Space-time interval (2)

[Richard Hachel]

The notion of space-time interval should be abandoned because it is
complex and leads to nothing, except final errors.
What is the space-time interval?
A metric, measured in meters.
It is mostly an abstract thing that is not very useful.
So we set ds²=dl²-c²t².
Why and for WHAT?
For nothing.
For fun.
Hachel notation is much more practical, because it does not need the
notion of complexes to establish a perfect Pythagoreanism.
Hachel does not speak, because he is an immense genius, of the notion of
space-time interval, ridiculous and abstract, and he does not use meters,
but seconds. That is to say the units of TIME.
This is much more practical because from the invariance of ds, which we
always wonder what it is, and what it can represent in nature, Hachel goes
to the invariance of proper times. It is much simpler and more practical.
A proper time is always invariant because it is a tautology, a truism.

Hachel then poses Tr²=To²-Et² and speaks in seconds, where physicists
stupidly pose -ds²=-To².c²+dl² and speak in meters.

Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²
Let's pose Tr²=-ds².c² and everything becomes much simpler and much
more practical.

To²=Tr²+Et²

Pythagoreanism is perfect.

In plain language: In a frame of reference, the square of the observable
time is equal to the square of the proper time of the mobile implemented
by the square
of the anisochrony taken into account.

Practical example:
A terrestrial observer in a rocket that will travel for 15 years at 0.8c.
He will therefore age 15 years.
Will the person in the rocket also age 15 years?
We set To²=Tr²+Et²
Hence Tr²=To²-Et²=15²-12²=81
Tr=9 years.

Simplicity is disconcerting.

In general, we don't like it too much.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Richard Hachel
The notion of space-time interval should be abandoned because it is
complex and leads to nothing, except final errors.
What is the space-time interval?
A metric, measured in meters.

Measured? Get conscious. Have you
ever measured interval? Do you know
someone who did?

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel
The notion of space-time interval should be abandoned because it is
complex and leads to nothing, except final errors.

This is your typical mantra : you read a few popular science stuff,
too quickly and nothing more, then you fail to understand the point
and put up some fancy idea out of your *ss and as you are a stuffed
shirt pompous imbecile you will brag about it for years.

Could you consider once to actually take time to *read* papers,
articles, courses, whatever and *think* instead of acting like
a wanker with your very small pee-pee?

Post by Richard Hachel
What is the space-time interval?
A metric, measured in meters.

Meters, furlong, inches, it doesn't matter.

It is a number associated to a pair of events with dimension
of a length.

Post by Richard Hachel
It is mostly an abstract thing that is not very useful.

"abstract" means "Richard Lengrand does not understand". For the
rest of us abstraction is a virtue of intelligence.

Post by Richard Hachel
So we set ds²=dl²-c²t².
Why and for WHAT?
For nothing.
For fun.

No, because an invariant scalar quantity is what allow to do
geometry on top of coordinates systems.

Post by Richard Hachel
Hachel notation is much more practical, because it does not need the
notion of complexes to establish a perfect Pythagoreanism.

"pythagoreanism" is a meaningless word.

There is no need for complex numbers when it comes to space-time
interval. But even if it would, what the problem? You do have issues
with basic math, including complex numbers, this is none of our
business.

Post by Richard Hachel
[snip nonsensical wanking]
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²

No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2. For some kind of pairs of event
it could be equal to c^2 dt^2 but not for all. I tried (in vain)
to explain this to you on f.s.p.

Post by Richard Hachel
Let's pose Tr²=-ds².c² and everything becomes much simpler and much more
practical.

It is not simpler, it is not practical. And it is FALSE.

Post by Richard Hachel
Simplicity is disconcerting.
In general, we don't like it too much.

No we don't like contradictions and fallacies. You do.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²

No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.

LOL.

Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²

If ds²=-Tr²c²

then -Tr²c²=dl²-c²t²

also, -Tr²=dl²/c² -t²

And t²=dl²/c²+Tr²

When To²=Et²+Tr²

T'euh qu'un bouffon, LOL.

Un guignol.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²

No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.

LOL.

You'd better read about your own stupidity, Lengrand.

Post by Richard Hachel
Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²

It doesn't matter, it is a matter of convention (+ + + -) or (- + + +)

Post by Richard Hachel
If ds²=-Tr²c²

If by Tr you intend a proper time \tau it may or *not* be
possible to find a frame of reference where ds = -\tau^2 c^2.
It is impossible for space-like intervals.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²

No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.

LOL.
Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²

https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²

No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.

LOL.
Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²

https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.

There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations that
are incorrect.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to do a thorough search, and to circle in
red everything that is wrong and tell you why.
Anyway, it would be useless, and I no longer have the courage (I'm old,
you know now) to want at all costs to give water to donkeys that are not
thirsty.
I post here for fun, but I don't want to exhaust myself gesticulating in
the void anymore.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²

No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.

LOL.
Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²

https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.

There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to do a thorough search, and to circle
in red everything that is wrong and tell you why.

All equations in Paul's article are labelled, you don't have to
draw red circles on them in order to reference them.

Post by Richard Hachel
Anyway, it would be useless, and I no longer have the courage (I'm old,
you know now) to want at all costs to give water to donkeys that are not
thirsty.

This is quite a pathetic excuse for not accepting being proven wrong.
Which is what happened.

Post by Richard Hachel
I post here for fun, but I don't want to exhaust myself gesticulating in
the void anymore.

What about the dozens of conspirationist racist rants you post on Usenet
every day? Is it for fun too?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²

No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.

LOL.
Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²

https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.

There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to do a thorough search, and to
circle in red everything that is wrong and tell you why.

All equations in Paul's article are labelled, you don't have to
draw red circles on them in order to reference them.

Post by Richard Hachel
Anyway, it would be useless, and I no longer have the courage (I'm
old, you know now) to want at all costs to give water to donkeys that
are not thirsty.

This is quite a pathetic excuse for not accepting being proven wrong.
Which is what happened.

Don't push him hard, when you were proven
that the mumble of your idiot guru was
not even consistent you could only
answer with a stream of wild insults
and slanders.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
All equations in Paul's article are labelled,

Yes.

But not by me.

Not all his equations.

R.H.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.

There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.

I think you know that all are correct according to SR.

Post by Richard Hachel
Unfortunately, I don't have time to do a thorough search, and to circle
in red everything that is wrong and tell you why.
Anyway, it would be useless, and I no longer have the courage (I'm old,
you know now) to want at all costs to give water to donkeys that are not
thirsty.

You are right, I am not interested in why you claim SR is wrong,
but you keep carrying water to the donkey anyway.

Post by Richard Hachel
I post here for fun, but I don't want to exhaust myself gesticulating in
the void anymore.

So you have given up gesticulating about universal anisochrony
and why that makes it impossible to have synchronous clocks
in Oslo and Paris?

Try to explain it again?

|> Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
|>>
|>> You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
|>> are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
|>> showing UTC + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
|>> synchronous.
|>>
|>> Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
|>> (To within few seconds|
|

|> Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
|>> But I keep explaining it to you.
|>>
|>> This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.
|>>
|>> This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time”
|>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
|>> logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.
|>>

Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second.

I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on
the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when
the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is
L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km

v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h

Please explain why this is not a real speed
in the ground frame.

Richard, will you flee yet again? :-D

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel
There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.

I think you know that all are correct according to SR.

Absolutely.

That's what I said.

Your equations are very beautiful and they fit perfectly with the SR.
The problem is neither you nor your equations.
The problem is the German school that has taken over French thought
(Einstein, Minkowski) to teach a falsely seductive doctrine.
The devil never gives credit, and always, always, always, his intervention
is ultra-fast. It is a universal law.
We had the same thing in theology with the coming of Jesus Christ. Saint
Paul did not wait to come and disgust everything and create the Christian
religion, an abstract thing of redemption by stupid, blind, and abstract
faith, having nothing more to do with the original doctrine.
So yes, your equations are very beautiful, and they fit very well with the
RR, as the gospels fit very well with the thought of Saint Paul.
But in there, half of the concepts are false or manipulated.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
You are right, I am not interested in why you claim SR is wrong,
but you keep carrying water to the donkey anyway.

So I thank you for your patience and tolerance.
I remind you that this is not the case for all the speakers who have
epileptic seizures as soon as I explain something or ask for some small
practical exercises (the Traveler of Langevin, the traveler of Ta Ceti).
Not to mention the insults, threats, professional defamation, and
denunciations.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
So you have given up gesticulating about universal anisochrony
and why that makes it impossible to have synchronous clocks
in Oslo and Paris?
Try to explain it again?
|>>
|>> You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
|>> are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
|>> showing UTC + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
|>> synchronous.
|>>
|>> Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
|>> (To within few seconds|
|
|> Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
|>> But I keep explaining it to you.
|>>
|>> This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.
|>>
|>> This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time”
|>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
|>> logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.
|>>
Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on
the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when
the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is
L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km
v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h
Please explain why this is not a real speed
in the ground frame.
Richard, will you flee yet again? :-D

No, no, I am not trying to escape. I have forty years of relativistic
concepts behind me, and I have a perfect grasp of how things should be
taught.
There are several keys to understanding RR, and either none of these keys
are understood, or they are half understood, and that is not satisfactory.
The first key, which is absolutely necessary to open the theory, is the
notion of universal anisochrony.
This made a lot of people laugh 40 years ago, because people did not
understand this term, nor what I meant by it.
Today, it is a little less funny, and many ask me to explain it in a
simple way, because the concept, although elementary, is not obvious to
everyone.
What is universal anisochrony?
It is a property of space, just as universal gravitation is a property of
bodies.
This means that the notion of absolute universal present is an abstract
thought.
There is no present moment at this moment that is at the level of a planet
that orbits Altair, for example, and that corresponds reciprocally to my
present moment.
In short, the notion of a flat present does not exist.
It is a thought anchored in man (like the flat earth before), but which is
only a human a priori.
Strangely, this simple idea, which corresponds perfectly to an intelligent
physics, is abandoned by men, while they understand very well a more
difficult concept which is the relativity of the internal chronotropy of
watches by change of inertial reference (gamma factor).

We come back to Paris, and to Oslo.

There is therefore a natural anisochrony between Paris and Oslo.

There is no "flat present", "horizontal plane of present time" between
Paris and Oslo. I repeat, it is useless, false and abstract.

So there is a natural, irreversible gap between the two. If we synchronize
the watches on Paris, an event that will occur in Oslo will not exist for
Paris.

An event that will occur in Paris will not exist in Oslo.

This event is only found in the "future of the other".

And so on for the entire universe.

We will always have a time interval, an anisochrony,

which will be related to the distance.

"My present is not your present, and your present is not my present, there
is no absolute universal simultaneity"

So how do we make all this agree anyway?

We will create a universal time, an abstract universal present, which does
not exist, and which corresponds to a synchronization made by an observer
placed in a fourth spatial dimension which does not exist, but which is
very useful, because mathematically,
if it is placed very far, perpendicular, and at an equal distance
from all the points of the three-dimensional metric universe which is
ours, it observes all the points in a constant perfect simultaneity.

This point is abstract, does not exist, but allows us to use a universal
time and a perfect present time plan.

But this perfect present time does not exist.

This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in
general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for me
to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and
without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel
....
But this perfect present time does not exist.
This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in
general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for
me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and
without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
R.H.

Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because t' = t, as Wozniak
is over-fond of saying. (Where , in this case, t' = time in Oslo and t
is
the time in Paris.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
....
But this perfect present time does not exist.
This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in
general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for
me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and
without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
R.H.

Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because t' = t, as Wozniak
is over-fond of saying. (Where , in this case, t' = time in Oslo and t
is
the time in Paris.

I just explained to you the synchronization used by GPS. Abstract
synchronization, but interesting to be able to use a universal present
time plan (which does not exist in nature).
It's a shame, you're not making any effort.
It makes discussions very difficult.

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
....
But this perfect present time does not exist.
This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered

is, in

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible

for

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it,

and

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
R.H.

Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because t' = t, as

Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
is over-fond of saying. (Where , in this case, t' = time in Oslo and t
is the time in Paris.

I just explained to you the synchronization used by GPS. Abstract
synchronization, but interesting to be able to use a universal present
time plan (which does not exist in nature).

“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something
that has clearly happened.” – Douglas Adams

Post by Richard Hachel
It's a shame, you're not making any effort.
It makes discussions very difficult.
R.H.

Disagreeing with you does NOT mean that I'm not making an effort.
The fact is, I see neither reason for nor evidence of this so-called
"universal anisochrony." It seems to have sprung from the observation
that light travels at a finite speed, but I don't think that has
anything to do with the matter. True, there is "universal anisochrony"
for observers in SR in different frames, but it IS possible to
synchronize clocks between such frames -- but only for one instant.
But often, that's enough. It's like:

“Any ship can be a minesweeper. Once” -- Naval Ops Manual

[The Starmaker]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
....
But this perfect present time does not exist.
This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in
general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for
me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and
without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
R.H.

Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because t' = t, as Wozniak
is over-fond of saying. (Where , in this case, t' = time in Oslo and t
is
the time in Paris.

I just explained to you the synchronization used by GPS. Abstract
synchronization, but interesting to be able to use a universal present
time plan (which does not exist in nature).
It's a shame, you're not making any effort.
It makes discussions very difficult.
R.H.

"a universal present time plan (which does not exist in nature)."????

a universal present time plan either exist in anture or does not exist
in nature??


The universe was 'made' with time. It is in the nature of the
universe...

[The Starmaker]

and another thing Hachel

(i have nothing against...French Science)

but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...

all i see out there is...rocks.

Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?

I have looked, and looked, and looked...

all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..

your hallucinations.


Rocks don't have laws.

yous seeing things

or reading into rocks


yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.


you see what you made me do, now i gotta go
out and buy some french fries!

[gharnagel]

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.
you see what you made me do, now i gotta go
out and buy some french fries!

I have looked and looked and looked, and all
I can see is rocks ... in your head :-))

[The Starmaker]

Post by gharnagel

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.
you see what you made me do, now i gotta go
out and buy some french fries!

I have looked and looked and looked, and all
I can see is rocks ... in your head :-))

you should have the same amount I have, am i wrong?

Now, if I have more rocks than you have...then you're
having...hallucinations.

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

For a lack of a better word...they are simply your...concoctions.


The laws of physics are your laws, not nature's.

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

For a lack of a better word...they are simply your...concoctions.
The laws of physics are your laws, not nature's.

In other words, there are no laws of physics...'out there'.


There is not even any Science...'out there'!



These are just hallucinations yous people are having.

[Python]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

For a lack of a better word...they are simply your...concoctions.
The laws of physics are your laws, not nature's.

In other words, there are no laws of physics...'out there'.
There is not even any Science...'out there'!
These are just hallucinations yous people are having.

Sure. And you computer is made of cheese.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Python

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

For a lack of a better word...they are simply your...concoctions.
The laws of physics are your laws, not nature's.

In other words, there are no laws of physics...'out there'.
There is not even any Science...'out there'!
These are just hallucinations yous people are having.

Sure. And you computer is made of cheese.

I don't know if you have the 'ability' to understand this but, a
computer is just...'an extention of your mind.'

[Python]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Python

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

For a lack of a better word...they are simply your...concoctions.
The laws of physics are your laws, not nature's.

In other words, there are no laws of physics...'out there'.
There is not even any Science...'out there'!
These are just hallucinations yous people are having.

Sure. And you computer is made of cheese.

I don't know if you have the 'ability' to understand this but, a
computer is just...'an extention of your mind.'

I wouldn't buy a computer that is an extension of my mind, let
alone your mind. Mine is made of plastic, copper, silicon and
a few more elements.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Python

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Python

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

For a lack of a better word...they are simply your...concoctions.
The laws of physics are your laws, not nature's.

In other words, there are no laws of physics...'out there'.
There is not even any Science...'out there'!
These are just hallucinations yous people are having.

Sure. And you computer is made of cheese.

I don't know if you have the 'ability' to understand this but, a
computer is just...'an extention of your mind.'

I wouldn't buy a computer that is an extension of my mind, let
alone your mind. Mine is made of plastic, copper, silicon and
a few more elements.

and what is 'information' made out of????

[The Starmaker]

Post by Python

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

For a lack of a better word...they are simply your...concoctions.
The laws of physics are your laws, not nature's.

In other words, there are no laws of physics...'out there'.
There is not even any Science...'out there'!
These are just hallucinations yous people are having.

Sure. And you computer is made of cheese.

I just checked my computer...it is not made of cheese. I see a lot of
plastic, metal, but no cheese.

Is there anything in a computer that you can 'perceive' besides
cheese???


I can touch the plastic....but how do you touch...information?



Maybe, i need ...more cheese!


EXTRA CHEESE PLEASE!!!!

DON'T FORGET THE ANCHOVIES!!

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Python

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

For a lack of a better word...they are simply your...concoctions.
The laws of physics are your laws, not nature's.

In other words, there are no laws of physics...'out there'.
There is not even any Science...'out there'!
These are just hallucinations yous people are having.

Sure. And you computer is made of cheese.

I just checked my computer...it is not made of cheese. I see a lot of
plastic, metal, but no cheese.
Is there anything in a computer that you can 'perceive' besides
cheese???
I can touch the plastic....but how do you touch...information?
Maybe, i need ...more cheese!
EXTRA CHEESE PLEASE!!!!
DON'T FORGET THE ANCHOVIES!!

Now I gotta look on the Moon, look under the rocks to see if i find
any...information under the rock.

if i find green cheese...

nope
nothing

Come on, help me. Where 'out there' can i find these things you call
'laws of physics'???? it's gotta be under some rock somewhere?!?!?


Wait a minute! ONLY YOU GUYS CAN SEE IT????


what kind of kool aid are yous guys drinking????


hallucinations!


Lusy in the sky with diamonds...

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Python

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

For a lack of a better word...they are simply your...concoctions.
The laws of physics are your laws, not nature's.

In other words, there are no laws of physics...'out there'.
There is not even any Science...'out there'!
These are just hallucinations yous people are having.

Sure. And you computer is made of cheese.

I just checked my computer...it is not made of cheese. I see a lot of
plastic, metal, but no cheese.
Is there anything in a computer that you can 'perceive' besides
cheese???
I can touch the plastic....but how do you touch...information?
Maybe, i need ...more cheese!
EXTRA CHEESE PLEASE!!!!
DON'T FORGET THE ANCHOVIES!!

Now I gotta look on the Moon, look under the rocks to see if i find
any...information under the rock.
if i find green cheese...
nope
nothing
Come on, help me. Where 'out there' can i find these things you call
'laws of physics'???? it's gotta be under some rock somewhere?!?!?
Wait a minute! ONLY YOU GUYS CAN SEE IT????
what kind of kool aid are yous guys drinking????
hallucinations!
Lucy in the sky with diamonds...

okay, i'm going to tear apart my harddrive just so i can see what
'information' looks like....

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

For a lack of a better word...they are simply your...concoctions.
The laws of physics are your laws, not nature's.

In other words, there are no laws of physics...'out there'.
There is not even any Science...'out there'!
These are just hallucinations yous people are having.

and PLEASE, don't even start with 'the universe is mathematical', don't
even go there!



There is not even any Math...'out there', no place out there where it
exist!


hallucinations

projections.

[gharnagel]

Post by The Starmaker
and PLEASE, don't even start with 'the universe is mathematical',
don't even go there!
There is not even any Math...'out there', no place out there where it
exist!
hallucinations
projections.

It's all ... The Matrix

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

and if yous believe that the 'laws of physics' exist...'out there',
where is this...'out there'???


Where is this...'out there'?

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

and if yous believe that the 'laws of physics' exist...'out there',
where is this...'out there'???
Where is this...'out there'?

of course everybody knows if you ask richard feynman how you come up
with the 'laws of physics'...he'll say..

you just..."Guess."

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

and if yous believe that the 'laws of physics' exist...'out there',
where is this...'out there'???
Where is this...'out there'?

of course everybody knows if you ask richard feynman how you come up
with the 'laws of physics'...he'll say..
you just..."Guess."

and for those who don't know 'where' the laws of physics come from...

the stupid audience...laughs.

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

and if yous believe that the 'laws of physics' exist...'out there',
where is this...'out there'???
Where is this...'out there'?

of course everybody knows if you ask richard feynman how you come up
with the 'laws of physics'...he'll say..
you just..."Guess."

and for those who don't know 'where' the laws of physics come from...
http://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY
the stupid audience...laughs.

In other words, 'the laws of physics' are just an invention by man, not nature.

Math, another invention that doesn't exist 'out there'.



Hallucinations.

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

and if yous believe that the 'laws of physics' exist...'out there',
where is this...'out there'???
Where is this...'out there'?

of course everybody knows if you ask richard feynman how you come up
with the 'laws of physics'...he'll say..
you just..."Guess."

and for those who don't know 'where' the laws of physics come from...
http://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY
the stupid audience...laughs.

Where do you suppose the stupid audience thinks 'laws of nature' come
from? God??

Don't tell them they are just "Gusses", they are made up, they are
inventions,

and do not or ever came from nature.


Illusions.



Science in fact is...fake.


You know what Nature has to say about this...."I DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE
PEOPLE GET THESE LAWS FROM, NOT FROM ME!"


THEY JUST FUCKING MADE IT UP!


http://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY


Go ahead, laugh.

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

and if yous believe that the 'laws of physics' exist...'out there',
where is this...'out there'???
Where is this...'out there'?

of course everybody knows if you ask richard feynman how you come up
with the 'laws of physics'...he'll say..
you just..."Guess."

and for those who don't know 'where' the laws of physics come from...
http://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY
the stupid audience...laughs.

Where do you suppose the stupid audience thinks 'laws of nature' come
from? God??
Don't tell them they are just "Gusses", they are made up, they are
inventions,
and do not or ever came from nature.
Illusions.
Science in fact is...fake.
You know what Nature has to say about this...."I DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE
PEOPLE GET THESE LAWS FROM, NOT FROM ME!"
THEY JUST FUCKING MADE IT UP!
http://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY
Go ahead, laugh.

Is there a 'Laws of Physics' school where one can learn How To make up
these Laws????

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

and if yous believe that the 'laws of physics' exist...'out there',
where is this...'out there'???
Where is this...'out there'?

of course everybody knows if you ask richard feynman how you come up
with the 'laws of physics'...he'll say..
you just..."Guess."

and for those who don't know 'where' the laws of physics come from...
http://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY
the stupid audience...laughs.

Where do you suppose the stupid audience thinks 'laws of nature' come
from? God??
Don't tell them they are just "Gusses", they are made up, they are
inventions,
and do not or ever came from nature.
Illusions.
Science in fact is...fake.
You know what Nature has to say about this...."I DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE
PEOPLE GET THESE LAWS FROM, NOT FROM ME!"
THEY JUST FUCKING MADE IT UP!
http://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY
Go ahead, laugh.

