Discussion:
? ? ?
Richard Hachel
2024-02-20 12:58:03 UTC
Eisntein said:

------------------
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line
of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the
point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is
possible for

an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
neigh-
bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare,

in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined
only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common
“time” for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by
definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the
“time” it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A
time” tA from
A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
.

In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if

tB − tA = tA − tB.
---------------------

I don't understand anything this man is saying.

Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand
anything at all?

R.H.
Mikko
2024-02-20 13:59:49 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
------------------
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at
the point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is
possible for
an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neigh-
bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare,
in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined
only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by
definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A
time” tA from
A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = tA − tB.
---------------------
I don't understand anything this man is saying.
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand
anything at all?
R.H.
Note the word "more" on the first line. It means that the practicality of
what follows is compared to the parcticality of what precedes.
--
Mikko
Python
2024-02-20 14:41:09 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
------------------
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at
the point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is
possible for
an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
neigh-
bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare,
in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined
only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by
definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the
“time” it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time”
tA from
A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
You cut the sentence, he wrote "at the “A time” t'_A".
Post by Richard Hachel
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = tA − tB.
---------------------
No he didn't wrote that.

He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
Post by Richard Hachel
I don't understand anything this man is saying.
Sad, it is actually quite obvious.
Post by Richard Hachel
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand
anything at all?
You are a moron.
Richard Hachel
2024-02-20 17:06:24 UTC
Post by Python
No he didn't wrote that.
He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
C'est là où est le problème.

Je ne suis jamais parvenu à me hisser moi-même à un tel génie.
Post by Python
You are a moron.
oh no.

Snifff...

R.H.
Mikko
2024-02-21 09:58:19 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Python
No he didn't wrote that.
He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
C'est là où est le problème.
It only means that t_A and t'_A are equally distant from t_B but
in opposite directions.
--
Mikko
Richard Hachel
2024-02-21 10:36:38 UTC
Post by Mikko
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Python
No he didn't wrote that.
He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
C'est là où est le problème.
It only means that t_A and t'_A are equally distant from t_B but
in opposite directions.
The problem with the theory of relativity is that it explains things very
poorly.
And this has been happening for 120 years now.
From the first words of the precis, where we talk about watch
synchronization, everything is very poorly said.
What is synchronizing a watch? How to synchronize it? On which?
I have always said that it is absolutely impossible to synchronize two
watches with each other. I said “between them”. It's impossible.
You must then choose a third watch, a third observer, to synchronize them
"between the two of them and FOR this third observer".
I am criticized for not knowing that the GPS system works.
But I know that the GPS system works, and that's EXACTLY what I'm saying.
What happens to the GPS system? We synchronize all terrestrial watches on
a virtual watch placed in a virtual fourth spatial dimension, and placed
virtually equidistant from all the points of our three D marker.
We then obtain an abstract, but useful, synchronization.
We come back to the fact that two separate watches can never be in tune,
and find themselves in the same absolute present time.
This is an a priori, a caprice.
It doesn't exist in nature.
It is moreover this caprice, this a priori of the plan of present time,
which results in Langevin's paradox which no one (except me) has ever
explained correctly.
Remove the whim, you remove the paradox.

R.H.
MaciejWozniak
2024-02-21 17:30:52 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Mikko
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Python
No he didn't wrote that.
He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
C'est là où est le problème.
It only means that t_A and t'_A are equally distant from t_B but
in opposite directions.
The problem with the theory of relativity is that it explains things very
poorly.
And this has been happening for 120 years now.
From the first words of the precis, where we talk about watch
synchronization, everything is very poorly said.
What is synchronizing a watch? How to synchronize it? On which?
I have always said that it is absolutely impossible to synchronize two
watches with each other. I said “between them”. It's impossible.
You must then choose a third watch, a third observer, to synchronize them
"between the two of them and FOR this third observer".
I am criticized for not knowing that the GPS system works.
But I know that the GPS system works, and that's EXACTLY what I'm saying.
What happens to the GPS system? We synchronize all terrestrial watches on
a virtual watch placed in a virtual fourth spatial dimension, and placed
virtually equidistant from all the points of our three D marker.
We then obtain an abstract, but useful, synchronization.
We come back to the fact that two separate watches can never be in tune,
and find themselves in the same absolute present time.
This is an a priori, a caprice.
It doesn't exist in nature.
So GPS doesn't exist in nature? What a discovery.
Richard Hachel
2024-02-21 19:17:02 UTC
Post by MaciejWozniak
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Mikko
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Python
No he didn't wrote that.
He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
C'est là où est le problème.
It only means that t_A and t'_A are equally distant from t_B but
in opposite directions.
The problem with the theory of relativity is that it explains things very
poorly.
And this has been happening for 120 years now.
From the first words of the precis, where we talk about watch
synchronization, everything is very poorly said.
What is synchronizing a watch? How to synchronize it? On which?
I have always said that it is absolutely impossible to synchronize two
watches with each other. I said “between them”. It's impossible.
You must then choose a third watch, a third observer, to synchronize them
"between the two of them and FOR this third observer".
I am criticized for not knowing that the GPS system works.
But I know that the GPS system works, and that's EXACTLY what I'm saying.
What happens to the GPS system? We synchronize all terrestrial watches on
a virtual watch placed in a virtual fourth spatial dimension, and placed
virtually equidistant from all the points of our three D marker.
We then obtain an abstract, but useful, synchronization.
We come back to the fact that two separate watches can never be in tune,
and find themselves in the same absolute present time.
This is an a priori, a caprice.
It doesn't exist in nature.
So GPS doesn't exist in nature? What a discovery.
Merci de ne pas répondre n'importe quoi à mes posts.

