"Time" vs "physical time"

Post by Maciej Wozniak
When a real person in the real world
says "time" - he/she doesn't refer
to your mystical crap at all. The
word usually means one of zone times
or UTC; TAI is referred rarely, but it
is still important. NONE of them is
observer dependent.
That's why The Shit is opposed so
fiercely by "laymen". Whet they
refer as "time" simply doesn't
have those absurd properties invented
by your idiot guru for pseudotime he
liked.

I don't understand what you're saying.
Of course, solar time depends on the person's location
on the globe, and on a solar clock, it's not the same time in Paris and in
Amsterdam.
But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we can
adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and which
would give a universal time.
This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.
If I take even Romeo and Juliet, sitting on two different benches, in the
same schoolyard. They look at each other, they make little signs to each
other. Suddenly Romeo sends a little beep on Juliet's cell phone.
Human thought is formatted in such a way that the moment when Romeo beeps
is the same for both speakers, that is to say that this moment is in a
sort of "universal present", a "plan of universal present time".
This vision of the world is completely false.
But the prejudice is so ingrained that anyone who says otherwise will be
massacred by the tribe of monkeys that constitute humanity, and who are
incapable of peeing without disgorging the toilet bowl.

R.H.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-08-06 10:21:45 UTC

I don't understand what you're saying.
Of course, solar time depends on the person's location

None of the mentioned above is "solar time".

Post by Richard Hachel
But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we can
adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and which
would give a universal time.
This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.

B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
Time was never local and it's not
going to become local just because some
idiots want it to. We can set clocks to
whatever we want. And we don't want to set
them to your local idiocy. Face it.

Python

2024-08-06 10:28:59 UTC

... We can set clocks to whatever we want.

Oh. This is a "everything does" day in Wozniak fantasy universe.

Tomorrow will be a "nothing does" day I guess :-D

Maciej Wozniak

2024-08-06 10:52:38 UTC

... We can set clocks to whatever we want.

Oh. This is a "everything does" day

No it's not, I've specified directly that
the local idiocy of your moronic church doesn't,
poor stinker.

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).

Thomas Heger

2024-08-08 06:46:20 UTC

I don't understand what you're saying.
Of course, solar time depends on the person's location

None of the mentioned above is "solar time".

Post by Richard Hachel
But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we
can adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and
which would give a universal time.
This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.

Time is a local phenomenon, but for other reason than location on planet
Earth.

Earth' surface is what I call 'a time-domaine' which uses the same time
all around the globe (at the same hight).

The particular time of sunrise is not really something, which makes a
difference, as 'reading of clocks' is time neither.

You should understand time a kind of rhythm of nature, which we can
count and which gives us means to determine, how long something takes.

This is based on some initial event and certain means of synchronisation.

As the Earth rotates in space, we can take just one meridian, to say,
that the passing of the sun in zenith at this meridian is 'universal
noon', while that isn't universal at all.

That doesn't matter too much.

But it would matter, for instance, if time would run backwards very far
away in some remote corners of the universe (from our perspective),
because that would require, that we treat time as local.

TH

Maciej Wozniak

2024-08-08 07:39:33 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger

I don't understand what you're saying.
Of course, solar time depends on the person's location

None of the mentioned above is "solar time".

Post by Richard Hachel
But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we
can adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and
which would give a universal time.
This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.

Time is a local phenomenon,

It is neither local, nor a phenomenon.
"Time in the meaning of a physicist/wannabe physicist"
may be both in their precious mystical gedankenwelts, but
the entities referred as "time" by sane people in the real
world - UTC, TAI, zone times - are coordinates: abstract,
human made, purely virtual. And, last but not least -
observer independent.

Thomas Heger

2024-08-09 05:30:21 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger

I don't understand what you're saying.
Of course, solar time depends on the person's location

None of the mentioned above is "solar time".

Post by Richard Hachel
But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we
can adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and
which would give a universal time.
This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.

Time is a local phenomenon,

Anything observable is a phenomenon.

