invariant, but he does not explain WHY.
Hachel explains it.
The whole world is then taken with fear in front of such intelligence, and
is afraid that Hachel, blessed be He, may the peace of Aôôôllah be upon
him, is considered a luminary in the power of thought.
What a bunch of idiots men are!
Einstein postulates that to synchronize two watches, it is enough to send
them a signal. LOL.
Hachel, blessed be He, peace be upon him, may he taste the paradise of
Aôôôllah in the company of 72 eternal virgins, explains that watches
are all insynchronizable, that they can never be synchronized, because it
is the nature of space-time to be "like that".
He explains that this interesting but abstract synchronization consists in
synchronizing on a point M outside our three-dimensional space, and placed
virtually at an equal distance from all the points composing a given frame
of reference.

Hachel, peace be upon him, may Aôôôllah invite him to taste his
paradise and his 72 houris for intense sexual pleasures, is rewriting the
theory of relativity by taking up its bases and explanations, to give a
simpler and clearer vision, freed from all paradoxes and errors (the way
scientists teach accelerated and rotating frames of reference is truly
shameful).

No, no, no, we must not say that Eisntein defines things well.

Not only is it false, but it also prevents us from looking further and
discovering another truth.

Il you can read french text without hatred and with interest, I explain
the things here :

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?kQ0LSPYPi-***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Sylvia Else
Einstein defined the the word precisely, in the sense in which he used
it in his analysis. Since it is a definition, it needs only be applied.
As it happens, his definition is very easy to understand, though
nothing turns on that.
Sylvia.

Einstein does not define anything at all. For the speed of light,
Einstein postulates that it is invariant, but

But even such an idiot was unable to stick to such
an idiocy for a long time and his GR shit had to
withdraw.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Sylvia Else
Einstein defined the the word precisely, in the sense in which he used
it in his analysis. Since it is a definition, it needs only be applied.
As it happens, his definition is very easy to understand, though
nothing turns on that.
Sylvia.

Einstein does not define anything at all. For the speed of light,

That was a quick segue from synchronisation. I wonder why.

Post by Richard Hachel
Einstein postulates that it is invariant, but he does not explain WHY.

That's how things run with postulates.

Sylvia.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Sylvia Else
That was a quick segue from synchronisation. I wonder why.

Post by Richard Hachel
Einstein postulates that it is invariant, but he does not explain WHY.

That's how things run with postulates.

I hear you.

That's why it's called a postulate.

For example: we can postulate that a wooden ball falls at the same speed
as an iron ball, and that in a vacuum, a feather falls as fast as a lead
ball.

That's a postulate.

But it doesn't explain WHY.

Einstein doesn't know why, nor does Poincaré for that matter, the speed
of light is constant by change of frame of reference. He just POSTULATES.

That shows (it's very violent to say it, but that's how it is) that
Einstein didn't understand RR as well as people say, because he is unable
to explain why this fact exists.

As for his method of synchronization, it is just two lines to explain that
tA'-tA=2AB/c (which is true) and therefore that tB-tA=tA'-tB=AB/c but by
omitting to say WHO takes the measurement of that, that is to say by
believing that it is everyone. However, this is false for almost all the
points constituting the reference frame, and it is only true for any point
located solely on the median plane of the segment AB.

Einstein lies by default. But saying this today constitutes a
revolutionary act.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Sylvia Else
That was a quick segue from synchronisation. I wonder why.
 > Einstein postulates that it is invariant, but he does not explain WHY.
That's how things run with postulates.

I hear you.
That's why it's called a postulate.
For example: we can postulate that a wooden ball falls at the same speed
as an iron ball, and that in a vacuum, a feather falls as fast as a lead
ball.
That's a postulate.
But it doesn't explain WHY.
Einstein doesn't know why, nor does Poincaré for that matter, the speed
of light is constant by change of frame of reference. He just POSTULATES.

Even such an idiot, however, was unable to
stick to THAT idiocy for a long time and
in his GR shit he had to withdraw.

[Python]

Le 17/12/2024 à 11:45, Richard Hachel a écrit :
..

Post by Richard Hachel
As for his method of synchronization, it is just two lines to explain that
tA'-tA=2AB/c (which is true) and therefore that tB-tA=tA'-tB=AB/c but by omitting
to say WHO takes the measurement of that, that is to say by believing that it is
everyone.