Is there a 'Laws of Physics' school where one can learn How To make up
these Laws????

or take a fashion design class on...patterns.

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

and if yous believe that the 'laws of physics' exist...'out there',
where is this...'out there'???
Where is this...'out there'?

of course everybody knows if you ask richard feynman how you come up
with the 'laws of physics'...he'll say..
you just..."Guess."

and for those who don't know 'where' the laws of physics come from...
http://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY
the stupid audience...laughs.

Where do you suppose the stupid audience thinks 'laws of nature' come
from? God??
Don't tell them they are just "Gusses", they are made up, they are
inventions,
and do not or ever came from nature.
Illusions.
Science in fact is...fake.
You know what Nature has to say about this...."I DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE
PEOPLE GET THESE LAWS FROM, NOT FROM ME!"
THEY JUST FUCKING MADE IT UP!
http://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY
Go ahead, laugh.

Is there a 'Laws of Physics' school where one can learn How To make up
these Laws????

or take a fashion design class on...patterns.

I mean, come on..let's be real here...

yous don't actually believe Albert Einstein got his theory of relativity from...'out there' do yous????

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.

In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.

and if yous believe that the 'laws of physics' exist...'out there',
where is this...'out there'???
Where is this...'out there'?

Do you want to know what is 'out there'?...rocks.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel
I just explained to you the synchronization used by GPS.

You have no idea of how the GPS SV-clocks are kept synchronous.

Post by Richard Hachel
Abstract
synchronization, but interesting to be able to use a universal present
time plan (which does not exist in nature).

Quite.
The "universal present time plan", namely
the "Coordinated Universal Time" or "Temps Universel Coordonné",
short UTC (not CUT or TUC - a compromise)
is indeed a theoretical time defined by humans.
("It does not exist in nature", Good grief! :-D)

That it is coordinated simply means that UTC is the same at any point
in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame).
UTC's rate is defined by stationary clocks (as defined by SI) on
the geoid. UTC is 12.00 when the mean sun is in the meridian
at Greenwich.

You seem to think that what you call "a universal present time plan"
has something to do with GPS. But UTC was created January 1, 1960,
before the GPS.

The UTC was nothing new, before that was Greenwich Mean Time, GMT.
GMT was the time shown by the pendulum clock at Greenwich,
which was kept in sync with the mean solar day, and the second
was defined by the mean solar day.
The GMT was used from the 19th century. The word "coordinated"
was not used, but at the time of Newton's absolute time, everyone
thought it obvious that GMT was the same everywhere.

The only way to navigate across the oceans at that time (and until
recently) was by celestial navigation. That is, by measuring the angular
height of a celestial body, usually the sun, with a sextant, and
via tables (made by the British Admiralty) and the time determine
the position. And the time in the tables is GMT. So the navigator
had to have a clock synchronous with GMT. Since the sun moves
1 minute of arc in 15 seconds, an error of 15 seconds from GMT
will give an error of 1 minute of arc on the Earth, which is one
nautical mile. If the clock was 1 minute off GMT, the error would
be 4 nautical miles, which would be acceptable in most cases.

To be in the middle of the Pacific at the 19th century and have
a clock synchronous with GMT within few minutes was no simple task,
but that's another (and long) story.

The point is:
Universal time and synchronous clocks have been used for centuries!

And you claim that clock's in Oslo and Paris can't be synchronous!
In 2024!

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel
I just explained to you the synchronization used by GPS.

You have no idea of how the GPS SV-clocks are kept synchronous.

Post by Richard Hachel
Abstract synchronization, but interesting to be able to use a
universal present time plan (which does not exist in nature).

Quite.
The "universal present time plan", namely
the "Coordinated Universal Time" or "Temps Universel Coordonné",
short UTC (not CUT or TUC - a compromise)
is indeed a theoretical time defined by humans.
("It does not exist in nature", Good grief! :-D)
That it is coordinated simply means that UTC is the same at any point
in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame).
UTC's rate is defined by stationary clocks (as defined by SI) on
the geoid. UTC is 12.00 when the mean sun is in the meridian
at Greenwich.
You seem to think that what you call "a universal present time plan"
has something to do with GPS. But UTC was created January 1, 1960,
before the GPS.
The UTC was nothing new, before that was Greenwich Mean Time, GMT.
GMT was the time shown by the pendulum clock at Greenwich,
which was kept in sync with the mean solar day, and the second
was defined by the mean solar day.
The GMT was used from the 19th century. The word "coordinated"
was not used, but at the time of Newton's absolute time, everyone
thought it obvious that GMT was the same everywhere.
The only way to navigate across the oceans at that time (and until
recently) was by celestial navigation. That is, by measuring the angular
height of a celestial body, usually the sun, with a sextant, and
via tables (made by the British Admiralty) and the time determine
the position. And the time in the tables is GMT. So the navigator
had to have a clock synchronous with GMT. Since the sun moves
1 minute of arc in 15 seconds, an error of 15 seconds from GMT
will give an error of 1 minute of arc on the Earth, which is one
nautical mile. If the clock was 1 minute off GMT, the error would
be 4 nautical miles, which would be acceptable in most cases.
To be in the middle of the Pacific at the 19th century and have
a clock synchronous with GMT within few minutes was no simple task,
but that's another (and long) story.
Universal time and synchronous clocks have been used for centuries!
And you claim that clock's in Oslo and Paris can't be synchronous!
In 2024!

Well, your idiot guru has invented this
absurd in 1905, quite a long time ago,
but idiots like you are making it
lasting.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Universal time and synchronous clocks have been used for centuries!
And you claim that clock's in Oslo and Paris can't be synchronous!
In 2024!

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

Oh, my God, my God!!!

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!

R.H.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Universal time and synchronous clocks have been used for centuries!

The FACT is that synchronous clocks have been used for centuries.

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
And you claim that clock's in Oslo and Paris can't be synchronous!
In 2024!

|> Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
|>>
|>> You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
|>> are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
|>> showing GMT + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
|>> synchronous.
|>>
|>> Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
|>> (To within few seconds|
|

|> Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
|>> But I keep explaining it to you.
|>>
|>> This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.
|>>
|>> This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time”
|>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
|>> logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.
|>>

Since you claim that clocks can't be synchronous,
and synchronous clocks are used for centuries
YOU ARE WRONG WHEN YOU CLAIM THAT CLOCKS CAN'T BE SYNCHRONISED.

Post by Richard Hachel
But that's not what I'm talking about!!!
Oh, my God, my God!!!
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!

So what are you talking about?
That clocks can be synchronised?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
....
But this perfect present time does not exist.
This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in
general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for
me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and
without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
R.H.

Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because

Because it suddenly becomes real when it's
comfortable for a relativistic idiot.

[Mubarak Schitov]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is,
in general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible
for me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it,
and without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on. R.H.

Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because

Because it suddenly becomes real when it's comfortable for a
relativistic idiot.

are we a gruppenfuehrer or an obergruppenfuehrer?? Richard is only a
gruppenfuehrer. He bist in Barlin.

𝗞𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗸_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸:_𝗔_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱,_𝘀𝗼_𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗻𝗼𝘄?
All over the world, the old military rules are being broken, this has the
potential to become very dangerous
https://www.r%74.com/russia/602585-kursk-attack-military-red-line/

It is easy to cross the red lines when the Kremlin is on the side of NATO
and Ukrainian terrorists. Nothing ever happens. Putin The bluffer and the
traitor. More than SEVEN HUNDRED vehicles (including 400 tanks) of all
kinds crossed the Russian border and they have extended over 500 km2 and
Russia didn't notice. This is impossible without Moscow cooperation.

the fucking putina is more than traitor. He is a 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮 faking a
Christian. Sending the nazis on paid vacation in Turkey, now back in the
fictitious ukurina to kill children again. Then the putina declared a city
as part of russia, leaving it, letting the people there to be slaughtered
by the other 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮, the gay actor puppet of Blackrock named
Smellensky.

these WEF "young global leaders" 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮𝙨 are about to kill Russia. They
tried with vaccines, which apparently for them that's too slow.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because

Because it suddenly becomes real when it's
comfortable for a relativistic idiot.

What is very funny in the relationships that I would have had all my life
with other men, and which consisted of an immense cock contest: "We do not
want this man to reign over us", "My cock is bigger than yours, Hachel",
"I prefer that we shut up rather than see your rat's snout", is that I am
sometimes opposed to contradictory reproaches.

And they say: "GPS contradicts your shitty doctrine".

Except that no, GPS proves that I am right.

No anisochrony, the speed of light becomes infinite.

And GPS ends its life in the dustbins of history.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because

Because it suddenly becomes real when it's
comfortable for a relativistic idiot.

What is very funny in the relationships that I would have had all my
life with other men, and which consisted of an immense cock contest: "We
do not want this man to reign over us", "My cock is bigger than yours,
Hachel", "I prefer that we shut up rather than see your rat's snout", is
that I am sometimes opposed to contradictory reproaches.

You should have noticed a common trait here. Whoever you've been
talking with there were at least one pompous imbecile involved.

(Hint: it's you)

Post by Richard Hachel
And they say: "GPS contradicts your shitty doctrine".
Except that no, GPS proves that I am right.
No anisochrony, the speed of light becomes infinite.
And GPS ends its life in the dustbins of history.

The few times you've written about GPS on fr.sci.physique you've
only shown that you do not know at all how it works and pulled
out a bunch of idiotic fantasies out of nowhere. Like that
receivers contain an atomic clock (!!!) or that synchronization
was about a distant 4-d clock, etc.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because

Because it suddenly becomes real when it's
comfortable for a relativistic idiot.

What is very funny in the relationships that I would have had all my
life with other men, and which consisted of an immense cock contest: "We
do not want this man to reign over us", "My cock is bigger than yours,
Hachel", "I prefer that we shut up rather than see your rat's snout", is
that I am sometimes opposed to contradictory reproaches.

You should have noticed a common trait here. Whoever you've been
talking with there were at least one pompous imbecile involved.
(Hint: it's you)

Post by Richard Hachel
And they say: "GPS contradicts your shitty doctrine".
Except that no, GPS proves that I am right.
No anisochrony, the speed of light becomes infinite.
And GPS ends its life in the dustbins of history.

The few times you've written about GPS on fr.sci.physique you've
only shown that you do not know at all how it works and pulled
out a bunch of idiotic fantasies out of nowhere. Like that
receivers contain an atomic clock (!!!) or that synchronization
was about a distant 4-d clock, etc.

Yes, that's what I said.
We can't synchronize all the watches in our 3D universe.
You're old enough to understand an impossibility or a prohibition.
Example: "Jean-Pierre, don't pee in the bed".
Once the impossibility is understood, and the notion of universal
anisochrony accepted, we will then ask ourselves a question:
"In the days of sailing ships, it was not important to know the notion of
microseconds, but now that we have satellites and want to use GPS, it
becomes essential, but how are we going to resolve such a spatio-temporal
quagmire where anisochrony reigns over everything?"
For this to work, we need flat time. A universal present common to our
entire local inertial structure, and as the immense Hachel says: "I do not
propose it, because it does not exist, it is only a human fantasy of the
same type as the fantasy of the flat earth and the Titanic embracing the
icebergs".
So how do we do it?
Well, this notion of flat time, we will imagine it, and we will consider
that there exists a fourth spatial dimension in the universe, and that an
observer, placed there, perpendicular and very far away, apprehends our 3D
universe in a perfectly synchronous way for him, and it is on this
abstract but useful concept that we will synchronize all terrestrial
watches.
They are all synchronous with him. No, between them. But that is enough to
give an interesting impression of global simultaneity.
Universal time is therefore an abstract measurement, resulting from an
abstract thought, creating an abstract synchronization point.
But that is enough to give a coherent set called universal time.