Since time is observable, I call it a (locally observable) phenomenon.

And time is not a coordinate!

The idea of time is based on counting repeated events, which occur at a
(seemingly) constant frequency.

You may eventually 'serialise' such a process of counting and draw
something on a chart.

In this case time would be a coordinate.

But such a chart ins't a natural phenomenon, but a manmade artifact.

TH

Paul.B.Andersen

2024-08-08 17:16:40 UTC

Post by Richard Hachel
Of course, solar time depends on the person's location
on the globe, and on a solar clock, it's not the same time in Paris and
in Amsterdam.
But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we can
adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and which
would give a universal time.
This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.
If I take even Romeo and Juliet, sitting on two different benches, in
the same schoolyard. They look at each other, they make little signs to
each other. Suddenly Romeo sends a little beep on Juliet's cell phone.
Human thought is formatted in such a way that the moment when Romeo
beeps is the same for both speakers, that is to say that this moment is
in a sort of "universal present", a "plan of universal present time".
This vision of the world is completely false.
But the prejudice is so ingrained that anyone who says otherwise will be
massacred by the tribe of monkeys that constitute humanity, and who are
incapable of peeing without disgorging the toilet bowl.
R.H.

You claim that clocks in Norway and France are not synchronous
even if both show the time UTC + 2h because of the universal
anisochrony.

The question is about your anisochrony, so please read this and
answer the questions.

I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
shows 12.00.00
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
on the airport shows 13.30.32.

The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
Is this a real time, or is it impossible to know the real time
because of the universal anisochrony?

The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
of the universal anisochrony?

The question is simple:
Is it possible to calculate the real duration of the journey
by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo at the departure
and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?

Yes or no, please.

I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
in the real world, and not from your fantasy world.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Richard Hachel

2024-08-08 17:55:04 UTC

R.H.

You claim that clocks in Norway and France are not synchronous
even if both show the time UTC + 2h because of the universal
anisochrony.
The question is about your anisochrony, so please read this and
answer the questions.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
shows 12.00.00
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
on the airport shows 13.30.32.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
Is this a real time, or is it impossible to know the real time
because of the universal anisochrony?
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
of the universal anisochrony?
Is it possible to calculate the real duration of the journey
by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo at the departure
and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?
Yes or no, please.
I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
in the real world, and not from your fantasy world.
Paul

No, it is not difficult to answer your question, it is simply not very
practical.
Discussing relativistic times with planes whose speeds are very Newtonian
is quite difficult.
Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel between
Paris and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high speed from
Paris to Oslo and vice versa?

We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.
L= 13.2.10^5m
c=3.10^8m/s
(1/c)=3.333ns/m
There exists, between Paris and Oslo (the notion of universal present time
being finally understood as ridiculous and abstract in any inertial frame
of reference) a reciprocal delay of information, of real present of
universe, of ΔTo=4.44ms during a synchronization that nevertheless
appears perfectly established.

R.H.
R.H.

J. J. Lodder

2024-08-08 19:18:17 UTC

R.H.

You claim that clocks in Norway and France are not synchronous
even if both show the time UTC + 2h because of the universal
anisochrony.
The question is about your anisochrony, so please read this and
answer the questions.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
shows 12.00.00
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
on the airport shows 13.30.32.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
Is this a real time, or is it impossible to know the real time
because of the universal anisochrony?
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
of the universal anisochrony?
Is it possible to calculate the real duration of the journey
by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo at the departure
and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?
Yes or no, please.
I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
in the real world, and not from your fantasy world.
Paul

No, it is not difficult to answer your question, it is simply not very
practical.
Discussing relativistic times with planes whose speeds are very Newtonian
is quite difficult.
Paris to Oslo and vice versa?

So it is evasions, rather than yes or no.
FYI, you failed the test.

Post by Richard Hachel
Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel between
Paris and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high speed from
We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.
L= 13.2.10^5m
c=3.10^8m/s
(1/c)=3.333ns/m
There exists, between Paris and Oslo (the notion of universal present time
being finally understood as ridiculous and abstract in any inertial frame
of reference) a reciprocal delay of information, of real present of
universe, of ?To=4.44ms during a synchronization that nevertheless
appears perfectly established.