Not at all. There is NO ambiguity. tA and t'A are measured by clock A (for
events that happen there), tB is measured by clock B (for an event that
happens there too).

And, obvisously, the fact that "clock X measure tX for an event happening
there" is the same fact for everyone. Only fools of your kind can pretend
that 1 + 1 = 3 for some observers.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
Not at all. There is NO ambiguity. tA and t'A are measured by clock A (for
events that happen there), tB is measured by clock B (for an event that happens
there too).
And, obvisously, the fact that "clock X measure tX for an event happening there"
is the same fact for everyone. Only fools of your kind can pretend that 1 + 1 = 3
for some observers.

Will you stop being an idiot?

Le crétin, c'est toi.

Il y a des choses pour lesquelles il n'y a pas d'ambiguïtés ; et
d'autres pour lesquelles il peut y avoir des ambiguïtés.

Tu dis que tA et tA' sont mesurés par l'horloge A, tu as raison.

Tu dis que tA'-tA=2AB/c et tu as raison.

Tu dis que tB est mesuré par l'horloge B (plus précisément tB(e2) en
notation Hachel), et tu as raison.

Tu dis qu'il n'y a là aucune ambiguïté.

Mais comme toujours tu oublies mon immense génie, et ta folie furieuse.

1. Je n'ai pas dit le contraire.

2. Tu travestis ma pensée en me faisant dire ce que je n'ai pas dit. Je
n'ai jamais dit que ce que marquait une montre lors d'un événement
conjoint était relatif par changement d'observateur.

Cela reviendrait à dire que si le train entre en gare de Marseille à
12h00 sur l'horloge de la gare,
un observateur très lointain observe bien le train entrer en gare, mais
voit qu'il est 16h45 sur l'horloge de la gare.

C'est absurde.

J'ai toujours dit qu'un événement conjoint était conjoint pour tous
les observateurs de l'univers quelque soit leur vitesse, leur direction,
et le type de leur référentiel (galiléen, accéléré, chaotiques, ou
tournants).

L'entré en gare du train, et au même endroit (la gare) une horloge qui
marque 12h00 constitue un événement conjoint.

C'est ce que je dis.

Maintenant il est possible que TOI tu comprennes autre chose.

Mais c'est TON problème.

Je crois que tu as très bien compris la notion de relativité de la
chronotropie par changement de référentiel inertiel, et le fait que deux
montres placées dans des référentiels différents, battent à des
rythmes différents (chacune bât plus vite que l'autre, ce qui est un
effet réel dû à la perspective).

Cela tu l'as compris.

Par contre la notion d'anisochronie universelle, tu ne sembles toujours
pas l'avoir comprise,
puisque tu me fais dire des trucs aberrants.

Mais c'est pas ça que j'ai dit! C'est pas ça que j'ai DIT !!!

Réfléchis cinq minutes, bordel.

Relis attentivement ce que j'ai écrit ici, chapitre 1 et 2. Prends du
café avant si possible, car je vois que tu as du mal.

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
Not at all. There is NO ambiguity. tA and t'A are measured by clock A (for
events that happen there), tB is measured by clock B (for an event that happens
there too).
And, obvisously, the fact that "clock X measure tX for an event happening there"
is the same fact for everyone. Only fools of your kind can pretend that 1 + 1 = 3
for some observers.

Will you stop being an idiot?
Le crétin, c'est toi.

You've, so far, proven the opposite. You are a idiot.

Post by Richard Hachel
Il y a des choses pour lesquelles il n'y a pas d'ambiguïtés ; et d'autres pour
lesquelles il peut y avoir des ambiguïtés.
Tu dis que tA et tA' sont mesurés par l'horloge A, tu as raison.
Tu dis que tA'-tA=2AB/c et tu as raison.

I didn't say that. It can be the case or not. The POINT is that if it is
the case, it is the case. Everyone agrees on that. And that if is not the
case then everyone agrees on that.

Same for tB - tA = t'A - tB it is either true or false for everyone.