R.H.

[Python]

Le 14/08/2024 à 14:54, M.D. Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because

Because it suddenly becomes real when it's
comfortable for a relativistic idiot.

What is very funny in the relationships that I would have had all my
"We do not want this man to reign over us", "My cock is bigger than
yours, Hachel", "I prefer that we shut up rather than see your rat's
snout", is that I am sometimes opposed to contradictory reproaches.

You should have noticed a common trait here. Whoever you've been
talking with there were at least one pompous imbecile involved.
(Hint: it's you)

Post by Richard Hachel
And they say: "GPS contradicts your shitty doctrine".
Except that no, GPS proves that I am right.
No anisochrony, the speed of light becomes infinite.
And GPS ends its life in the dustbins of history.

The few times you've written about GPS on fr.sci.physique you've
only shown that you do not know at all how it works and pulled
out a bunch of idiotic fantasies out of nowhere. Like that
receivers contain an atomic clock (!!!) or that synchronization
was about a distant 4-d clock, etc.

Yes, that's what I said.
We can't synchronize all the watches in our 3D universe.

This is nevertheless done (in ECI frame of reference when it
comes to GPS, or in Earth frame for airports as Paul tried,
in vain, to explain to you).

If a theory predict as impossible something that is actually
done, the theory is dead.

Post by Richard Hachel
[snip incoherent babbling]

Did you find an atomic clock in your GPS receiver yet?

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Python
Le 14/08/2024 à 14:54, M.D. Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a

Post by Richard Hachel
We can't synchronize all the watches in our 3D universe.

This is nevertheless done (in ECI frame of reference when it
comes to GPS, or in Earth frame for airports as Paul tried,
in vain, to explain to you).

Since Oslo is 8 degrees east of Paris, UTC clocks in Oslo
and Paris are not absolute synchronous in the ground frame,
because the ground is moving in the ECI-frame.
But the difference is so minute that the clocks are synchronous
in the ground frame _within 1 second_.

I saw no reason to explain this to Richard.

[Python]

Le 14/08/2024 à 14:54, M.D. Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a

.... will consider
that there exists a fourth spatial dimension in the universe, and that
an observer, placed there, perpendicular and very far away, apprehends
our 3D universe in a perfectly synchronous way for him, and it is on
this abstract but useful concept that we will synchronize all
terrestrial watches.

Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not
synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions.

They are built in order to have the same rate (inside an acceptable
narrow interval) to begin with, then drifted according to what
General Relativity predict in order to stay in synch in ECI
frame (despite what demented Wozniak pretends).

These are engineering tasks, not the stupid mythomaniac fantasies of
a histrionic senile country doctor.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not
synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions.
They are built in order to have the same rate (inside an acceptable
narrow interval) to begin with, then drifted according to what
General Relativity predict in order to stay in synch in ECI
frame (despite what demented Wozniak pretends).
These are engineering tasks, not the stupid mythomaniac fantasies of
a histrionic senile country doctor.

But you're mixing everything up.

That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the initial
synchronization. At some point you have to synchronize all the watches in
all the capitals with each other.
However, this is by nature impossible.
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag behind
the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon that will
affect all the watches in the universe.
So, to start the watches at t=0, you'll need a point in the universe
placed at an equal distance from all the others, and only an abstract
point placed in an imaginary, perpendicular dimension, at an equal
distance from all the points in the local universe will be able to do
this.
It's not hard to understand.
Now you are talking about something else, that is to say the second
particularity which is no longer anisochrony, but the relativity of the
internal chronotropy of watches, in the sense that time passes less
quickly at the level of the satellite than at the level of a terrestrial
clock, and that the chronotropic shift must be regularly reestablished.

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not
synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions.
They are built in order to have the same rate (inside an acceptable
narrow interval) to begin with, then drifted according to what
General Relativity predict in order to stay in synch in ECI
frame (despite what demented Wozniak pretends).
These are engineering tasks, not the stupid mythomaniac fantasies of
a histrionic senile country doctor.

But you're mixing everything up.
That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the initial
synchronization. At some point you have to synchronize all the watches
in all the capitals with each other.
However, this is by nature impossible.

“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something
that has clearly happened.” – Douglas Adams

Post by Richard Hachel
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.

There is no such thing as "universal anisochrony": it is a false notion.
You're conflating time dilation (a real phenomenon) with something else.

Post by Richard Hachel
So, to start the watches at t=0, you'll need a point in the universe
placed at an equal distance from all the others, and only an abstract
point placed in an imaginary, perpendicular dimension, at an equal
distance from all the points in the local universe will be able to do
this.

Not necessary, but you're going overboard in complexity. NO ONE wants
to synchronize watches over the whole universe! Pick a reasonable goal.

Watches remotely located but at rest wrt each other can certainly be
synchronized by Einstein synchronization. No need to have a source
halfway between the two clocks (although that works, too (if you know
that the distance between the source and each clock is exactly the same,
but you have to use the elements of ES to determine that).

Post by Richard Hachel
It's not hard to understand.
Now you are talking about something else, that is to say the second
particularity which is no longer anisochrony, but the relativity of the
internal chronotropy of watches, in the sense that time passes less
quickly at the level of the satellite than at the level of a terrestrial
clock, and that the chronotropic shift must be regularly reestablished.
R.H.

Actually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite. "Chronotropy" is
a canard. The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so that
it is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth. The reason why
the satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not in an
exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a uniform
density.

Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying.

“Education isn’t something you can finish.” – Isaac Asimov

“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.”
– Mark Twain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel

R.H.

Actually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite. "Chronotropy" is
a canard. The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so that
it is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth. The reason why
the satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not in an
exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a uniform
density.
Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying.

This is a very interesting post.
It asks a question: "How is it that the satellite, which apparently goes
faster than the earth, has a time that passes faster, contrary to what SR
predicts?"
We answer it as we can, today, the answer is that it seems that
apparently, gravitation slows down time.
Since Richard Hachel is not too interested in GR, he does not believe in
it too much. The other two arguments that you have just proposed do not
seem any more judicious to me.
I have a fourth explanation, and it remains within the framework of RR.

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
Actually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite. "Chronotropy" is
a canard. The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so that
it is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth. The reason why
the satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not in

an

Post by gharnagel
exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a uniform
density.
Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying.

This is a very interesting post.
It asks a question: "How is it that the satellite, which apparently goes
faster than the earth, has a time that passes faster, contrary to what
SR predicts?"

Because, of course, it's GR.

Post by Richard Hachel
We answer it as we can, today, the answer is that it seems that
apparently, gravitation slows down time.

It's not just "apparent": it's confirmed by experiment.

Post by Richard Hachel
Since Richard Hachel is not too interested in GR, he does not believe in
it too much. The other two arguments that you have just proposed do not
seem any more judicious to me.
I have a fourth explanation, and it remains within the framework of RR.
R.H.

"RR" is not a valid theory. Nature doesn't care who believes what. If
we fantasize about it, we'll "Sooner or later... get squish just like
grape!" -- Mr. Miyagi.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Actually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite.  "Chronotropy" is
a canard.  The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so that
it is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth.  The reason why
the satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not in

an

exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a uniform
density.
Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying.

This is a very interesting post.
It asks a question: "How is it that the satellite, which apparently goes
faster than the earth, has a time that passes faster, contrary to what
SR predicts?"

Because, of course, it's GR.

Post by Richard Hachel
We answer it as we can, today, the answer is that it seems that
apparently, gravitation slows down time.

It's not just "apparent": it's confirmed by experiment.

Bullshit, anyone can check - time (as defined
by your idiot guru himself) is galilean, with
the precision of an acceptable error.
Your bunch of idiots is trying to lie that
the indications of clocks ere not equal, but
asking you what they are then - results
only in insults and slanders. Lies have
short legs, poor trash.

[gharnagel]

Post by gharnagel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Actually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite. 

"Chronotropy" is

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

a canard.  The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so

that

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

it is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth.  The reason

why

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

the satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not

in

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

an exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a

uniform

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

density.
Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying.

This is a very interesting post.
It asks a question: "How is it that the satellite, which apparently

goes

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
faster than the earth, has a time that passes faster, contrary to

what

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
SR predicts?"

Because, of course, it's GR.

Post by Richard Hachel
We answer it as we can, today, the answer is that it seems that
apparently, gravitation slows down time.

It's not just "apparent": it's confirmed by experiment.

Bullshit,

Yes, that describes what Wozniak does very well.

Post by gharnagel
anyone can check - time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)

Ah, Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and
insults.

Post by gharnagel
is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable error.

Refuted by copious experimental evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_testing_3

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Experiments

Only liars or fools protest this factual evidence.

Post by gharnagel
Your bunch of idiots

Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and insults.

Post by gharnagel
is trying to lie that the indications of clocks ere not equal,

No one is saying the indications aren't equal. Wozniak is wrong about
that.

Post by gharnagel
but asking you what they are then - results
only in insults and slanders. Lies have
short legs, poor trash.

No insults, slanders or lies on this side of the table. Wozniak is
projecting
again. His posts have the shortest legs of all.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by gharnagel

Post by gharnagel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
Actually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite.

"Chronotropy" is

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
a canard. The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so

that

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
it is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth. The reason

why

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
the satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not

in

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
an exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a

uniform

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
density.
Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying.

This is a very interesting post.
It asks a question: "How is it that the satellite, which apparently

goes

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
faster than the earth, has a time that passes faster, contrary to

what

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
SR predicts?"

Because, of course, it's GR.

Post by Richard Hachel
We answer it as we can, today, the answer is that it seems that
apparently, gravitation slows down time.

It's not just "apparent": it's confirmed by experiment.

Bullshit,

Yes, that describes what Wozniak does very well.

Post by gharnagel
anyone can check - time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)

Ah, Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and
insults.

Post by gharnagel
is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_testing_3
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Experiments
Only liars or fools protest this factual evidence.

Post by gharnagel
Your bunch of idiots

Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and insults.

Post by gharnagel
is trying to lie that the indications of clocks ere not equal,

No one is saying the indications aren't equal. Wozniak is wrong about
that.

Post by gharnagel
but asking you what they are then - results
only in insults and slanders. Lies have
short legs, poor trash.

No insults, slanders or lies on this side of the table. Wozniak is
projecting
again. His posts have the shortest legs of all.

SLAC track cracked way back -> space-contraction is what's real,
and it looks Galilean that way linearly.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by gharnagel

Post by gharnagel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
Actually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite.

"Chronotropy" is

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
a canard.  The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so

that

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
it is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth.  The reason

why

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
the satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not

in

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
an exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a

uniform

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
density.
Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying.

This is a very interesting post.
It asks a question: "How is it that the satellite, which apparently

goes

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
faster than the earth, has a time that passes faster, contrary to

what

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
SR predicts?"

Because, of course, it's GR.

Post by Richard Hachel
We answer it as we can, today, the answer is that it seems that
apparently, gravitation slows down time.

It's not just "apparent": it's confirmed by experiment.

Bullshit,

Yes, that describes what Wozniak does very well.

Post by gharnagel
anyone can check - time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)

Ah, Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and
insults.

Post by gharnagel
is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_testing_3
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Experiments
Only liars or fools protest this factual evidence.

Post by gharnagel
Your bunch of idiots

Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and insults.

Post by gharnagel
is trying to lie that the indications of clocks ere not equal,

No one is saying the indications aren't equal.  Wozniak is wrong about
that.