Your lack of physics knowledge is showing again.
Precisely this experiment has already been done,
between CERN and Gan Sasso, middle Italy, with high energy neutrinos.
(so no tunnel needed)
The atomic clocks at CERN and Gran Sasso were synchronised
by refering to the GPS sats that were visible simultaneously
from both places.

Does your peculiar physics predict a measured speed of c
for the highly relativistic neutrinos,
and if not, what else?

Jan

Richard Hachel

2024-08-08 19:29:07 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder
Does your peculiar physics predict a measured speed of c
for the highly relativistic neutrinos,
and if not, what else?

Your lack of knowledge in Hachelian physics is once again apparent.
Do you honestly believe that I am going to answer you with anything other
than what I have already said?

Post by J. J. Lodder
Jan

R.H.

J. J. Lodder

2024-08-08 20:36:48 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder
Does your peculiar physics predict a measured speed of c
for the highly relativistic neutrinos,
and if not, what else?

Your lack of knowledge in Hachelian physics is once again apparent.

Indeed, quite. Only Hachel knows about Hachelian physics.

Post by Richard Hachel
Do you honestly believe that I am going to answer you with anything other
than what I have already said?

So say it again. Does Hachelian physics predict an observed speed of c
for relativistic neutrinos traveling the 732 km from CERN to Gran Sasso?
(with the clocks at CERN and Gran Sasso synchronised by GPS)

Yes or no will do,

Jan

Richard Hachel

2024-08-08 20:43:26 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder
So say it again. Does Hachelian physics predict an observed speed of c
for relativistic neutrinos traveling the 732 km from CERN to Gran Sasso?
(with the clocks at CERN and Gran Sasso synchronised by GPS)
Yes or no will do,
Jan

All good relativistic physics must predict an OBSERVABLE speed of the
neutrino perfectly equal to c.
If a physics does not do it, it is not good.
On the other hand, all physicists must experimentally note that the
neutrino has this speed, and that no other particle or law of nature can
exceed it.
The cause is the universal anisochrony against which we cannot, because we
are in a concrete physics where we cannot do everything we want, resist or
contradict.

R.H.

J. J. Lodder

2024-08-08 21:25:16 UTC

OK, thats clear.
So Hachelian physics has nothing to add to special relativity,
in the way of observable fact.
All it adds are words,

Jan

Richard Hachel

2024-08-08 22:45:46 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Hachel
All good relativistic physics must predict an OBSERVABLE speed of the
neutrino perfectly equal to c.
If a physics does not do it, it is not good.
On the other hand, all physicists must experimentally note that the
neutrino has this speed, and that no other particle or law of nature can
exceed it.
The cause is the universal anisochrony against which we cannot, because we
are in a concrete physics where we cannot do everything we want, resist or
contradict.

OK, thats clear.
So Hachelian physics has nothing to add to special relativity,
in the way of observable fact.
All it adds are words,
Jan

I like this answer for several reasons.
First because it is sincere, and you believe what you say,
and I will never prevent someone from expressing their ideas.
Second because you do not insult for nothing (as others do when they think
they are intelligent).
But there are things to correct in what you say.
You say that I do not bring anything new, that is obviously false.
You say that one cannot bring new facts, that is doubly false.
First, all of my concepts and equations form a whole (from simple
Galilean, accelerated frames of reference to rotating frames of
reference), and this whole is extraordinarily coherent and logical.
From a theoretical point of view, I do not have what I called "the
transfer of the Langevin paradox into apparent relativistic speeds", while
no physicist in the world has ever been able to stand up to me on that.
They can't explain why Stella, who will live nine years during her return,
can see the Earth come back to her at an apparent speed of 4c. It's beyond
them all. ALL. None of them have ever been able to answer me for even one
second. NONE.
Secondly, there is no experimental contradiction to anything I say. Worse,
the current RR specifies like me that we cannot exceed c, but is
completely silent on the possibilities of instantaneous interactions
(quantum entanglements). I explained why there was no inconsistency
between the observable speed limit for any particle and any law of the
universe, and the instantaneous transfer of information and why the
contradiction was only apparent, and purely geometric.
I am absolutely certain that in a very short time, we will be able to
prove that everything I said was correct.
Physicists are making great progress in various techniques, and
experimental evidence will inevitably come out like fireworks in the years
to come.