Post by Richard Hachel
Tu dis que tB est mesuré par l'horloge B (plus précisément tB(e2) en notation
Hachel), et tu as raison.
Tu dis qu'il n'y a là aucune ambiguïté.
Mais comme toujours tu oublies mon immense génie, et ta folie furieuse.
1. Je n'ai pas dit le contraire.
2. Tu travestis ma pensée en me faisant dire ce que je n'ai pas dit. Je n'ai
jamais dit que ce que marquait une montre lors d'un événement conjoint était
relatif par changement d'observateur.

It is your words : "but by omitting to say WHO takes the measurement of
that".

There is no admission : an observer at A measures time shown on clock A
for two events, an observer at B measures time shown on another clock at
another event.

Clocks can show any values, nothing is supposed than they tick at the same
rate.

I wrote an application to show this that can be understood by 7 years old
children :

https://noedge.net/e/

Post by Richard Hachel
Cela reviendrait à dire que si le train entre en gare de Marseille à 12h00
sur l'horloge de la gare,
un observateur très lointain observe bien le train entrer en gare, mais voit
qu'il est 16h45 sur l'horloge de la gare.
C'est absurde.

You missed the point that the procedure is not supposing that the clock
are synchronized in any way, as my application illustrates. Then if the
checking procedure involving ONLY tA, tB, t'A concludes that clocks A and
B are NOT synchronized you can compute the offset to apply, at your
choice, to A, to B or to both.

Post by Richard Hachel
[snip remaining demented bullshit]

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Richard Hachel
Tu dis que tA'-tA=2AB/c et tu as raison.

I didn't say that. It can be the case or not. The POINT is that if it is the
case, it is the case. Everyone agrees on that. And that if is not the case then
everyone agrees on that.
Same for tB - tA = t'A - tB it is either true or false for everyone.

This is necessarily true, and this is an experimental fact.
You yourself said that what watch A noted was invariant by change of
observer.
I added that it was a joint event (the signal leaves when A displays tA,
and returns when A displays tA').

A joint event is a joint event for all observers in the universe. I cannot
see, if I photograph from a distance, a clock that marks something other
than what it marks at this moment.

Similarly, the duration e(3)-(e1) will be the same for all observers in
the frame of reference, it is only for observers placed in other frames of
reference that the duration will be modified, since the chronotropy is
modified there, and that, moreover, the return of the signal is not in the
same place, which leads to a double correction.

But that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the fact that if
we practice a type M synchronization, the events will not take place at
the same time on the other observer's watch.

Of course the train enters the station at noon, on the local watch, but on
the distant watch, if it SEES that the station watch is showing noon
(otherwise it's absurd), this distant watch does not show noon, but noon
and one second (it is 3.10^8 meters away).

We'll say: yes, but it's the transfer of the signal that added a second.

Dying of laughter...

In short, "they still haven't understood the principle".

It's sad.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Richard Hachel
Tu dis que tA'-tA=2AB/c et tu as raison.

I didn't say that. It can be the case or not. The POINT is that if it is the
case, it is the case. Everyone agrees on that. And that if is not the case then
everyone agrees on that.
Same for tB - tA = t'A - tB it is either true or false for everyone.

This is necessarily true

So why don't you stop suggesting otherwise by claiming that it is not said
for who "A marks tA/t'A" or "B marks tB"?

Are you playing being an idiot or are really an idiot? (I know the
answer).

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Richard Hachel
This is necessarily true

So why don't you stop suggesting otherwise by claiming that it is not said for
who "A marks tA/t'A" or "B marks tB"?
Are you playing being an idiot or are really an idiot? (I know the answer).

But that's not true, damn it...

He still hasn't understood.

I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER watch.

If when my watch says NOON when I hit that tree on the side of the road,
it's obvious that all observers in the universe will understand that MY
watch says noon at that moment of impact.

MY watch.

Breathe, blow, I'll say it again: "MY watch says noon".

It's not hard to understand, it's at kindergarten level, and even little
Stephanie, who is six years old and in CP,
she understands it.

That's one thing.

But now the tremendous slap in the face will come quickly, and we go from
CP (6 years old) to Bac+15.

On other watches, even perfectly tuned according to the Eisntein
procedure, which is a type M procedure (described by Hachel), it is NOT
noon.

In their own hyperplane of simultaneity, they consider that at this
present moment for them, MY watch is indeed marking noon, but NOT theirs.

Okay, are you starting to see the concept of universal anisochrony by
positional change?