R.H.
Volney
2024-02-21 22:16:38 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Merci de ne pas répondre n'importe quoi à mes posts.
Rhuan Yufa Babetoff
2024-02-22 00:27:15 UTC
Post by Volney
Post by Richard Hachel
Merci de ne pas répondre n'importe quoi à mes posts.
lol, the wankers of amrica are fucked up, abruptly lol.

𝗨𝗦_𝗗𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮, what a gay..
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/2HpJQv3Ru7Mz

𝗬𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻_𝗵𝗶𝘁𝘀_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗸𝘀_𝗮𝗻_𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 lol
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/KqQcqgFe3Cu2

𝗨𝗦_𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀_𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘂𝗽_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆𝘆_𝘁𝗼_𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗸_𝘂𝗽_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿_𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/rzkzcFJX1lVV

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘁_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗮_𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗺_𝗺𝗮𝗻'𝘀_𝗰𝗮𝗿_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗮_𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗶_-_𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/XUNIFx3gMEIR

𝗪𝗵𝘆_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗮𝗹𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰_𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀_𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿_𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗮𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲_𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲
𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/ZEge33Izi84k

𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗨𝗻𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱𝘀_𝗢𝗻_𝗚𝗿𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗕𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀,
'𝗕𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗜𝘀_𝗔_𝗟𝗼𝘁_𝗦𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘇𝗶𝗲𝗿_𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻,_𝗔_𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗗𝗼𝘄𝗻'
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/3MZIMLhMpFW7

‘𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀’_𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻_𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮,_𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗠
Justin Trudeau wants “massive changes” in the news landscape
https://r%74.com/news/592897-justin-trudeau-mainstream-media/

As Julian said, almost all wars are started by legacy media lies -
'weapons of mass destruction' exemplify that truth. The power and agenda
of corrupt oligarchs programming millions of minds dies with the boomer
generation and there's nothing this weak little Nazi lover can do about
it. Totalitarians like him fear and despise those who speak the truth, as
Julian's plight illustrates.

Sure, a repeat convicted ethics violator is going to tell Canadians what
is what.

𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗡_𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡_𝗧𝗢_𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧_𝗣𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗡:_𝗣𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲_𝗲𝗻𝗱_𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝘀𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴.
Dear President, when will you come to the rescue of western civilisation,
drowning under the sewerage of US zionism, and reveal the FACT, it was
sxmitic zionists and their zionist-neocons who ochestrated 9/11?
Thank you, Humanity. May the Gods of the Cosmos bless Mother Russia and
President Putin.

Justin Trudeau is an embarrassment to his father and his country.
Conspiracy theorists don't threaten MSM. The press that rigidly acts as a
stenographer for the government does.

Truddie must go along with MSM

Conspiracy Theory: Anything the cabal doesn't want you to know.

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗘𝗨_‘𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁_𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸’_–_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃
PM Denis Shmigal says his country has lost a third of its economy and some
3.5 million jobs since the start of the conflict with Russia
https://r%74.com/russia/592859-ukrainians-not-coming-back/

The Japs are experts at rebuilding totally flattened cities. Never were
two atom bombs better spent. Degenerate cruel animals.

12 million of Uki free-loaders have ravaged Poland and they won't go
anywhere. They contribute to nothing but rise in crime rate as well as
destroying families with young Uki females enticing married Polish men.
Economically, their long-term damage to Polish economy and social welfare
is akin to what is happening in the USA by Latin migrants.

Just another Zionist crying in his milk.

Maybe the Japs can send over some of their dying population to help out 😂

Don't worry, the EU WEF Cabal will flood Ukraine with new types of
refugees after the War. That is the plan.
Mikko
2024-02-21 18:15:22 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Mikko
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Python
No he didn't wrote that.
He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
C'est là où est le problème.
It only means that t_A and t'_A are equally distant from t_B but
in opposite directions.
The problem with the theory of relativity is that it explains things
very poorly.
You seem to mean that the theory is very poorly explained. Which is
true to some extent. Some books explein it better than some other
books.
--
Mikko
Richard Hachel
2024-02-21 19:31:31 UTC
Post by Mikko
You seem to mean that the theory is very poorly explained. Which is
true to some extent. Some books explein it better than some other
books.
Yes, it's true.

I noticed this about forty years ago.

Certainly, there are things that are not too badly said, sometimes, but
most of the time it is very poorly explained, and we clearly see that the
author of the article, the site, or the book does not understand clearly
what he says and uses abstract mathematics to explain things he doesn't
understand.

I personally wanted to re-explain all of this from the basics, and using
clear concepts.

I encounter fat laughter, threats, censures, and idiotic taunts.

However, what I am saying is very obvious and very obvi.

We must review and clarify the definition of “simultaneity”,
anisotropy and chronotropy.

We must describe the Langevin as I do it (no one in the world is capable
of doing it correctly except me), we must review the proper times in
accelerated frames of reference, and the instantaneous observable speeds
which are incorrect, we must accept the transformations
that I gave for the rotating frames of reference.

Yes, we must first clearly redefine things, and start from the notion of
synchronization of watches, explained very confusedly by Einstein, which
does not take into account universal anisochrony.

It is as if a physicist wanted to talk about the fall of bodies, without
positing the correct equation for universal gravitation. We end up with
something poorly put together, and which no one clearly understands.

This is why the SR has been stuck in bad concepts for 120 years without
anyone understanding anything anymore.

Anyone who says they clearly understand are liars or idiots. They then get
angry with me when I tell them, but quickly run away if I ask them to
account.