R.H.

Baldomero Catalano

2024-08-08 23:08:37 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder
OK, thats clear.
So Hachelian physics has nothing to add to special relativity,
in the way of observable fact. All it adds are words, Jan

I like this answer for several reasons.
First because it is sincere, and you believe what you say,
and I will never prevent someone from expressing their ideas.

good you say it. Here more proofs on who is who and what and why. Enough
you read the title.

𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹𝗶_𝗛𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗽_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀
𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗔𝘀𝗸𝘀_𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻_𝘁𝗼_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀
https://old.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/ug8XgTmLtsS3

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2024-08-09 08:45:42 UTC

On 2024-08-08 23:08:37 +0000, "Baldomero Catalano" said:

[ … ]

Post by Baldomero Catalano
𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹𝗶_𝗛𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗽_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀
𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗔𝘀𝗸𝘀_𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻_𝘁𝗼_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀
https://old.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/ug8XgTmLtsS3

I had wondered if all these off-topic messages came from the same
nutter. Now it is clear.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots and trolls

Francisco Basurto

2024-08-09 19:25:22 UTC

On 2024-08-08 23:08:37 +0000, "Baldomero Catalano" said: [ … ]

I had wondered if all these off-topic messages came from the same
nutter. Now it is clear.

eat shit, you braindead idiot. Your posts are 100% off-topic.

8.8.2024_𝗖𝗼𝗹._𝗗𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗹𝗮𝘀_𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿_:_
𝗜𝘀_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗢𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗥𝗼𝗽𝗲𝘀?_𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗡𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗼
https://old.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/cVmSoVPoOXTH/

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2024-08-09 08:42:02 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by J. J. Lodder
Does your peculiar physics predict a measured speed of c
for the highly relativistic neutrinos,
and if not, what else?

Your lack of knowledge in Hachelian physics is once again apparent.

Indeed, quite. Only Hachel knows about Hachelian physics.

True. Only "Dr" Hachel knows about Hachelian fantasies.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Hachel
Do you honestly believe that I am going to answer you with anything other
than what I have already said?

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Paul.B.Andersen

2024-08-10 19:49:11 UTC

R.H.

Richard, this is the main point!

If the clocks at the Oslo Airport and Paris Airport are not
synchronous, what are the consequences?

Is T = 1h 30m 32s the real duration of the journey?

Yes or no please.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
of the universal anisochrony?

Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame 900 km/s?

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Is it possible to calculate the real duration of the journey
by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo at the departure
and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?
Yes or no, please.
I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
in the real world, and not from your fantasy world.
Paul

No, it is not difficult to answer your question, it is simply not very
practical.

It is indeed a very practical questions from the real world.

If it according to your theory is impossible to calculate
the speed of a plane relative to the ground, measured with one
clock in Oslo and One clock in Paris, both clocks showing
UTC+2h, how would you measure the speed of anything at any speed?

Post by Richard Hachel
Discussing relativistic times with planes whose speeds are very
Newtonian is quite difficult.

We are not discussing "Newtonian speed" or "relativistic speeds",
whatever they are supposed to mean.

we are discussing if it is possible to measure speed (dx/dt)
with two synchronised clocks.

So please, answer the questions above.

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

Post by Richard Hachel
Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel
between Paris and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high speed
from Paris to Oslo and vice versa?

As always you will never answer question from the real world,
but insist on making impossible scenarios.
(It is the tunnel that is impossible. The middle of the tunnel
would be 34.9 km below the surface, which is in the magma)

Post by Richard Hachel
We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.