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Richard Hachel
This is necessarily true

So why don't you stop suggesting otherwise by claiming that it is not said for
who "A marks tA/t'A" or "B marks tB"?
Are you playing being an idiot or are really an idiot? (I know the answer).

But that's not true, damn it...
He still hasn't understood.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER watch.
[snip irrelevant rant]

Richard the discussion here is about Einstein's procedure, not your bunch
of nonsense.

You made a claim about this procedure that is a plain lie.

End Of Story.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
This is necessarily true

So why don't you stop suggesting otherwise by claiming that it is not
said for who "A marks tA/t'A" or "B marks tB"?
Are you playing being an idiot or are really an idiot? (I know the answer).

But that's not true, damn it...
He still hasn't understood.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER watch.
If when my watch says NOON when I hit that tree on the side of the road,
it's obvious that all observers in the universe will understand that MY
watch says noon at that moment of impact.

--------------------------

When they find out about it.

[Python]

Le 17/12/2024 à 18:50, Richard Hachel a écrit :
..

Similarly, the duration e(3)-(e1) will be the same for all observers in the
frame of reference, it is only for observers placed in other frames of reference
that the duration will be modified, since the chronotropy is modified there, and
that, moreover, the return of the signal is not in the same place, which leads to
a double correction.

The duration between event e3 and e1 is not involved in the procedure. As
a matter of fact it cannot even be known at that stage. Only tA, t'A and
tB are know. PERIOD.

But that's not what I'm talking about,

Neither do I.

I'm talking about the fact that if we practice a type M synchronization,

There is no such thing as "M" in the procedure. Stop making up stuff.

the events will not take place at the same time on the other observer's watch.

Nothing of that kind is involved in the procedure. As a matter of fact
such an expression does not even make sense at that stage.

[snip more diversion]
Dying of laughter...

You'd better die of shame.

In short, "they still haven't understood the principle".

In short, you haven't still understand the procedure. Even with an
application showing it in practice.

It's sad.

That you are un incurable idiot, liar and hypocrite. Sure.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Richard Hachel
2. Tu travestis ma pensée en me faisant dire ce que je n'ai pas dit. Je n'ai
jamais dit que ce que marquait une montre lors d'un événement conjoint était
relatif par changement d'observateur.

It is your words : "but by omitting to say WHO takes the measurement of that".
There is no admission : an observer at A measures time shown on clock A for two
events, an observer at B measures time shown on another clock at another event.
Clocks can show any values, nothing is supposed than they tick at the same rate.

But both evolve at the same rate!

Otherwise it's absurd.

Breathe, blow...

I'll start again (breathe, blow, it's going to be okay, the good doctor
Hachel is here).

Watch A and watch B are in the same inertial frame of reference.

They are stationary.

Simply separated by a distance x=AB=3.10^8m.

There is no reason why they should not beat at the same rate.

Which translates also means "they have the same chronotropy" or their
internal mechanism beats at the same rate, and there is no reason to
imagine any internal Doppler effect between them.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Richard Hachel
2. Tu travestis ma pensée en me faisant dire ce que je n'ai pas dit. Je n'ai
jamais dit que ce que marquait une montre lors d'un événement conjoint était
relatif par changement d'observateur.

It is your words : "but by omitting to say WHO takes the measurement of that".
There is no admission : an observer at A measures time shown on clock A for two
events, an observer at B measures time shown on another clock at another event.
Clocks can show any values, nothing is supposed than they tick at the same rate.

But both evolve at the same rate!

You definitely have a huge cognitive dissonance Richard. Responding to any
claim
by "But ... the same claim ..." is a sign of a mental problem.

" - Ce ciel est bleu"
- Mais ce ciel est bleu"

Il est temps de consulter, depuis longtemps.

[Richard Hachel]

You missed the point that the procedure is not supposing that the clock are
synchronized in any way, as my application illustrates. Then if the checking
procedure involving ONLY tA, tB, t'A concludes that clocks A and B are NOT
synchronized you can compute the offset to apply, at your choice, to A, to B or to
both.

Je vois que tu n'as toujours pas compris ce que je tente de te dire.

C'est hallucinant.

Mais c'est pas de ça que je parle!