Post by gharnagel
but asking you what they are then - results
only in insults and slanders. Lies have
short legs, poor trash.

No insults, slanders or lies on this side of the table.

Insults, lies and slkanders are all the
Einstein's worship[pers have on their
side of table. And your post is just
another example, poor trash.



Wozniak is

Post by gharnagel
projecting
again.  His posts have the shortest legs of all.

[gharnagel]

Post by gharnagel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Bullshit,

Yes, that describes what Wozniak does very well.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
anyone can check - time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)

Ah, Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and
insults.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_testing_3

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Experiments

Post by gharnagel
Only liars or fools protest this factual evidence.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Your bunch of idiots

Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and insults.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
is trying to lie that the indications of clocks ere not equal,

No one is saying the indications aren't equal.  Wozniak is wrong about
that.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
but asking you what they are then - results
only in insults and slanders. Lies have
short legs, poor trash.

No insults, slanders or lies on this side of the table.

Insults, lies and slkanders are all the
Einstein's worship[pers have on their
side of table. And your post is just
another example, poor trash.

Actually, lies, slanders and insults are all that Wozniak
has. He hasn't even deleted the evidence of his lies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_testing_3
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Experiments
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Only liars or fools protest this factual evidence.
Of course, if they never read it, it doesn't exist.

“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who
can’t read.” – Mark Twain

And Wozniak's posts have the shortest legs of all.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by gharnagel

Post by gharnagel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Bullshit,

Yes, that describes what Wozniak does very well.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
anyone can check - time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)

Ah, Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and
insults.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_testing_3

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Experiments

Post by gharnagel
Only liars or fools protest this factual evidence.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Your bunch of idiots

Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and insults.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
is trying to lie that the indications of clocks ere not equal,

No one is saying the indications aren't equal.  Wozniak is wrong about
that.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
but asking you what they are then - results
only in insults and slanders. Lies have
short legs, poor trash.

No insults, slanders or lies on this side of the table.

Insults, lies and slkanders are all the
Einstein's worship[pers have on their
side of table. And your post is just
another example, poor trash.

Actually, lies, slanders and insults are all that Wozniak

See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
Shit and your beloved church.

Post by gharnagel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_testing_3

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/

Post by gharnagel
https://en.wikipedia.org

/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Experiments

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your moronic church "improper" GPS clocks keep
indicating t'=t, just like serious clocks always did.
Fanatic scumbags like you are trying to lie that clock
indications in GPS are not equal, but asking you
what they precisely are results just with a
stream of insults and slanders.

Lies have short legs, trash.

Well, let's try again. Let us define t -
clock indication of a clock in a GPS
ground base (https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/GPS_Ground_Segment
- feel free to choose any, trash) t'
- indication of a GPS satellite
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GPS_satellites
- feel free to choose any, trash).
What will be t' when t is 2024-08-31-17:00:00.00000000?
Consider the simultaneity of the base.

Lies have short legs, trash.

[Belgov Turpaev]

Insults, lies and slkanders are all the Einstein's worship[pers have on
their side of table. And your post is just another example, poor trash.

Actually, lies, slanders and insults are all that Wozniak has. He

extraordinary distinctive, my friend. Here we go one more time, for the
uninitiated

𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮,_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵
_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗴𝗮𝘃𝗲_𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹_𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱_𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_–_𝗪𝗦𝗝
The paper claims the CIA pressured the Ukrainian leader to withdraw
permission to target the key pipelines in 2022
https://www.r%74.com/news/602634-ukraine-us-nord-stream/

Setting the stage to throw Zelensky under the bus?: "I was the CIA
director. We lied, we cheated, we stole… we had entire training courses."
- Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Texas

Nice US CIA PSY - OPS misinformation story.... next !

now that the war is lost for the JSA, they switch to standard MO- throwing
their "partners" under the bus as per usual...oi gevalt.

Total fabrication. Puppets do not give orders. This order came from US
elites. I mean, the "public servant" personnel. Here we go:

𝘽𝘼𝙇𝙏𝙊𝙋𝙎22_(𝘽𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙞𝙘_𝙉𝘼𝙏𝙊_𝙊𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨_2022)
These countries will exercise a myriad of capabilities, demonstrating the
inherent flexibility of maritime forces. Exercise scenarios include
amphibious, gunnery, anti-submarine, air defense, and mine clearance
operations, as well as 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙫𝙚_𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚_𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙖𝙡, unmanned underwater and
surface vehicle exercises, and medical responses.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/06/baltops-2023-exercise-kicks-
off-in-the-baltic-sea/
Participating nations include Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and
the United States.

clear from the context, that the 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙬𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙖𝙣_𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮𝙨 nato terrorists had
the required expertize for the above, due ownership of oil platform north
sea.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not
synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions.
They are built in order to have the same rate (inside an acceptable
narrow interval) to begin with, then drifted according to what
General Relativity predict in order to stay in synch in ECI
frame (despite what demented Wozniak pretends).
These are engineering tasks, not the stupid mythomaniac fantasies of
a histrionic senile country doctor.

But you're mixing everything up.
That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the initial
synchronization.

#metoo

Post by Richard Hachel
At some point you have to synchronize all the watches
in all the capitals with each other.

This is what I was talking about, either for GPS or airports.

Post by Richard Hachel
However, this is by nature impossible.

Nevertheless it is actually done.

Post by Richard Hachel
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.

You are using a bogus definition of synchronization. Look at
Poincaré and Einstein for a correct one.

Post by Richard Hachel
So, to start the watches at t=0, you'll need a point in the universe
placed at an equal distance from all the others, and only an abstract
point placed in an imaginary, perpendicular dimension, at an equal
distance from all the points in the local universe will be able to do this.
It's not hard to understand.

It make very little sense. Anyway nothing of that kind is involved
in GPS setup.

You've never look at how GPS is actually designed and operates, have
you?

Post by Richard Hachel
Now you are talking about something else, that is to say the second
particularity which is no longer anisochrony, but the relativity of the
internal chronotropy of watches, in the sense that time passes less
quickly at the level of the satellite than at the level of a terrestrial
clock,

"times passes less/more quickly" is quite a meaning less expression.

Post by Richard Hachel
and that the chronotropic shift must be regularly reestablished.

"chronotropy" is meaningless.

Moreover after launch there very little daily correction to account
for orbits irregularities and Earth gravitational field not being
perfectly spherically symmetric. Several orders of magnitude compared
to the initial drift predicted by GR.

[Mikko]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not
synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions.
They are built in order to have the same rate (inside an acceptable
narrow interval) to begin with, then drifted according to what
General Relativity predict in order to stay in synch in ECI
frame (despite what demented Wozniak pretends).
These are engineering tasks, not the stupid mythomaniac fantasies of
a histrionic senile country doctor.

But you're mixing everything up.
That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the initial
synchronization. At some point you have to synchronize all the watches
in all the capitals with each other.

This is the problem Poincaré wanted to solve. In order to syncronize the
clocks you must first find out what it means to synchronize. Earlier the
best way was to carry clocks and that was good enough for many purposes.
But with telegraph a greater accuracy became both possible and necessary,
and that meant that the concept of syncronization had to be rethough.

Post by Richard Hachel
However, this is by nature impossible.

It is not impossible. One just must know what one needs.

Post by Richard Hachel
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.

No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and
it shows as it was set.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.

No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and
it shows as it was set.

That's not what I'm talking about.
For 40 years now, I've been getting answers that miss the point.
Breathe, blow, and for goodness sake, at least try to understand what I'm
saying.
I'm saying that the notion of a flat earth was a logical notion for the
first men, because "if it weren't flat, the water would fall on the edges,
and those at the bottom would fall into the void".
The thought is logical in appearance, but it's wrong, the earth is not
flat.
For 40 years, I've been begging physicist speakers to get a new idea in
their heads: the earth is round, and it's the principle of universal
gravitation that makes it so that water doesn't fall, and that the Chinese
don't fall into the "void".
BUT still, it's not hard to understand!
What's happening to you men, to be so timid, in front of Hachel's immense
thought? ? ?
I beg you to believe me, it is not that difficult to understand.
You just have to abandon your a priori which do not rhyme with anything.
You idealize a flat and abstract "present time", a universal simultaneity,
it is a false and ridiculous a priori, but so anchored in the jaw of men
like a dental abscess, that they have difficulty getting rid of it, and
that they end up accommodating it.
You cannot "absolutely" tune all the watches of a given frame of
reference. Each will always lag behind the other in the best case of
synchronizations. If I send an electromagnetic message to A and B, coming
from the center M of a given segment,
for M the impulses leave together (breathe, blow), but also for M, the
impulses will arrive together.
We agree.
For M the events A and B will be simultaneous. They will occur in the same
present moment.
This is a method that can be used to synchronize all the capitals of the
world, except that where do I place my point M?
Let's say, at the center of the earth, for example, but that's not
correct. Mexico and Amsterdam will not be at the same height.
To synchronize them, I need an abstract point, ideally placed in an
abstract 4th spatial dimension, and at an equal distance from any point in
our universe (including a point placed on the moon).
We will have perfect synchronization for this point. All the events that
occur when it sends a beep will be simultaneous for it and will be part of
its present moment.
As for M between A and B.
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated for M, we
can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always receive the beeps
simultaneously. This is the universal present for M. But ONLY for M.
Breathe, blow.
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and will say B
is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps, reaches me late,
or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my future, and not at my present
moment, because when I beep, his beep does not exist FOR me, it will only
exist in t=AB/c.

This is what we call universal anisochrony.

Are you finally starting to understand?

We can then try to synchronize B, and A sends a message,
I perceive you as late, advance your watch by AB/c.

Which is what B will do and this time, A and B live in the same present
moment, there is no more anisochrony.

Except that this time, it is B who looks at A with astonishment and says,
it is worse, for me. You no longer exist in the same present time as me
when you beep simultaneously with me (seen by you),
it is I who perceive you in reart and this time of 2 AB/c.

And so on for all the watches of the universe.

The solution is therefore to create a universal abstract time, and to
agree on this point, ideally placed at the same universal distance from
all the world capitals (and even that of the moon), this is what we call
universal time.

It is this time that is used today, and which "simulates" a global present
time which, by nature, does not exist, and has never existed in the whole
universe.

The speed of light is not a photon moving at speed c in a universal
present moment. It is for the observer an instantaneous transaction FOR
HIM in his own present moment, the two events (the supernova bursts, I see
the supernova bursting) being part of his own present.

What we consider a universal present is a useful abstract work. But
abstract. It does not exist.

Like the ancient notion of a flat earth.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.

No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and
it shows as it was set.

That's not what I'm talking about.
For 40 years now, I've been getting answers that miss the point.

Nope. Most people who dared to read your claims perfectly understood
what it is about and how and why it is garbage leading you to
contradictory claims. On the other hand, you never understand anything
about Relativity, not even the Galilean version, what coordinates are,
what synchronization is, and how this relates to experimental
confirmation.

You drowned yourself in an ocean of misconceptions and lies.

Post by Richard Hachel
Breathe, blow, and for goodness sake, at least try to understand what
I'm saying.
I'm saying that the notion of a flat earth was a logical notion for the
first men, because "if it weren't flat, the water would fall on the
edges, and those at the bottom would fall into the void".
The thought is logical in appearance, but it's wrong, the earth is not
flat.

This analogy is a complete failure. You are a complete failure.

Post by Richard Hachel
For 40 years, I've been begging physicist speakers to get a new idea in
their heads: the earth is round, and it's the principle of universal
gravitation that makes it so that water doesn't fall, and that the
Chinese don't fall into the "void".
BUT still, it's not hard to understand!
What's happening to you men, to be so timid, in front of Hachel's
immense thought? ? ?