OK, let's assume that the length of the tunnel is exactly 1320 km.
We are using two clocks showing UTC+2h. But they have to be
more precisely synchronised than the clocks on the airports
which can not be expected to be synchronous to much better than
within a second.

So we will us two atomic clocks which are synchronised
by GPS to show UTC+2h to within 1 ns.

The particle we will use is a photon.

A photon is sent from Oslo at the time 12.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Paris at the time 12.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s

A photon is sent from Paris at the time 13.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Oslo at the time 13.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s

Any problem with this?

Post by Richard Hachel
L= 13.2.10^5m
c=3.10^8m/s
(1/c)=3.333ns/m
There exists, between Paris and Oslo (the notion of universal present
time being finally understood as ridiculous and abstract in any inertial
frame of reference) a reciprocal delay of information, of real present
of universe, of ΔTo=4.44ms during a synchronization that nevertheless
appears perfectly established.

Is this an incredible convoluted attempt to say that the transit time
for light to go through the tunnel from Oslo to Paris or vice versa
is ≈ 4.44 ms ?

What is ridiculous about this simple fact?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Richard Hachel

2024-08-10 21:05:04 UTC

Is this an incredible convoluted attempt to say that the transit time
for light to go through the tunnel from Oslo to Paris or vice versa
is ≈ 4.44 ms ?
What is ridiculous about this simple fact?
Paul

Yes and no.

If a professor of Newtonian physics asks Richard Hachel the question: "How
long will it take for light to cross the tunnel and go from Paris to Oslo,
or from Oslo to Paris?". He will be answered 4.44ms.
If a professor of quantum physics asks the same question, Dr. Hachel
(because he is crazy) will answer: "Both 8.88ms and 0 ms."

And all three answers will be correct.

R.H.

Richard Hachel

2024-08-10 21:35:46 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
OK, let's assume that the length of the tunnel is exactly 1320 km.
We are using two clocks showing UTC+2h. But they have to be
more precisely synchronised than the clocks on the airports
which can not be expected to be synchronous to much better than
within a second.
So we will us two atomic clocks which are synchronised
by GPS to show UTC+2h to within 1 ns.
The particle we will use is a photon.
A photon is sent from Oslo at the time 12.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Paris at the time 12.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s
A photon is sent from Paris at the time 13.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Oslo at the time 13.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s
Any problem with this?

No.

Absolutely not.

All you said is correct.

R.H.

Paul.B.Andersen

2024-08-11 17:33:20 UTC

Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel between Paris and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high speed from Paris to Oslo and vice versa?
We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.

OK, let's assume that the length of the tunnel is exactly 1320 km.
We are using two clocks showing UTC+2h. But they have to be
more precisely synchronised than the clocks on the airports
which can not be expected to be synchronous to much better than
within a second.
So we will use two atomic clocks which are synchronised
by GPS to show UTC+2h to within 1 ns.
The particle we will use is a photon.
A photon is sent from Oslo at the time 12.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Paris at the time 12.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s
A photon is sent from Paris at the time 13.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Oslo at the time 13.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s
Any problem with this?

No.
Absolutely not.
All you said is correct.
R.H.

OK. So you have realised that it is possible to synchronise
a clock in Oslo and a clock in Paris to within 1 ns if
we use the GPS.

But have you realised that the clocks on the wall in
Oslo Airport and Paris Airport are synchronous to within
few seconds (probably better)?

Please answer the question below, and don't flee yet again.

Clocks in Oslo and Paris are showing the time UTC+2h.

I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
shows 12.00.00
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
on the airport shows 13.30.32.

The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s

Question #1:
============
Is it possible to calculate the duration of the journey (measured
in the ground frame) by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo
at the departure and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?

Yes or no, please.

The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.

Question #2:
============
Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
of the universal anisochrony?

Yes or no, please.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2024-08-11 18:05:43 UTC

Post by Richard Hachel
Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel
between Paris and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high
speed from Paris to Oslo and vice versa?
We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.