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

You missed the point that the procedure is not supposing that the clock are
synchronized in any way, as my application illustrates. Then if the checking
procedure involving ONLY tA, tB, t'A concludes that clocks A and B are NOT
synchronized you can compute the offset to apply, at your choice, to A, to B or to
both.

Je vois que tu n'as toujours pas compris ce que je tente de te dire.
C'est hallucinant.
Mais c'est pas de ça que je parle!

From the very beginning the thread is about Einstein-Poincaré
synchronisation procedure.

You very first post in the thread was about Einstein-Poincaré
synchronisation procedure. You even used the labels tA, t'A, tB which are
involved in this very procedure.

So you are LYING when pretending NOW that you weren't talking about that.

You are a damn liar, hypocrite and idiot, Lengrand.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Richard Hachel
[snip remaining demented bullshit]

You lie.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python
..

Post by Richard Hachel
As for his method of synchronization, it is just two lines to explain
that tA'-tA=2AB/c (which is true) and therefore that tB-tA=tA'-tB=AB/c
but by omitting to say WHO takes the measurement of that, that is to
say by believing that it is everyone.

Not at all. There is NO ambiguity. tA and t'A are measured by clock A

And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[Mikko]

Post by Richard Hachel
It seems that no one has clearly understood the "relativistic problem",
and what a "relativistic synchronization method" is.

If we say that both "relativistic problem" and "relativistic synchronization
method" are expressions that are intended to sound profoundly meaningful but
don't actually mean anything, isn't that close enough of understanding?

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko
If we say that both "relativistic problem" and "relativistic synchronization
method" are expressions that are intended to sound profoundly meaningful but
don't actually mean anything, isn't that close enough of understanding?
Mikko

If you want to be understood, you have to say clear things and fair
things.

Some things are clear, but they are not fair.

Some things are fair, but they are not clear.

Some things are both unclear and not right at all (for example the way
Paul B. Andersen calculates the duration of an accelerated trip to Tau
Ceti. It is not very clear (introduction of an unnecessary and
theoretically false integration), and the result is wrong.
He finds a very short proper time, while the correct calculation is
tau=4.76 years (x=12al, a=10m/s²).

But with Dr. Richard Hachel, the problem is human, not semantic. "We do
not want this man to reign over us".

Thus, if I talk about anisochrony, dilation of chronotropies, radial
contraction of disks, immediately, I am told that I am not understood.

It is then very obvious that the problem is entirely moral, and not at all
scientific. "Doctor Hachel, we REFUSE to understand something, and what
does it matter if it is true that a seven-year-old child could
understand".

"Relativistic synchronization method". I am told: "We don't understand". A
seven-year-old child understands: "It is a basic method for synchronizing
watches and which will be used to study the theory of relativity and its
consequences".

The question is therefore moral: what is happening? Where does all this
human madness come from which wants science to have its Gods, its
prophets, and that we must above all not speak of anything else, or in
other terms than what has already been said, even if it is full of
paradoxes, misunderstandings, and grotesqueries?

To say that a relativistic rotating disk contracts its circumference is
logical. To say that its radius remains invariant, and that the figure
obtained is an abstract thing which does not exist in our natural spatial
representations, is grotesque.

But I repeat, the most grotesque of all this is the immense human
stupidity that pees in its pants, as soon as people like me talk about
sociology, theology, science, medicine or criminology.

And that, don't laugh my friends, it's the story of my life.

R.H.

[Mikko]

Post by Mikko
If we say that both "relativistic problem" and "relativistic synchronization
method" are expressions that are intended to sound profoundly meaningful but
don't actually mean anything, isn't that close enough of understanding?
Mikko

If you want to be understood, you have to say clear things and fair things.

No, the you must say the things you want to be understood, whether they
are clear and fair or not.

If your intent were to be understood you would need to say clearly whatever
you want to be understood.

But with Dr. Richard Hachel, the problem is human, not semantic. "We do
not want this man to reign over us".

True, we don't want you to reign over us. We don't consider it a problem
because we don't expect hit to be able. If you want to reign over us you
have a big problem.

Thus, if I talk about anisochrony, dilation of chronotropies, radial
contraction of disks, immediately, I am told that I am not understood.

You are not understood because you can't talk about them in Common Language.
When you talk about yourself we understand but are not interested.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko
You are not understood because you can't talk about them in Common Language.

Is this a joke?

R.H.