R.H.
Mikko
2024-02-22 09:30:55 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Mikko
You seem to mean that the theory is very poorly explained. Which is
true to some extent. Some books explein it better than some other
books.
Yes, it's true.
I noticed this about forty years ago.
Certainly, there are things that are not too badly said, sometimes, but
most of the time it is very poorly explained, and we clearly see that
the author of the article, the site, or the book does not understand
clearly what he says and uses abstract mathematics to explain things he
doesn't understand.
Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the
inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
physical meaning.
--
Mikko
Maciej Wozniak
2024-02-22 13:00:58 UTC
Post by Mikko
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Mikko
You seem to mean that the theory is very poorly explained. Which is
true to some extent. Some books explein it better than some other
books.
Yes, it's true.
I noticed this about forty years ago.
Certainly, there are things that are not too badly said, sometimes, but
most of the time it is very poorly explained, and we clearly see that
the author of the article, the site, or the book does not understand
clearly what he says and uses abstract mathematics to explain things he
doesn't understand.
Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the
inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
physical meaning.
Oh, can it really?
"for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2, where c - the longest,
a and b the shorter sides."
Let's see you verifying its correctness. Will you, poor
halfbrain?
Mikko
2024-02-22 14:46:47 UTC
Post by Mikko
Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the
inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
physical meaning.
Mikko
I don't know the point of abstract mathematics, and maybe you're right.
But my point is that in some cases they are both unnecessary and wrong.
Consider the case of the theory of special relativity. What does Doctor
Hachel say who, like Poincaré, has the fault of being French?
He says that his abstractions are useless because we do things faster
and better with simple school-level calculations.
Simple scool level calculations are abstract mathematics.
--
Mikko
MaciejWozniak
2024-02-22 16:42:01 UTC
Post by Mikko
Post by Mikko
Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the
inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
physical meaning.
Mikko
I don't know the point of abstract mathematics, and maybe you're right.
But my point is that in some cases they are both unnecessary and wrong.
Consider the case of the theory of special relativity. What does Doctor
Hachel say who, like Poincaré, has the fault of being French?
He says that his abstractions are useless because we do things faster
and better with simple school-level calculations.
Simple scool level calculations are abstract mathematics.
And speaking of abstract mathematics - it's always
announce its oldest, very important and successful
part false, as it didn't want to fit the madness
J. J. Lodder
2024-02-22 21:22:28 UTC
Post by Mikko
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Mikko
You seem to mean that the theory is very poorly explained. Which is
true to some extent. Some books explein it better than some other
books.
Yes, it's true.
I noticed this about forty years ago.
Certainly, there are things that are not too badly said, sometimes, but
most of the time it is very poorly explained, and we clearly see that
the author of the article, the site, or the book does not understand
clearly what he says and uses abstract mathematics to explain things he
doesn't understand.
Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the
inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
physical meaning.
What do you mean, 'physical meaning'?,

Jan
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-02-22 12:37:02 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
We must describe the Langevin as I do it
No, we must understand, first of all, that
*** THERE IS NO PARADOX *** in the Langevin gedanken.

Although twins A and B have different experiences,
both twins are in complete agreement on how many seconds
have passed on A's clock, and both twins are in complete
agreement on how many seconds have passed on B's clock.

There would only be paradox if A observed a different
number of seconds passing on B's clock than B measured,
or if B observed a different number of seconds passing
on A's clock than A measured.

But they do not have any such disagreement. See my
discussion here:

Maciej Wozniak
2024-02-22 13:03:07 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Although twins A and B have different experiences,
both twins are in complete agreement on how many seconds
have passed on A's clock, and both twins are in complete
agreement on how many seconds have passed on B's clock.
And, as anyone can check in GPS, in the reality
these numbers have nothing in common with the
inconsistent prophecies of your idiot guru.
Richard Hachel
2024-02-22 14:26:13 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Richard Hachel
We must describe the Langevin as I do it
No, we must understand, first of all, that
*** THERE IS NO PARADOX *** in the Langevin gedanken.
To judge what a man (here me) says, you must first understand this man.
If we give a man who does not know music theory the score of Mozart's
21st, he will only see signs written on paper, and will understand nothing
of the beauty of the work.
If I give you the explanations of Langevin's traveler, it is clear that
you will not be able to appreciate the beauty of the concepts.
For this, you would have to study and understand what I am saying.
There is in Langevin's traveler a paradox that is irresolvable without
going through Hachel. Physicists, not knowing what to do with it, divert
the problem by proposing a very welcome gap time at the time of the
U-turn. This is obviously not very serious, friends, and it's sweeping
dust under the rug. I don't practice such things, and yet, at home, Stella
is 18 years old like at yours, and 30 is definitely 30.
In a logical scientific universe, we had to ask ourselves: but how does he
do it?
Or: Sir, sit with us for a few moments and explain yourself.
I say "in a logical scientific universe.

R.H.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-02-22 17:05:55 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Richard Hachel
We must describe the Langevin as I do it
No, we must understand, first of all, that
*** THERE IS NO PARADOX *** in the Langevin gedanken.
To judge what a man (here me) says, you must first understand this man.
If we give a man who does not know music theory the score of Mozart's
21st, he will only see signs written on paper, and will understand nothing
of the beauty of the work.
If I give you the explanations of Langevin's traveler, it is clear that
you will not be able to appreciate the beauty of the concepts.
For this, you would have to study and understand what I am saying.
There is in Langevin's traveler a paradox that is irresolvable without
going through Hachel. Physicists, not knowing what to do with it, divert
the problem by proposing a very welcome gap time at the time of the
U-turn.
Changes in the traveling twin's motion do not affect the
stay-at-home twin at all. They only change what instants
in the stay-at-home twin's timeline that the traveling twin
considers to be simultaneous to his own.

that you have some sort of heightened insight into a basic
consequence of the relativity of simultaneity.