Well, I've been to both airports, but never at the same time, so I
haven't the chance to compare their clocks.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
So we will use two atomic clocks which are synchronised
by GPS to show UTC+2h to within 1 ns.
The particle we will use is a photon.
A photon is sent from Oslo at the time 12.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Paris at the time 12.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s
A photon is sent from Paris at the time 13.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Oslo at the time 13.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s
Any problem with this?

No.
Absolutely not.
All you said is correct.
R.H.

OK. So you have realised that it is possible to synchronise
a clock in Oslo and a clock in Paris to within 1 ns if
we use the GPS.
But have you realised that the clocks on the wall in
Oslo Airport and Paris Airport are synchronous to within
few seconds (probably better)?
Please answer the question below, and don't flee yet again.
Clocks in Oslo and Paris are showing the time UTC+2h.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
shows 12.00.00
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
on the airport shows 13.30.32.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
============
Is it possible to calculate the duration of the journey (measured
in the ground frame) by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo
at the departure and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?
Yes or no, please.
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
============
Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
of the universal anisochrony?
Yes or no, please.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Richard Hachel

2024-08-11 19:05:59 UTC

Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel between Paris
and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high speed from Paris to Oslo and
vice versa?
We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.

OK, let's assume that the length of the tunnel is exactly 1320 km.
We are using two clocks showing UTC+2h. But they have to be
more precisely synchronised than the clocks on the airports
which can not be expected to be synchronous to much better than
within a second.
So we will use two atomic clocks which are synchronised
by GPS to show UTC+2h to within 1 ns.
The particle we will use is a photon.
A photon is sent from Oslo at the time 12.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Paris at the time 12.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s
A photon is sent from Paris at the time 13.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Oslo at the time 13.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s
Any problem with this?

No.
Absolutely not.
All you said is correct.
R.H.

OK. So you have realised that it is possible to synchronise
a clock in Oslo and a clock in Paris to within 1 ns if
we use the GPS.
But have you realised that the clocks on the wall in
Oslo Airport and Paris Airport are synchronous to within
few seconds (probably better)?
Please answer the question below, and don't flee yet again.
Clocks in Oslo and Paris are showing the time UTC+2h.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
shows 12.00.00
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
on the airport shows 13.30.32.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
============
Is it possible to calculate the duration of the journey (measured
in the ground frame) by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo
at the departure and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?
Yes or no, please.
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
============
Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
of the universal anisochrony?
Yes or no, please.

The principles of relativity do not apply to your example because the time
measurements you use are of the order of seconds, and the speeds you use
are far too low (airliners) to have consistent measurements. Can you take
more classical examples of RR where we go faster or measure smaller
quantities of time?The principles of relativity do not apply to your
example because the time measurements you use are of the order of seconds,
and the speeds you use are far too low (airliners) to have consistent
measurements. Can you take more classical examples of RR where we go
faster or measure smaller quantities of time?

R.H.

Paul.B.Andersen

2024-08-12 19:18:00 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
shows 12.00.00
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
on the airport shows 13.30.32.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
============
Is it possible to calculate the duration of the journey (measured
in the ground frame) by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo
at the departure and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?
Yes or no, please.
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
============
Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
of the universal anisochrony?
Yes or no, please.

A very strange (read stupid) statement indeed. :-D

Let's redo the calculation.
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 consistent measurement. :-D

But forget this incredible stupidity of yours:
"the speeds are far too low (airliners) to have
consistent measurements."

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

This 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.
|>>

The point is that if the clocks in Oslo and Paris
were not synchronous, then it would be impossible
to measure the speed of the aeroplane in the ground frame
with the clocks in Oslo and Paris.

Are you still claiming that the clocks in Oslo and Paris,
showing UTC + 2h, are NOT synchronous due to "universal anisochrony"?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Maciej Wozniak

2024-08-08 18:10:01 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
in the real world

Your fellow idiot Mikko would tell you, poor halfbrain:
selling fantasy as reality is wqrong. And it is.

Richard Hachel

2024-08-08 18:29:50 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
in the real world

selling fantasy as reality is wqrong. And it is.