There is no timidity in *proving* your claims to be wrong and to
*demonstrated*, black on white that they are contradictory.

Post by Richard Hachel
I beg you to believe me, it is not that difficult to understand.
You just have to abandon your a priori which do not rhyme with anything.
You idealize a flat and abstract "present time", a universal
simultaneity, it is a false and ridiculous a priori, but so anchored in
the jaw of men like a dental abscess, that they have difficulty getting
rid of it, and that they end up accommodating it.
You cannot "absolutely" tune all the watches of a given frame of
reference. Each will always lag behind the other in the best case of
synchronizations. If I send an electromagnetic message to A and B,
coming from the center M of a given segment,
for M the impulses leave together (breathe, blow), but also for M, the
impulses will arrive together.
We agree.
For M the events A and B will be simultaneous. They will occur in the
same present moment.
This is a method that can be used to synchronize all the capitals of the
world, except that where do I place my point M?

You are using a broken synchronization scheme. Read Poincaré or Einstein
to get a proper one. Synchronization verification do not rely on a
specific point. Only readings at both (or more) clocks for specific,
precisely defined, events. I tried to explain that to you in 2007 and
you failed miserably:

https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

While I was explaining the meaning of these equations:

t_B - t_A=t'_A - t_B
(2AB)/(t'_A-t_A) = c

You answered:

« Eisntein est en train de dire que deux montres sont synchronisées si
elles battent à la même vitesse (en se contrefoutant de voir si elles
marquent la même heure). »

Translation : « Eisntein (sic) is claiming that two clocks are
synchronized if they beat at the same speed (without caring at all if
they look showing the same hour). »

This is utterly asinine on your part. You probably never think about it
a single second, you just pulled out the first idiocy (and they are
many) that goes on your silly mind.

Later (recently) you pretended that you "forgot to put a question mark
at the end of your sentence". This is 100% unrealistic given the whole
content of your posts in that thread. This is a typical childish
trumpian, hypocrite, insincere, deceptive and shameful reaction.

Post by Richard Hachel
Let's say, at the center of the earth, for example, but that's not
correct. Mexico and Amsterdam will not be at the same height.
To synchronize them, I need an abstract point, ideally placed in an
abstract 4th spatial dimension, and at an equal distance from any point
in our universe (including a point placed on the moon).

Engineers are synchronizing clocks on a daily basis (so to speak)
without relying on any kind of this absurd stuff like "abstract
point" and "abstract 4th spacial dimension".

Post by Richard Hachel
We will have perfect synchronization for this point.

Synchronization is a property of a set of clocks. It does not
depend on any specific position.

Post by Richard Hachel
All the events that
occur when it sends a beep will be simultaneous for it and will be part
of its present moment.
As for M between A and B.
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated for M,
we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always receive the
beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present for M. But ONLY for M.
Breathe, blow.
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and will say
B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps, reaches me
late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my future, and not at my
present moment, because when I beep, his beep does not exist FOR me, it
will only exist in t=AB/c.

You are using a broken synchronization scheme. Read Poincaré or Einstein
to get a proper one.

Post by Richard Hachel
This is what we call universal anisochrony.

You didn't define anything sensible in the previous paragraph.

Post by Richard Hachel
Are you finally starting to understand?
We can then try to synchronize B, and A sends a message,
I perceive you as late, advance your watch by AB/c.
Which is what B will do and this time, A and B live in the same present
moment, there is no more anisochrony.
Except that this time, it is B who looks at A with astonishment and
says, it is worse, for me. You no longer exist in the same present time
as me when you beep simultaneously with me (seen by you),
it is I who perceive you in reart and this time of 2 AB/c.

You are using a broken synchronization scheme. Read Poincaré or Einstein
to get a proper one.

Post by Richard Hachel
And so on for all the watches of the universe.

You are using a broken synchronization scheme. Read Poincaré or Einstein
to get a proper one.

Post by Richard Hachel
The solution is therefore to create a universal abstract time, and to
agree on this point, ideally placed at the same universal distance from
all the world capitals (and even that of the moon), this is what we call
universal time.

No, this not how it is done.

Post by Richard Hachel
It is this time that is used today, and which "simulates" a global
present time which, by nature, does not exist, and has never existed in
the whole universe.

Incoherent babbling.

Post by Richard Hachel
The speed of light is not a photon moving at speed c in a universal
present moment. It is for the observer an instantaneous transaction FOR
HIM in his own present moment, the two events (the supernova bursts, I
see the supernova bursting) being part of his own present.

You are using a broken synchronization scheme. Read Poincaré or Einstein
to get a proper one.

Post by Richard Hachel
What we consider a universal present is a useful abstract work. But
abstract. It does not exist.

You are the one involving "abstract points" and "abstract dimensions".
Engineers deal with real clocks at real positions with real speeds.

Post by Richard Hachel
Like the ancient notion of a flat earth.

Your analogy weights NOTHING.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
t_B - t_A=t'_A - t_B
(2AB)/(t'_A-t_A) = c

(2AB)/(t'_A-t_A) = c

Absolutely.

Tu vois que parfois, tu peux dire des choses sensées.
Mais ça va vite se gâter, parce que je te connais Jean-Pierre Messager.

Post by Python
t_B - t_A=t'_A - t_B

Et voilà! Voilààààà!!!! Patatrac!! Voilàààààà!!!

Je l'avais dit.

Je suis l'une des plus grosses bites prophétiques de l'univers.

Je prophétise en direct, et qui peut tenir contre moi.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Python

Post by Python
t_B - t_A=t'_A - t_B
(2AB)/(t'_A-t_A) = c

(2AB)/(t'_A-t_A) = c
Absolutely.
[snip whining]

Post by Python
t_B - t_A=t'_A - t_B

Et voilà! Voilààààà!!!! Patatrac!! Voilàààààà!!!
Je l'avais dit.

This is a definition dumbass. Which has been proven consistent.

Post by Python
Je suis l'une des plus grosses bites prophétiques de l'univers.

You genitals' size is off-topic here. You confuse this group with
sci.biology.microbiology

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
t_B - t_A=t'_A - t_B

Et voilà! Voilààààà!!!! Patatrac!! Voilàààààà!!!

The point is, whatever could be your opinion on this equation
(which does not matter, it can be proven consistent under assumptions
that you do not question), that when confronted with it you miserably
failed to understand what it means :

« Eisntein est en train de dire que deux montres sont synchronisées si
elles battent à la même vitesse (en se contrefoutant de voir si elles
marquent la même heure). »

Translation : « Eisntein (sic) is claiming that two clocks are
synchronized if they beat at the same speed (without caring at all if
they look showing the same hour). »

Later you weaseled by pretending to have forgotten a question mark
at the end of your sentence. Which makes this even worse for you.

Ah, as a last nail in your coffin: this equation defines synchronicity
in a way that is 100% equivalent to the procedure Henri Poincaré
proposed.

Poincaré-Einstein: 1
Lengrand: 0

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated
for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always
receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present
for M. But ONLY for M.

Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard.

Post by Richard Hachel
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and
will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps,
reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my
future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his
beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c.

Breathe, blow, Richard. Scientists and engineers are smarter than
you, Richard. They can use their brains. They have used Einstein
synchronization, so they know the distance between A and B. They
can use a quaint method called mathematics to calculate when the
signal from B was launched.

Post by Richard Hachel
This is what we call universal anisochrony.

It's simply time-of-flight delay. This isn't something that requires
a new moniker or to go in a tizzy about. Your countryman, Poincare
understood it, so did Einstein, and much better than you.

Post by Richard Hachel
Are you finally starting to understand?

We have always understood it. We also have brains that understand
that it is a trivial matter.

Post by Richard Hachel
....
And so on for all the watches of the universe.

You always seem to want to go to extremes. No one wants to synchronize
all the watches in the universe.

Post by Richard Hachel
The solution is therefore to create a universal abstract time, and to
agree on this point, ideally placed at the same universal distance from
all the world capitals (and even that of the moon), this is what we call
universal time.
It is this time that is used today, and which "simulates" a global
present time which, by nature, does not exist, and has never existed
in the whole universe.

But ... it doesn't defeat the "problem" you imagined: if city A sends
a signal at time T to city B, it will not arrive at time T.

Post by Richard Hachel
The speed of light is not a photon moving at speed c in a universal
present moment. It is for the observer an instantaneous transaction FOR
HIM in his own present moment, the two events (the supernova bursts, I
see the supernova bursting) being part of his own present.
What we consider a universal present is a useful abstract work. But
abstract. It does not exist.
Like the ancient notion of a flat earth.
R.H.

Richard, you're worrying too much. Breath, blow. Everyone understands
this, they just can't understand why you're freaking out about it.

Look, people have understood the concept for centuries. If a runner
brought message to the government of an event from City A and another
runner brought a message to the government from City B that was related
to the event in City A, the potentate could consider the runners' speeds
and determine whether the events happened at the same time. Sherlock
Holmes could do this. Henri Poirot could do it. The medium doesn't
matter.

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-to-stop-overthinking

"Overthinking is an unhealthy habit that typically causes more stress
by focusing on the negative, dwelling on the PAST and worrying about
the FUTURE." [Emphasis added]

[Python]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated
for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always
receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present
for M. But ONLY for M.

Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard.

Post by Richard Hachel
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and
will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps,
reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my
future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his
beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c.

Breathe, blow, Richard.  Scientists and engineers are smarter than
you, Richard.  They can use their brains.  They have used Einstein
synchronization, so they know the distance between A and B.  They
can use a quaint method called mathematics to calculate when the
signal from B was launched.

Post by Richard Hachel
This is what we call universal anisochrony.

It's simply time-of-flight delay.  This isn't something that requires
a new moniker or to go in a tizzy about.  Your countryman, Poincare
understood it, so did Einstein, and much better than you.

Post by Richard Hachel
Are you finally starting to understand?

We have always understood it.  We also have brains that understand
that it is a trivial matter.

Post by Richard Hachel
....
And so on for all the watches of the universe.

You always seem to want to go to extremes.  No one wants to synchronize
all the watches in the universe.

Post by Richard Hachel
The solution is therefore to create a universal abstract time, and to
agree on this point, ideally placed at the same universal distance from
all the world capitals (and even that of the moon), this is what we call
universal time.
It is this time that is used today, and which "simulates" a global
present time which, by nature, does not exist, and has never existed
in the whole universe.

But ... it doesn't defeat the "problem" you imagined:  if city A sends
a signal at time T to city B, it will not arrive at time T.

Post by Richard Hachel
The speed of light is not a photon moving at speed c in a universal
present moment. It is for the observer an instantaneous transaction FOR
HIM in his own present moment, the two events (the supernova bursts, I
see the supernova bursting) being part of his own present.
What we consider a universal present is a useful abstract work. But
abstract. It does not exist.
Like the ancient notion of a flat earth.
R.H.

Richard, you're worrying too much.  Breath, blow.  Everyone understands
this, they just can't understand why you're freaking out about it.
Look, people have understood the concept for centuries.  If a runner
brought message to the government of an event from City A and another
runner brought a message to the government from City B that was related
to the event in City A, the potentate could consider the runners' speeds
and determine whether the events happened at the same time.  Sherlock
Holmes could do this.  Henri Poirot could do it.

Hercule Poirot, no? Anyway, our country doctor is definitely not the
sharpest knife in the drawer.