You do not.
Post by Richard Hachel
This is obviously not very serious, friends, and it's sweeping
dust under the rug. I don't practice such things, and yet, at home, Stella
is 18 years old like at yours, and 30 is definitely 30.
In a logical scientific universe, we had to ask ourselves: but how does he
do it?
Or: Sir, sit with us for a few moments and explain yourself.
I say "in a logical scientific universe.
R.H.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-02-22 21:16:54 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Changes in the traveling twin's motion do not affect the
stay-at-home twin at all. They only change what instants
in the stay-at-home twin's timeline that the traveling twin
considers to be simultaneous to his own.
that you have some sort of heightened insight into a basic
consequence of the relativity of simultaneity.
You do not.
Inhale, blow...
Gently...
I repeat: Inhale...blow gently...
It is obvious, I hope that you are not going to want to make me say what I
did not say, that what happens there does not influence what happens on
earth, nor the proper chronology. earthly.
For 40 years, I have been trying to do serious relativistic science, with
serious models.
As for what happens at the moment of the U-turn for the space traveler,
and for his twin who observes him through the telescope,
I would even say, which will shock my reader (but stuck as he is either in
Newtonism or in Minkowskianism), that almost nothing happens at all.
Correct. Nothing happens at all.
For Terrence, he sees (this is an example) his sister turn in 40 hours on
a large semi-circle
Huh? The usual statement of the twin paradox holds that
Stella flies straight out, turns, and then flies straight
back. Even if it takes her 24 hours by her clock to
accomplish the turnaround, there is no semi-circle for
Terrence to observe.
and at a tangential speed of 0.8c, while she ages by
24 hours of proper time.
She changes from a radial speed of 0.8c outwards to a
radial speed of 0.8c inwards over a 24 hour period by
her clock.

What's all this "tangential speed" stuff?

Be very, very careful here. What Terrence and Stella "see" is
quite different from what they would "measure" after properly
compensating for speed of light effects.

What they each "see" is that light from their twin changes
from pronounced redshift to pronounced blueshift, and
their twin's apparent motions changes from super slow due to
relativistic Doppler effect to super fast.

I presume from the numbers that you have presented that
the star system is 4 ly away for a total trip time, by
Terrence's clock, of 10 years. Measured by Stella's clock,
the total trip time would be 6 years.
For Stella, she spends 24 hours of her own time, while she sees her
brother age 40 hours. Nothing very natural, basically. He is (for her)
three years old when she turns, he is always three years old at the end of
his turn.
You are confusing "seeing" with "measurement". When Stella reaches
the destination star, the light entering her telescope is from
4 years previous. On her way back, she catches up with all of the
"missing" light.
Everything else happens during the Galilean relative phases.
You have spent years being totally confused.
The universal equation is valid for both (there is no preferred reference
frame): Tapp=Tr.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
"...and the effects of physics, even apparent, are reciprocal by
permutation of frame of reference"
R.Hachel. Kyoti Conference 2023
Breathe, breathe...
R.H.
Richard Hachel
2024-02-22 22:55:10 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
For 40 years, I have been trying to do serious relativistic science, with
serious models.
As for what happens at the moment of the U-turn for the space traveler,
and for his twin who observes him through the telescope,
I would even say, which will shock my reader (but stuck as he is either in
Newtonism or in Minkowskianism), that almost nothing happens at all.
Correct. Nothing happens at all.
Yééééééééééééééééééééé!

Champagne, les mecs!

R.H.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-02-23 00:37:51 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
For 40 years, I have been trying to do serious relativistic science, with
serious models.
As for what happens at the moment of the U-turn for the space traveler,
and for his twin who observes him through the telescope,
I would even say, which will shock my reader (but stuck as he is either in
Newtonism or in Minkowskianism), that almost nothing happens at all.
Correct. Nothing happens at all.
Yééééééééééééééééééééé!
Champagne, les mecs!
Have you spent 40 years in the false belief that physics
students believe that something mystical happens at the
moment of turnaround? All that happens with a change of
motion is a change in the set of points considered to be
simultaneous with a given event on an observer's world
line.

By the way, a better word than "measurement" in my
previous post might be "calculation". Consider the following
slight variation on the twin paradox:

Stella travels at 0.8 c to a star 4 ly distant that is
mutually at rest with her home planet. When she reaches
the star, she stops for a few minutes to refuel. While
waiting for her tank to refill, she calculates that her
brother, Terrence, is older by five years than when she
started, even though her wristwatch shows only three
years elapsed time. The latest message from her brother,
however, dates from a year after she started. On the
way back home, all the messages from her brother are
sped up so that her brother's words are barely
comprehensible. When she arrives home, her brother is
10 years older, while her wristwatch shows that 6 years
have elapsed.
Richard Hachel
2024-02-22 22:57:59 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Huh? The usual statement of the twin paradox holds that
Stella flies straight out, turns, and then flies straight
back. Even if it takes her 24 hours by her clock to
accomplish the turnaround, there is no semi-circle for
Terrence to observe.
No connection.

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2024-02-22 23:03:29 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
She changes from a radial speed of 0.8c outwards to a
radial speed of 0.8c inwards over a 24 hour period by
her clock.
What's all this "tangential speed" stuff?
Be very, very careful here. What Terrence and Stella "see" is
quite different from what they would "measure" after properly
compensating for speed of light effects.
What they each "see" is that light from their twin changes
from pronounced redshift to pronounced blueshift, and
their twin's apparent motions changes from super slow due to
relativistic Doppler effect to super fast.
I presume from the numbers that you have presented that
the star system is 4 ly away for a total trip time, by
Terrence's clock, of 10 years. Measured by Stella's clock,
the total trip time would be 6 years.
No, I asked 12 al (the distance to Tau Ceti).

Or for Stella: go 9 years, turn around on a large semi-circle 24 hours,
return 9 years. Total 30 years.

Or for Terrence (in real time): go 27 years, turn around 40 hours,
return 3 years. Total 30 years.