Maciej, you are right, selling fantasy or abstraction for reality is not
good.
But insulting for free is not good either.
Paul B Andersen is a very good poster, and he has made many web pages
dealing with relativity. He has made some mistakes, but it is not
impossible to make him know the real nature of things, and not the many
mistakes of relativistic physicists dictated by Einstein, Minkowski or
others.
We should not insult him, but only show him where he makes mistakes, as
for example when he integrates all the segments of an abstract curve, when
he calculates the proper times of accelerated objects, and observable
velocities of these same objects, or when he thinks he can draw a rotating
relativistic disk on a simple piece of paper without understanding what
the Lorentz transformations imply (i.e. an associated contraction of the
radius).
For your part, I invite you to read and understand everything I say about
RR and why I say it.

R.H.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-08-08 18:59:28 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
in the real world

selling fantasy as reality is wqrong. And it is.

Maciej, you are right, selling fantasy or abstraction for reality is not
good.
But insulting for free is not good either.
Paul B Andersen is a very good poster

I have a different opinion. He's a
fanatic, lying piece of shit, just like
his fellow idiots, samely casting
insults and slanders when cornered - you
just didn't see that because you can't
corner him.

Roscoe Baklykov

2024-08-08 21:25:26 UTC

Post by Richard Hachel
But the prejudice is so ingrained that anyone who says otherwise will
be massacred by the tribe of monkeys that constitute humanity, and who
are incapable of peeing without disgorging the toilet bowl. R.H.

Is it possible to calculate the real duration of the journey by
comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo at the departure and the
reading of the clock in Paris at arrival? Yes or no, please.

well not, because that's not what we call "a slow moving clock". Please
reconsider.

𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝘀𝗻𝘂𝗯𝗯𝗲𝗱_𝗩𝗣_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗵𝗲’𝘀_𝗝𝗲𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗵_–_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽
The Republican US presidential candidate has commented on Kamala Harris
not choosing Josh Shapiro
https://www.r%74.com/news/602334-trump-democrats-shapiro-jewish/

But wait--isn't Kamala's husband Juice?

Can everyone now understand how the Germans felt???

Trumps love for Jew money will be his demise.

Trump just trying butt kiss zion

Last i look Harris is married to a Juice ???

He refused to serve in the US Army. But instead served in the Israeli
Army. He's former IDF soldier. He was a toxic choice for Harris' campaign.

orry but i thought the US was already run by the Jews, (Financially
Economically and Politically).

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2024-08-09 08:47:52 UTC

Post by Roscoe Baklykov
𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝘀𝗻𝘂𝗯𝗯𝗲𝗱_𝗩𝗣_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗵𝗲’𝘀_𝗝𝗲𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗵_–_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽
The Republican US presidential candidate has commented on Kamala Harris
not choosing Josh Shapiro
https://www.r%74.com/news/602334-trump-democrats-shapiro-jewish/

[ … ]

Yet another. When will it stop?

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots and trolls

Python

2024-08-09 08:50:01 UTC

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

[ … ]
Yet another. When will it stop?

https://www.ovh.com/abuse/#!/

Satrnino Robustelli

2024-08-09 19:01:46 UTC

𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝘀𝗻𝘂𝗯𝗯𝗲𝗱_𝗩𝗣_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗵𝗲’𝘀_𝗝𝗲𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗵_–_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 The Republican
US presidential candidate has commented on Kamala Harris not choosing
Josh Shapiro
https://www.r%74.com/news/602334-trump-democrats-shapiro-jewish/

[ … ] Yet another. When will it stop?

https://www.ovh.com/abuse/#!/

best for you is to surrender and admit your defeat, you stinking mouth,
uneducated impertinent idiot. Cacamerica and france would fight for
genocide of children in 𝙏𝙝𝙚_𝙃𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙮_𝙇𝙖𝙣𝙙_𝙤𝙛_𝙋𝙖𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙚. Proofs:

𝗣𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗻_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳_𝗪𝗮𝗿𝗻𝘀_𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻:_𝗨.𝗦._𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗙𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/f7pVCsGtVZzF/

Python

2024-08-06 10:04:12 UTC

[usual boring nonsense]
That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".

Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?

Maciej Wozniak

2024-08-06 10:25:19 UTC

[usual boring nonsense]
That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".

Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?

Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
not laymen.
Yes, I can.
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

2024-08-06 10:28:06 UTC

[usual boring nonsense]
That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".

Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?

Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
not laymen.

What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Yes, I can.

So do it.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
[snip boring bullshit]

Maciej Wozniak

2024-08-06 10:49:48 UTC

[usual boring nonsense]
That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".

Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?

Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
not laymen.

What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?

Quotation marks, poor stinker.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Yes, I can.

So do it.

Command some glowing worms instead me, poor
stinker.

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).

Post by Maciej Wozniak
[snip boring bullshit]

Python

2024-08-06 10:53:57 UTC

[usual boring nonsense]
That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".

Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?

Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
not laymen.

What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?

Quotation marks, poor stinker.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Yes, I can.

So do it.

Command some glowing worms instead me

How surprising :-D !

Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker.

Nice signature Wozniak.

Python

2024-08-06 15:05:43 UTC

[usual boring nonsense]
That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".

Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?

Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
not laymen.

What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?

Quotation marks,

So are you one of the best logicians Humanity ever had or "one
of the best logicians Humanity ever had"?

:-D :-D :-D :-P

Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker.

Nice signature Wozniak.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-08-06 15:15:43 UTC

[usual boring nonsense]
That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".

Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?

Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
not laymen.

What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?

Quotation marks,

So are you one of the best logicians Humanity ever had or "one
of the best logicians Humanity ever had"?

Can be both if you wish, poor stinker.
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).

gharnagel

2024-08-06 15:30:17 UTC

Post by Python
What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?

Quotation marks,

So are you one of the best logicians Humanity ever had or "one
of the best logicians Humanity ever had"?
:-D :-D :-D :-P

Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker.

Nice signature Wozniak.

Hey, Py, why waste your "time" on Wozzie? He's a clueless zero.
And he's wrong about everything, including time. After all, he's
a disinformation engineer who copies his irrelevant disinformation
into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the brains
to be original.

People say, "I'll see you in 15 minutes" or "my trip took an hour"
which has nothing to do with time zones or time of day.

Why don't we talk about more interesting stuff. What stikes your
fancy?

Maciej Wozniak

2024-08-06 15:48:57 UTC

Post by Python
What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?

Quotation marks,

So are you one of the best logicians Humanity ever had or "one
of the best logicians Humanity ever had"?
:-D :-D :-D :-P

Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker.

Nice signature Wozniak.

See, poor trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting and insulting. So you are spitting and
insulting, together with your fellow idiots.

Richard Hachel

2024-08-06 18:06:52 UTC

Post by Python
Nice signature Wozniak.

Please, no insults.
It's ridiculous.
It's even more so when you have Richard Hachel on the same forum.
Instead of insulting each other, take into account the Chinese proverb.

表現得愚蠢五分鐘，比一輩子保持愚蠢好。

Which means "It's better to look stupid for five minutes than to stay
stupid for the rest of your life."
Which also means: "If you don't know something, don't hesitate to ask,
even if it means looking stupid."
If you don't know something, or if you haven't understood something (and
this is true for the big stars of atheory as well as for those who are
starting out), don't hesitate to ask Richard Hachel.
The doctor will answer you in an extraordinary way and with notions that
surpass everything you've ever read.
But don't insult each other.
Don't forget that the smartest among you is like dust compared to the
beauty of the Hachel system. So, it's not worth killing each other.

R.H.

gharnagel

2024-08-06 19:54:32 UTC

See? Wozzie proves what I said: he copies his irrelevant (and false)
nonsense into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the
brains to be original.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-08-06 20:58:28 UTC

Post by gharnagel

See? Wozzie proves what I said: he copies his irrelevant (and false)
nonsense into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the
brains to be original.

Tchajegov Bakusov

2024-08-08 07:51:17 UTC