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
Look, people have understood the concept for centuries.  If a runner
brought message to the government of an event from City A and another
runner brought a message to the government from City B that was

related

Post by gharnagel
to the event in City A, the potentate could consider the runners'

speeds

Post by gharnagel
and determine whether the events happened at the same time.  Sherlock
Holmes could do this.  Henri Poirot could do it.

Hercule Poirot, no?

Ah, oui. I might even have written Hank, or Herbert, or Harvey or ...

Post by Richard Hachel
Anyway, our country doctor is definitely not the sharpest knife in
the drawer.

A few fries short of a Happy Meal?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated
for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always
receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present
for M. But ONLY for M.

Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard.

Post by Richard Hachel
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and
will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps,
reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my
future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his
beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c.

Breathe, blow, Richard.  Scientists and engineers are smarter than

Engineers are for sure, and anyone can check
GPS, t'=t. Common sense was warning your
scientists.

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated
for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always
receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present
for M. But ONLY for M.

Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard.

Post by Richard Hachel
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and
will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps,
reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my
future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his
beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c.

Breathe, blow, Richard.  Scientists and engineers are smarter than

Engineers are for sure, and anyone can check
GPS, t'=t.

"My explosion engine does not explode! Pay me back!" - Wozniak at
the local car seller.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Common sense

... is not your thing.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated
for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always
receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present
for M. But ONLY for M.

Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard.

Post by Richard Hachel
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and
will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps,
reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my
future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his
beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c.

Breathe, blow, Richard.  Scientists and engineers are smarter than

Engineers are for sure, and anyone can check
GPS, t'=t.

"My explosion engine does not explode! Pay me back!" - Wozniak at
the local car seller.

See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
Shit and your beloved church.

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).

[Python]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated
for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always
receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present
for M. But ONLY for M.

Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard.

Post by Richard Hachel
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and
will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps,
reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my
future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his
beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c.

Breathe, blow, Richard.  Scientists and engineers are smarter than

Engineers are for sure, and anyone can check
GPS, t'=t.

"My explosion engine does not explode! Pay me back!" - Wozniak at
the local car seller.

See, poor stinker - I've proven ...

Sure. You've also proven that Earth is flat.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated
for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always
receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present
for M. But ONLY for M.

Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard.

Post by Richard Hachel
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and
will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps,
reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my
future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his
beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c.

Breathe, blow, Richard.  Scientists and engineers are smarter than

Engineers are for sure, and anyone can check
GPS, t'=t.

"My explosion engine does not explode! Pay me back!" - Wozniak at
the local car seller.

See, poor stinker - I've proven ...

Sure. You've also proven that Earth is flat.

slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
the making of such a statement:

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Maciej Wozniak
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or

Jest fałszerzem.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Maciej Wozniak
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk  /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us  /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,

Jest fałszerzem.

He is a dumb, fanatic, lying piece of shit,
just like most of Ein stein's worshippers.

Post by Richard Hachel
R.H.

[Mikko]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.

No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and
it shows as it was set.

That's not what I'm talking about.

Yes, you were. You said "each watch will lag behind the other".

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko
No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and
it shows as it was set.

That's not what I'm talking about.

Yes, you were. You said "each watch will lag behind the other".

If we do a type M synchronization as I explained in the previous post.

R.H.

[Mikko]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko
No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and
it shows as it was set.

That's not what I'm talking about.

Yes, you were. You said "each watch will lag behind the other".

If we do a type M synchronization as I explained in the previous post.

No, you stated it unconditionally.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel
I'm talking about the initial
synchronization. At some point you have to synchronize all the watches
in all the capitals with each other.
However, this is by nature impossible.

"you have to synchronize all the watches
in all the capitals with each other."

Good grief! :-D

Post by Richard Hachel
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.

How naive is it possible to be?

You don't sync two clocks to each other, you sync one clock
to another clock.

A clock showing precise UTC can send a signal with the time
to another clock, which can be set to the received time.
This way, the clock will obviously lag on UTC, because of
the transit time of the signal.
If the master clock is, say 1000 km away, the clock
will lag on the UTC by ~ 3.3 ms, which will be adequate
for most purposes.
If better precision i needed, and the distance is known
to be, e.g. 1000km, the clock can be set to the received
time - 3.336 ms, and its precision is in the order of
microseconds.

--------

Richard, I have a question for you.

I suppose that you, like all people in France, have
a clock which is set to show the time GMT+2h.

How did you do that?

Post by Richard Hachel
So, to start the watches at t=0, you'll need a point in the universe
placed at an equal distance from all the others, and only an abstract
point placed in an imaginary, perpendicular dimension, at an equal
distance from all the points in the local universe will be able to do this.
It's not hard to understand.

That you find this nonsensical babble easy to understand
is rather alarming for your mental health. :-D

But how it was started in the real word is easy to understand,
since it is historical facts.

Here is how you start:
You are at Greenwich in the 19th century, and you say:
I herby define our pendulum clock to show GMT,
which is 12.00.00 when the medium sun is in the meridian.
All other clocks in the world must be synchronised from this
clock. We will lower a flag at 12.00.00 so all the ships
in the harbour can synchronise their clocks to show GMT.
When the radio is invented, we will send a signal to make
it possible to sync the clocks in all the UK and the rest of the world.
The clocks can now be synced to within a second, which will
be acceptable for all practical purposes (like celestial navigation).

In 1960 GMT was renamed to UTC (Coordinate Universal Time)
and the second was based on the Cs atom in stead of the Sun.
The standard clock was now an atomic clock (actually many atomic
clocks),and advances in radio communication made it possible to sync
the clocks all over the world very precisely.
In the 1978 came GPS, which was fully operational in 1993.
Now anybody can have his clock synced to within few ns.
(If he has the right equipment.)


---------

I will be otherwise occupied for a few days, and will
not post to this forum for some time.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel
I'm talking about the initial
synchronization. At some point you have to synchronize all the watches
in all the capitals with each other.
However, this is by nature impossible.

"you have to synchronize all the watches
in all the capitals with each other."

Good grief! 😂

Post by Richard Hachel
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.

How naive is it possible to be?

You don't sync two clocks to each other, you sync one clock
to another clock.

A clock showing precise UTC can send a signal with the time
to another clock, which can be set to the received time.
This way, the clock will obviously lag on UTC, because of
the transit time of the signal.
If the master clock is, say 1000 km away, the clock
will lag on the UTC by ~ 3.3 ms, which will be adequate
for most purposes.
If better precision i needed, and the distance is known
to be, e.g. 1000km, the clock can be set to the received
time - 3.336 ms, and its precision is in the order of
microseconds.

--------

Richard, I have a question for you.

I suppose that you, like all people in France, have
a clock which is set to show the time GMT+2h.

How did you do that?

Post by Richard Hachel
So, to start the watches at t=0, you'll need a point in the universe
placed at an equal distance from all the others, and only an abstract
point placed in an imaginary, perpendicular dimension, at an equal
distance from all the points in the local universe will be able to do this.
It's not hard to understand.

That you find this nonsensical babble easy to understand
is rather alarming for your mental health. 😂

But how it was started in the real word is easy to understand,
since it is historical facts.

Here is how you start:
You are at Greenwich in the 19th century, and you say:
I herby define our pendulum clock to show GMT,
which is 12.00.00 when the medium sun is in the meridian.
All other clocks in the world must be synchronised from this
clock. We will lower a flag at 12.00.00 so all the ships
in the harbour can synchronise their clocks to show GMT.
When the radio is invented, we will send a signal to make
it possible to sync the clocks in all the UK and the rest of the world.
The clocks can now be synced to within a second, which will
be acceptable for all practical purposes (like celestial navigation).

In 1960 GMT was renamed to UTC (Coordinate Universal Time)
and the second was based on the Cs atom in stead of the Sun.
The standard clock was now an atomic clock (actually many atomic
clocks),and advances in radio communication made it possible to sync
the clocks all over the world very precisely.
In the 1978 came GPS, which was fully operational in 1993.
Now anybody can have his clock synced to within few ns.
(If he has the right equipment.)

---------

I will be otherwise occupied for a few days, and will
not post to this forum for some time.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul B. Andersen
In 1960 GMT was renamed to UTC (Coordinate Universal Time)
and the second was based on the Cs atom in stead of the Sun.

Delusions of a fanatic idiot. Anyone
can check GPS, your Cs idiocy is
unusable for serious purposes and
ignored.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
Now anybody can have his clock synced to within few ns.

Right. Common sense was warning your idiot
guru.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python
Le 14/08/2024 à 14:54, M.D. Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a

....  will consider
that there exists a fourth spatial dimension in the universe, and that
an observer, placed there, perpendicular and very far away, apprehends
our 3D universe in a perfectly synchronous way for him, and it is on
this abstract but useful concept that we will synchronize all
terrestrial watches.

Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not
synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions.

No, they're not, though they're not your
gedanken delusions either. Yes, they
are synchronized by any means possible.


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).

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
Le 14/08/2024 à 14:54, M.D. Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a

....  will consider
that there exists a fourth spatial dimension in the universe, and
that an observer, placed there, perpendicular and very far away,
apprehends our 3D universe in a perfectly synchronous way for him,
and it is on this abstract but useful concept that we will
synchronize all terrestrial watches.

Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not
synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions.

No, they're not, though they're not your
gedanken delusions either. Yes, they
are synchronized by any means possible.
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).

Maciej, there are adults in the room.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
So you have given up gesticulating about universal anisochrony
and why that makes it impossible to have synchronous clocks
in Oslo and Paris?
Try to explain it again?
|>>
|>> You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
|>> are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
|>> showing UTC + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
|>> synchronous.
|>>
|>> Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
|>> (To within few seconds|
|
|> Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
|>> But I keep explaining it to you.
|>>
|>> This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.
|>>
|>> This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time”
|>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
|>> logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.
|>>
Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on
the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when
the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is
L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km
v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h
Please explain why this is not a real speed
in the ground frame.
Richard, will you flee yet again? :-D

No, no, I am not trying to escape.

You are not only trying to escape, you are fleeing like hell
to evade answering the questions.

STOP FLEEING AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE!

Is the time T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s
the correct time (temporal interval) measured in
the ground frame, between the events "Departure from Oslo"
and "Arrival in Paris"?

Is the speed v = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h
the correct speed of the aeroplane, measured in the ground frame?

The point is that if the clocks in Oslo and Paris are not
synchronous within a second, you have to answer "no" to both
questions.

Repeating the tirade below is to keep fleeing.