Either for the neutral earth-Tau Ceti benchmark; go 15 years, turn around
40 hours, return 15 years, total 30 years.

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2024-02-22 23:19:06 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
You are confusing "seeing" with "measurement". When Stella reaches
the destination star, the light entering her telescope is from
4 years previous. On her way back, she catches up with all of the
"missing" light.
Unfortunately, I'm not confusing anything at all.

Always always always I am very clear and very sure of myself in my words.

I also think that YOU are mistaken in the concepts that should be yours if
you had correctly understood the theory of relativity (which is not
necessarily the one that men teach).

Listen to me carefully, it's worth the trip for those who really seek to
understand, and not to show off by reciting by heart nonsense taught by
men.

When Stella arrives there, at Tau Ceti (12 al) after a 12 al outward
journey, she looks through her telescope and "sees" there, an earth
located at 4 al (instead of 12 al) due to the contraction distances. I did
say 4al, where men, asking anything and doing anything, say 7.2 al.

She sees, if her telescope is powerful enough, the earth 3 years old.

I'll stop here, because I already know that the readers will (9 chances
out of 10) lose their temper.

For those who agree with me, I can then continue the description, but I
advise them to be cautious in the face of the beauty and clarity of the
complete reasoning which will lead, for both, to a perfect agreement. She
will be 18, he will be 30.

R.H.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-02-23 12:15:04 UTC
Le 22/02/2024 à 22:16, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog a
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
You are confusing "seeing" with "measurement". When Stella reaches
the destination star, the light entering her telescope is from
4 years previous. On her way back, she catches up with all of the
"missing" light.
Unfortunately, I'm not confusing anything at all.
Always always always I am very clear and very sure of myself in my words.
I also think that YOU are mistaken in the concepts that should be yours if
you had correctly understood the theory of relativity (which is not
necessarily the one that men teach).
Listen to me carefully, it's worth the trip for those who really seek to
understand, and not to show off by reciting by heart nonsense taught by
men.
When Stella arrives there, at Tau Ceti (12 al) after a 12 al outward
journey, she looks through her telescope and "sees" there, an earth
located at 4 al (instead of 12 al) due to the contraction distances. I did
say 4al, where men, asking anything and doing anything, say 7.2 al.
She sees, if her telescope is powerful enough, the earth 3 years old.
I'll stop here, because I already know that the readers will (9 chances
out of 10) lose their temper.
For those who agree with me, I can then continue the description, but I
advise them to be cautious in the face of the beauty and clarity of the
complete reasoning which will lead, for both, to a perfect agreement. She
will be 18, he will be 30.
You fail to maintain the reciprocal relationship between
length contraction and time dilation.

If we applied your math to the survival of atmospheric
muons to Earth, the time dilation approach would yield
different results from the length contraction approach.
Maciej Woźniak
2024-02-23 15:13:21 UTC
You fail to maintain the reciprocal relationship between length
contraction and time dilation.
If we applied your math to the survival of atmospheric
muons to Earth, the time dilation approach would yield different results
from the length contraction approach.
Bullshit, anyone can check GPS, there is no time dilation,
time (as defined by your idiot guru himself) is galilean
with the precision of an acceptable error.
Richard Hachel
2024-02-22 23:19:41 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
You have spent years being totally confused.
LOL.

R.H.
Thomas Heger
2024-02-23 07:09:16 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
------------------
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at
the point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is
possible for
an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
neigh-
bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare,
in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined
only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by
definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the
“time” it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time”
tA from
A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = tA − tB.
---------------------
I don't understand anything this man is saying.
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand
anything at all?
Einstein assumed, that a place called 'A' and a very remote place called
'B' have own times ('A-Time' and 'B-Time') which do not necessarily
coincide.

To find a time 'AB-time' allowing to synchronize clocks at place 'A' and
place 'B', he took the local time of a place exactly in the middle
between A and B.

This time local to a location at (A+B)/2 would then allow to synchronize
clocks at equidistant locations like A and B.

The dependence of time on the location stems from an error of Einstein,
who made no efforts to compensate the delay of a light signal, caused by
the finite speed of light.

That's why a remote clock was seemingly too late and the later, the
further away.

But a hypothetical observer in the middle would see both ends of the
connecting line from A to B at the same time, hence could be used as a
judge, whether or not the clocks at A and B run in synch.

His time would then be 'common time' and could be used to synchronize
clocks at A and B.

I, personally, do not really agree, because removal of the run time
delay would have been an option, too, and much easier.

My method has a disadvantage, however, because synchronisation would
require a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity, which does not exist.

But one could measure the delay quite easily (by sending a 'ping' and
cut the delay for the roundtrip in half).

The delay time could be added to the coded timing signal and we have
also synchronisation. But in that case the time at the remote localtions
would be different to the time according to Einstein's method.

TH

TH
Python
2024-02-23 14:02:14 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
...
Einstein assumed, that a place called 'A' and a very remote place called
"very remote" is something you made up out of nothing. It is clear
for any decent reader that the point is to synchronize clocks involves
a given practical physical situation, such a an experiment in a
lab. So distances between clocks is in the order of centimeters
or meters in typical case.
Post by Thomas Heger
'B' have own times ('A-Time' and 'B-Time') which do not necessarily
coincide.
A-time is just a way to express that it is a time marked by clock
at a given position A, same for B clocks, both being in mutual
rest and identical in all points.

The point, that you fail to understand, even after it has been
explained to you numerous times, is that even both clocks are
similar (using same time units, run at same rate) you need
a procedure to synchronize them (or check that they are synchronized)
Post by Thomas Heger
To find a time 'AB-time' allowing to synchronize clocks at place 'A' and
place 'B', he took the local time of a place exactly in the middle
between A and B.
This time local to a location at (A+B)/2 would then allow to synchronize
clocks at equidistant locations like A and B.
The is NOTHING of that kind in part I.1. in Einstein paper. This is,
again, something you made up out of nothing !!!
Post by Thomas Heger
The dependence of time on the location stems from an error of Einstein,
who made no efforts to compensate the delay of a light signal, caused by
the finite speed of light.
The two equations in part I.1. in Einstein paper are precisely about
taking such a delay into account without having to pre-suppose pre-
synch.

The "delay" is embedded in the synch procedure so to speak, in quite
an obvious way for any decent reader.
Post by Thomas Heger
That's why a remote clock was seemingly too late and the later, the
further away.
But a hypothetical observer in the middle would see both ends of the
connecting line from A to B at the same time, hence could be used as a
judge, whether or not the clocks at A and B run in synch.
His time would then be 'common time' and could be used to synchronize
clocks at A and B.
I, personally, do not really agree, because removal of the run time
delay would have been an option, too, and much easier.
My method has a disadvantage, however, because synchronisation would
require a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity, which does not exist.
But one could measure the delay quite easily (by sending a 'ping' and
cut the delay for the roundtrip in half).
The delay time could be added to the coded timing signal and we have
also synchronisation. But in that case the time at the remote localtions
would be different to the time according to Einstein's method.
TH
TH
Richard Hachel
2024-02-23 21:35:13 UTC
Le 23/02/2024 à 15:02, My great lover, Python (Jean-Pierre Messager pour
Post by Python
The two equations in part I.1. in Einstein paper are precisely about
taking such a delay into account without having to pre-suppose pre-
synch.
The "delay" is embedded in the synch procedure so to speak, in quite
an obvious way for any decent reader.
Yes, but I am a particularly indecent reader.
I can afford it with my extremist and powerful ideology
against which we can do nothing except stupid verbiage or threats or
stupid taunts.
I do not approve of two things in Einstein's paper, and on that, I am
necessarily stronger than him.
For what?
He completely ignores the notion of anisochrony which will ultimately make
his theory ridiculous if we move on to Langevin in apparent speeds.
I take the precaution of pre-supposing it, he doesn't. So there is laxity.
It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
demonstrate it.

Which is based on the best principles.

He sets t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c

I do the same, and I posit that a swallow is a swallow: a great deal.

For the rest, I find myself wondering, despite years spent on the bans of
school (perhaps even of college) how you were able to slip through the net
with so many intellectual deficiencies.

You don't understand anything.

My complaint against absolute synchronization, you don't understand it.
The apparent speeds, it takes you three months to understand.
Langevin as I explain it is beyond you.
I'm not even talking about uniformly accelerated frames of reference and
rotating frames of reference. It's beyond you.

I'm still waiting for your criticism on the transformations I gave
on this to a blissful and paralyzed humanity, which is a bit like you.

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

R.H.
Volney
2024-02-24 12:40:01 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Le 23/02/2024 à 15:02, My great lover, Python (Jean-Pierre Messager pour
Post by Python
The "delay" is embedded in the synch procedure so to speak, in quite
an obvious way for any decent reader.
Yes, but I am a particularly indecent reader.
I can afford it with my extremist and powerful ideology
against which we can do nothing except stupid verbiage or threats or
stupid taunts.
What about the ordinary corrections given to you without threats or taunts?
Post by Richard Hachel
I do not approve of two things in Einstein's paper, and on that, I am
necessarily stronger than him.
Since there aren't errors in the SR paper the two things must be
correct, showing Einstein is stronger than you.
Post by Richard Hachel
For what?
He completely ignores the notion of anisochrony
What is an anisochrony? Is it a purple alien monster with three eyes and
11 tentacles? I'll agree that Einstein did not consider the existence of
space aliens in any of his papers.
Post by Richard Hachel
It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
demonstrate it.
No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all
(inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.
Post by Richard Hachel
Which is based on the best principles.
He sets t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c
And AB/c is the delay of a signal from B to A (or vice versa). Why do
you claim Einstein didn't consider the signal delay?
Richard Hachel
2024-02-24 13:07:55 UTC
Post by Volney
Post by Richard Hachel
Le 23/02/2024 à 15:02, My great lover, Python (Jean-Pierre Messager pour
Post by Python
The "delay" is embedded in the synch procedure so to speak, in quite
an obvious way for any decent reader.
Yes, but I am a particularly indecent reader.
I can afford it with my extremist and powerful ideology
against which we can do nothing except stupid verbiage or threats or
stupid taunts.
What about the ordinary corrections given to you without threats or taunts?
Post by Richard Hachel
I do not approve of two things in Einstein's paper, and on that, I am
necessarily stronger than him.
Since there aren't errors in the SR paper the two things must be
correct, showing Einstein is stronger than you.
Post by Richard Hachel
For what?
He completely ignores the notion of anisochrony
What is an anisochrony? Is it a purple alien monster with three eyes and
11 tentacles? I'll agree that Einstein did not consider the existence of
space aliens in any of his papers.
Post by Richard Hachel
It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
demonstrate it.
No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all
(inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.
Post by Richard Hachel
Which is based on the best principles.
He sets t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c
And AB/c is the delay of a signal from B to A (or vice versa). Why do
you claim Einstein didn't consider the signal delay?
You don't want to understand what I'm saying.