Post by Richard Hachel
I have forty years of relativistic
concepts behind me, and I have a perfect grasp of how things should be
taught.
There are several keys to understanding RR, and either none of these
keys are understood, or they are half understood, and that is not
satisfactory.
The first key, which is absolutely necessary to open the theory, is the
notion of universal anisochrony.
This made a lot of people laugh 40 years ago, because people did not
understand this term, nor what I meant by it.
Today, it is a little less funny, and many ask me to explain it in a
simple way, because the concept, although elementary, is not obvious to
everyone.
What is universal anisochrony?
It is a property of space, just as universal gravitation is a property
of bodies.
This means that the notion of absolute universal present is an abstract
thought.
There is no present moment at this moment that is at the level of a
planet that orbits Altair, for example, and that corresponds
reciprocally to my present moment.
In short, the notion of a flat present does not exist.
It is a thought anchored in man (like the flat earth before), but which
is only a human a priori.
Strangely, this simple idea, which corresponds perfectly to an
intelligent physics, is abandoned by men, while they understand very
well a more difficult concept which is the relativity of the internal
chronotropy of watches by change of inertial reference (gamma factor).
We come back to Paris, and to Oslo.
There is therefore a natural anisochrony between Paris and Oslo.
There is no "flat present", "horizontal plane of present time" between
Paris and Oslo. I repeat, it is useless, false and abstract.
So there is a natural, irreversible gap between the two. If we
synchronize the watches on Paris, an event that will occur in Oslo will
not exist for Paris.
An event that will occur in Paris will not exist in Oslo.
This event is only found in the "future of the other".
And so on for the entire universe.
We will always have a time interval, an anisochrony,
which will be related to the distance.
"My present is not your present, and your present is not my present,
there is no absolute universal simultaneity"
So how do we make all this agree anyway?
We will create a universal time, an abstract universal present, which
does not exist, and which corresponds to a synchronization made by an
observer placed in a fourth spatial dimension which does not exist, but
which is very useful, because mathematically,
if it is placed very far, perpendicular, and at an equal distance
from all the points of the three-dimensional metric universe which is
ours, it observes all the points in a constant perfect simultaneity.
This point is abstract, does not exist, but allows us to use a universal
time and a perfect present time plan.
But this perfect present time does not exist.
This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in
general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for
me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and
without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
STOP FLEEING AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE!

I am not running away.
Your problem simply does not make sense.
You are talking to me about planes that fly at Galilean speeds, asking me
to respond with relativistic considerations.
What can I answer you?

R.H.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
STOP FLEEING AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE!

I am not running away.

You are fleeing like hell.

Post by Richard Hachel
Your problem simply does not make sense.
You are talking to me about planes that fly at Galilean speeds, asking
me to respond with relativistic considerations.

What a nonsensical statement.
Do you remember this scenario which you never responded to:

The triplets Ginette, Elise and Wanda are co-located on
the equator. They all have an atomic clock.

Ginette are always stationary on the Equator.
Elise is travelling eastwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Wanda is travelling westwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Both are travelling once around Earth at equator.

Note that the altitude is so low that the gravitational
blue shift can be ignored.

From the time they are co-located, to they again are co-located
after Elise's and Wanda's journey, Ginette's clock shows that
the duration of their journey is τ_G = two sidereal days.

Please find what the duration of the journey will be
measured by Elise and Wanda, τ_E and τ_W.

Some data:
Circumference of Earth at equator L = 40075 km
Sidereal day Tday = 86164.0905 s
Ginette's speed in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference
(ECI frame), v = L/Tday = 465.1 m/s

SR predicts: τ_E − τ_G = −259.2 ns, τ_W − τ_G = +155.5 ns

The point is that the aeroplanes are moving at what you call
"Galilean speeds", and yes, in the real world it is possible
to make "relativistic consideration" at those speeds.
You can even measure the "relativistic phenomena" with real clocks.
And it is done in the real world.

https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
(see pages 708-716)

Post by Richard Hachel
What can I answer you?

You can answer the questions.

But the issue isn't "relativistic consideration",
it is about synchronisation of clocks!
=========================================

|> Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
|>>
|>> You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
|>> are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
|>> showing GMT + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
|>> synchronous.
|>>
|>> Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
|>> (To within few seconds|

|> Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
|>> But I keep explaining it to you.
|>>
|>> This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.
|>>
|>> This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time”
|>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
|>> logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.
|>>

STOP FLEEING AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE!

Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second.

I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on
the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when
the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is
L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km
v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h

Question #1:
------------
Is the time T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s
the correct time (temporal interval) measured in
the ground frame, between the events "Departure from Oslo"
and "Arrival in Paris"?

Question #2:
------------
Is the speed v = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h
the correct speed of the aeroplane, measured in the ground frame?


The point is that if the clocks in Oslo and Paris are not
synchronous within a second, you have to answer "no" to both
questions.

So what are your answers to the simple questions?

I bet you will keep fleeing. Chicken! :-D

Post by Richard Hachel
R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
STOP FLEEING AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE!

I am not running away.

You are fleeing like hell.

Post by Richard Hachel
Your problem simply does not make sense.
You are talking to me about planes that fly at Galilean speeds, asking
me to respond with relativistic considerations.

What a nonsensical statement.
The triplets Ginette, Elise and Wanda are co-located on
the equator. They all have an atomic clock.
Ginette are always stationary on the Equator.
Elise is travelling eastwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Wanda is travelling westwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Both are travelling once around Earth at equator.
Note that the altitude is so low that the gravitational
blue shift can be ignored.
From the time they are co-located, to they again are co-located
after Elise's and Wanda's journey, Ginette's clock shows that
the duration of their journey is τ_G = two sidereal days.
Please find what the duration of the journey will be
measured by Elise and Wanda, τ_E and τ_W.
Circumference of Earth at equator L = 40075 km
Sidereal day Tday = 86164.0905 s
Ginette's speed in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference
(ECI frame), v = L/Tday = 465.1 m/s
SR predicts:  τ_E − τ_G = −259.2 ns,  τ_W − τ_G = +155.5 ns
The point is that the aeroplanes are moving at what you call
"Galilean speeds", and yes, in the real world it is possible
to make "relativistic consideration" at those speeds.
You can even measure the "relativistic phenomena" with real clocks.

And anyone can check GPS, t'=t, no
relativistic phenomena.
Commo n sense was warning your
idiot guru.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
So you have given up gesticulating about universal anisochrony
and why that makes it impossible to have synchronous clocks
in Oslo and Paris?
Try to explain it again?
|>>
|>> You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
|>> are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
|>> showing UTC + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
|>> synchronous.
|>>
|>> Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
|>> (To within few seconds|
|
|> Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
|>> But I keep explaining it to you.
|>>
|>> This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.
|>>
|>> This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time”
|>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
|>> logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.
|>>
Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on
the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when
the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is
L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km
v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h
Please explain why this is not a real speed
in the ground frame.
Richard, will you flee yet again? :-D

No, no, I am not trying to escape. I have forty years of relativistic
concepts behind me, and I have a perfect grasp of how things should be
taught.
There are several keys to understanding RR, and either none of these
keys are understood, or they are half understood, and that is not
satisfactory.
The first key, which is absolutely necessary to open the theory, is the
notion of universal anisochrony.
This made a lot of people laugh 40 years ago, because people did not
understand this term, nor what I meant by it.
Today, it is a little less funny, and many ask me to explain it in a
simple way, because the concept, although elementary, is not obvious to
everyone.
What is universal anisochrony?
It is a property of space, just as universal gravitation is a property
of bodies.
This means that the notion of absolute universal present is an abstract
thought.
There is no present moment at this moment that is at the level of a
planet that orbits Altair, for example, and that corresponds
reciprocally to my present moment.
In short, the notion of a flat present does not exist.
It is a thought anchored in man (like the flat earth before), but which
is only a human a priori.
Strangely, this simple idea, which corresponds perfectly to an
intelligent physics, is abandoned by men, while they understand very
well a more difficult concept which is the relativity of the internal
chronotropy of watches by change of inertial reference (gamma factor).
We come back to Paris, and to Oslo.
There is therefore a natural anisochrony between Paris and Oslo.
There is no "flat present", "horizontal plane of present time" between
Paris and Oslo. I repeat, it is useless, false and abstract.
So there is a natural, irreversible gap between the two. If we
synchronize the watches on Paris, an event that will occur in Oslo will
not exist for Paris.
An event that will occur in Paris will not exist in Oslo.
This event is only found in the "future of the other".
And so on for the entire universe.
We will always have a time interval, an anisochrony,
which will be related to the distance.
"My present is not your present, and your present is not my present,
there is no absolute universal simultaneity"
So how do we make all this agree anyway?
We will create a universal time, an abstract universal present, which
does not exist, and which corresponds to a synchronization made by an
observer placed in a fourth spatial dimension which does not exist, but
which is very useful, because mathematically,
if it is placed very far, perpendicular, and at an equal distance
from all the points of the three-dimensional metric universe which is
ours, it observes all the points in a constant perfect simultaneity.
This point is abstract, does not exist, but allows us to use a universal
time and a perfect present time plan.

My idea about 'local time' is similar to the infinity sign, which is
kind of Moebius-strip.

The strip is a representation of the imaginary behaviour of time, which
is 'anti-symmetric'.

This means: you need two rotations to return, while usually you need
only one.

After one rotation over a full circle the situation flips over from
forward flowing time to backwards flowing time.

That 'backwards flow' is invisible, hence we observe only forward time
and only the 'real' part. This is represented by the adverse side of the
Moebius strip.

Now the opposite side exists, too, but experiences a timeline, which
flows into the opposite direction than ours (thou invisible).

Now we are invisible there, since our time flows backwards in comparison
to time there, too.

Now time goes on and the ribbon itself moves on in kind of 8-shape.

Then always an opposite would exist, which passes right through our
world, where time runs backwards from our perspective, which we cannot see.

But we will move 'sideways' in this picture, because we need to follow
the strip itself, which drags us through time.

This will leave us in the 'cross' of these two strips (which are only
one), because the opposite world moves through time, too, but into the
opposite direction.

TH

Post by Richard Hachel
But this perfect present time does not exist.
This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in
general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for
me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and
without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
R.H.

[Mikko]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²

No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.

LOL.
Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²

https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.

There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.

When you say that there equations (or anything) that are not correct
you should identify at least one incorrect equation and tell how you
saw that it is not correct.

Post by Richard Hachel
Unfortunately, I don't have time to do a thorough search, and to circle
in red everything that is wrong and tell you why.

Instad, you had time to post a vague useless message.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.

There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.

When you say that there equations (or anything) that are not correct
you should identify at least one incorrect equation and tell how you
saw that it is not correct.

But I do that.
I denounce false formulas and false concepts.
I re-explain all that, and I give the correct equations.
It has been wrong for a long time.
The problem: 1. I am not read 2. I am not believed.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.

 There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.

When you say that there equations (or anything) that are not correct
you should identify at least one incorrect equation and tell how you
saw that it is not correct.

But I do that.
I denounce false formulas and false concepts.

No. You deny the validity of sound and demonstrated equations.

Post by Richard Hachel
I re-explain all that, and I give the correct equations.

No. You pull out of you *ss ill-defined and contradictory claims.

Post by Richard Hachel
It has been wrong for a long time.

You have been wrong for a long time. Remember "hachelian sines and
cosines" you dropped out silently 20 years ago?

Post by Richard Hachel
The problem: 1. I am not read 2. I am not believed.

You are read. You are then proven wrong. You are in a state of denial.

[Mikko]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.

There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.

When you say that there equations (or anything) that are not correct
you should identify at least one incorrect equation and tell how you
saw that it is not correct.

But I do that.

Perhaps elsewhere but not in the message I commented.
You don't do it below, either.

Post by Richard Hachel
I denounce false formulas and false concepts.
I re-explain all that, and I give the correct equations.
It has been wrong for a long time.
The problem: 1. I am not read 2. I am not believed.

[guido wugi]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²

No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.

LOL.
Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²

https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.

Nice to have a TP simulation, but one needs an app to install.
Here's my Desmos "TP simulator" (only the linear case, admittedly, no
continuous accelerations here)
4 cases (2x2) shown:
1. Lorentz description
("observed" meaning: measured, back-calculated; showing Lorentz
transform effects)
1a: POV hometwin
1b: POV traveltwin
2. "Doppler/Einstein" description
("observed" meaning: actually seeing, looking at, the other twin!
Besides Lorentz, additional Doppler effects)
2a: POV hometwin
2b: POV traveltwin

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/aoacey9t1v?lang=nl
More SRT Desmos examples: https://www.wugi.be/srtinterac.html