R.H.
Python
2024-02-24 15:38:47 UTC
Post by Volney
Post by Richard Hachel
Le 23/02/2024 à 15:02, My great lover, Python (Jean-Pierre Messager
Post by Python
The "delay" is embedded in the synch procedure so to speak, in quite
an obvious way for any decent reader.
Yes, but I am a particularly indecent reader.
I can afford it with my extremist and powerful ideology
against which we can do nothing except stupid verbiage or threats or
stupid taunts.
What about the ordinary corrections given to you without threats or taunts?
Post by Richard Hachel
I do not approve of two things in Einstein's paper, and on that, I am
necessarily stronger than him.
Since there aren't errors in the SR paper the two things must be
correct, showing Einstein is stronger than you.
Post by Richard Hachel
For what?
He completely ignores the notion of anisochrony
What is an anisochrony? Is it a purple alien monster with three eyes and
11 tentacles? I'll agree that Einstein did not consider the existence of
space aliens in any of his papers.
Post by Richard Hachel
It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
demonstrate it.
No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all
(inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.
Post by Richard Hachel
Which is based on the best principles.
He sets t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c
And AB/c is the delay of a signal from B to A (or vice versa). Why do
you claim Einstein didn't consider the signal delay?
You are confusing Hachel/Lengrand's claim with Heger's claims.

Both are insufferable cranks by the way, and both fail miserably
to understand part I.1. of A.E. paper for years.

The irony is that Thomas is claiming that Einstein didn't take
light propagation delays when synchronizing clocks, while he
definitely did so, and that Richard is claiming that this is
how it /should/ be done (i.e. ignoring the delay, considering
that light speed is infinite).
Richard Hachel
2024-02-24 16:55:45 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
He sets t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c
Richard is claiming that, considering
that light speed is infinite).
C'est ce que je dis.

Ligth speed is infinite.

Electromagnetic transactions are instantaneous.

R.H.
Lénárt Szakács Keresztes
2024-02-24 19:58:47 UTC
Post by Volney
Post by Richard Hachel
It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
demonstrate it.
No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all
(inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.
Mockba. You don't undrestand what "𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁" stands for in Einstine. Common
error. The relativists think it stays for something else. It's
"𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁", not "constant". Here some proofs:

🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺

send more weapons to ukrein. And money to 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆. They get the weapons,
the 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 takes the money.

this former CIA intel analyst say unprovoked, "𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗸𝘆" page 08:24
lol

𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗟_𝗥𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲-𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗻_&_𝗠𝗰𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻_-_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲¸𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹_𝗪𝗿𝗮𝗽
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/l6ZzuoT3njkS

very funny indeed.
Physfitfreak
2024-02-24 20:34:14 UTC
Post by Volney
Post by Richard Hachel
It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
demonstrate it.
No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all
(inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.
Mockba. You don't undrestand what "𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁" stands for in Einstine. Common
error. The relativists think it stays for something else. It's
🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺
send more weapons to ukrein. And money to 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆. They get the weapons,
the 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 takes the money.
this former CIA intel analyst say unprovoked, "𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗸𝘆" page 08:24
lol
𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗟_𝗥𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲-𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗻_&_𝗠𝗰𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻_-_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲¸𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹_𝗪𝗿𝗮𝗽
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/l6ZzuoT3njkS
very funny indeed.
Cute you are, aren't you Hanson.

You think you can con yourself as a Russian? Hehe :)They why your ass
smell toasted when I tell Russians "West" isn't worth shit?

Fucking imbecile.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa
2024-02-24 23:22:57 UTC
Post by Physfitfreak
this former CIA intel analyst say unprovoked, "𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗸𝘆" page
08:24 lol 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗟_𝗥𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲-𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗻_&_𝗠𝗰𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻_-_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲¸𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹_𝗪𝗿𝗮𝗽
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/l6ZzuoT3njkS very funny indeed.
Cute you are, aren't you Hanson.
here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽, and my
"𝗢𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀" Model 𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲. Where 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 is
exactly the mater 𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 super_positioned, the Einstine
knew nothing about. His relativity equations are kindergarten
approximations based on correlation.

𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗽𝘀𝗲_–_𝗟𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 lol, they are waking up
The US dollar 𝗶𝘀_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗯𝘆_𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 and its fall will drag down the rest of the
world, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele has declared
https://r%74.com/news/593090-nayib-bukele-dollar-collapse/

𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗖𝗛:_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗽𝘀_𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁_𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗔𝘃𝗱𝗲𝗲𝘃𝗸𝗮 lol
Starlink terminals used to operate Ukrainian drones were also found, the
Defense Ministry has said
https://r%74.com/russia/593074-abandoned-nato-arms-avdeevka/

western weapons are gay. Leopard2 my ass.

𝗗𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱_𝗨𝗡_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗵_𝘁𝗼_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_–_𝗨𝗦_𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿
Republican congressman Matt Gaetz has called for requiring budget cuts to
offset assistance to any overseas ally
https://r%74.com/news/593085-defund-un-to-pay-for-israel-aid-gaetz-says/
palsing
2024-02-25 02:51:17 UTC
here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽...
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even spell Einstein correctly?
Jon-Michael Zhong
2024-02-25 16:06:54 UTC
Post by palsing
here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽...
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
spell Einstein correctly?
just ignore that, fucking stoopid. It's fucking insignificant, his name.
The Einstine was sleeping in bed with his own family. A disgrace. He was
in math, physics and mental capability, which is important. Read the
context, not the names, idiot.

🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺
here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽, and my
"𝗢𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀" Model 𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲. Where
𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 is exactly the mater 𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
super_positioned, the Einstine knew nothing about. His relativity
equations are kindergarten approximations based on correlation.
🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗮𝗶𝗱_‘𝗴𝗼𝗲𝘀_𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸’_𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗦_–_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗸𝘆 lol
The money that Washington allocates for Kiev supports jobs in America, the
high-ranking State Department official has said
https://r%74.com/news/593111-nuland-us-aid-ukraine/

the 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮 gay actor, acts again:

𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃_𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱_‘𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆_𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻’_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗻𝗼_𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀_–_𝗭𝗮𝗹𝘂𝘇𝗵𝗻𝘆_𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿
Civilian officials did not tell the army how many soldiers and weapons it
would receive, Viktor Nazarov has said
https://r%74.com/russia/593122-kiev-victory-plan-resource-shortage/

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃
Berlin will now abandon the established rendering of the city in its
official documents
https://r%74.com/news/593093-germany-rename-kiev-official-spelling/
The city previously known in German as ‘Kiew’ will now be written as
‘Kyjiw’, the ministry said in a series of statements on X (formerly

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗼𝗻_𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁_𝗶𝗻_𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀_–_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮
Kiev’s forces reportedly withdrew from the village of Lastochkino to
safeguard their supply lines and conserve manpower
https://r%74.com/russia/593113-ukraine-another-retreat-donbass/

Every day I wake up to another instance of Russia being "strategically
defeated."

"save personnel.”, best excuse of the year at its only February 🤣
After all they killed last year, nd now they are worried about their
soldiers lives.

Zelinski is now aware that his soldiers are been decimated by the stupid
military decisions he imposed on zalushny. He can't count on new recruits
so he is now asking for defensive weapons to protect his soldiers from new
Russian offensives.

The retreat of nazified Ukrainian troops will soon devolve into an all out
track meet to the Polish border.

Ukrainan arm forces retreat to take "better offensive position".
everything they do is offensive.

Joe Biden’s report to US Congress; elensky lost, retreat because Cuba
refusing to send Soviet weapons to elensky.

The terrorist gang nazi NATO training did not help...Neither did the NATO
weapons. lol. They are about to suck own dick.

the criminal Joe Biden will say it’s China’s fault.

No money no war. I guess those soldiers didn't get paid as Washington
doesn't wanna pay for its war in Ukraine. lol. In 𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 you work
their papers, go there and read it, what 𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 is.
Volney
2024-02-25 19:56:52 UTC
Post by palsing
here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽...
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
spell Einstein correctly?
That's the nymshifting troll. Emphasis on 'troll'.
Wilbert Araújo
2024-02-25 20:29:23 UTC
Post by Volney
Post by palsing
here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽...
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
spell Einstein correctly?
That's the nymshifting troll. Emphasis on 'troll'.
that's what capitalism is. Expect your 𝙛𝙖𝙠𝙚_𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙮 shithole country to fall.
It's a sin, written in 𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗕𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲. The 𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 𝙛𝙖𝙠𝙚_𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙮 is a sin.

𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃_𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗱_𝗸𝗲𝘆_𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝘁𝗼𝗽_𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹_–_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿
Civilian officials did not tell the army how many soldiers and weapons it
would receive, Viktor Nazarov has said
https://r%74.com/russia/593122-kiev-victory-plan-resource-shortage/

‘𝗦𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮_𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗯𝗲_𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿’:
Why Alexey Balabanov is one of the most prominent film directors in modern
Russia His works have already become modern classics, but still spark
controversy in modern Russia
https://r%74.com/pop-culture/593114-alexey-balabanov-sixty-five/
Kennith Félix Escárcega
2024-02-25 20:49:55 UTC
Post by Volney
Post by palsing
here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽...
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
spell Einstein correctly?
That's the nymshifting troll. Emphasis on 'troll'.
two colors flags should not even exists. Countries flagging two colors are
occupied capitalist shithole provinces, not countries. The 𝐤𝐡𝐚𝐳𝐚𝐫_𝐠𝐨𝐲𝐬 stole
these provinces, proved by occupied governments, which are not
governments, but the so called "𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆_𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀", where peace is
antisemitic. Thought, the 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀 are not Semites, but Turkish gypsies.
They beg for money and everything.

𝗨𝗦_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮_𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗲𝘁_𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
A Salon op-ed has blamed Washington and its allies for standing in the way
of settlement talks with Russia
https://r%74.com/news/593152-salon-oped-calls-for-ukraine-peace-talks/

but the Putin is a fuckin traitor, sending nazis in paid vacation in
Turkey. Instead of Siberia, at work. Then the Putina chose a neutral
country to run the "peace talks". What 𝗳𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗻𝗲𝘂𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 is Turkey?? The turks
are gypsy arabs.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-02-24 16:35:23 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
I'm still waiting for your criticism on the transformations I gave
on this to a blissful and paralyzed humanity, which is a bit like you.
Interesting!

Consider a solid plane surface S with a circular hole cut out of it

Consider a solid circular disk D of radius r_D which is infinitesimally
smaller than the radius of the circular hole cut out of surface S, i.e.
r_S - r_D = ε.

Position surface S with its hole centered on the x-axis and oriented
parallel to the yz plane around point (x,y,z) = (1,0,0)

Position disk D centered on the x-axis and oriented parallel to the
yz plane around point (x,y,z) = (-1,0,0)

Scenario 1: Set disk D in motion in the positive x-direction so that
it is moving at speed v = 0.5 c towards stationary surface S. Will
the disk D pass freely through the hole in surface S or will it be
blocked?

Scenario 2: Set surface S in motion in the negative x-direction so
that it is moving at speed v = -0.5 c towards stationary disk D. Will
the hole in surface S pass freely around disk D or will it be
blocked?
Richard Hachel
2024-02-23 15:47:53 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Einstein assumed, that a place called 'A' and a very remote place called
'B' have own times ('A-Time' and 'B-Time') which do not necessarily
coincide.
To find a time 'AB-time' allowing to synchronize clocks at place 'A' and
place 'B', he took the local time of a place exactly in the middle
between A and B.
This time local to a location at (A+B)/2 would then allow to synchronize
clocks at equidistant locations like A and B.
The dependence of time on the location stems from an error of Einstein,
who made no efforts to compensate the delay of a light signal, caused by
the finite speed of light.
That's why a remote clock was seemingly too late and the later, the
further away.
But a hypothetical observer in the middle would see both ends of the
connecting line from A to B at the same time, hence could be used as a
judge, whether or not the clocks at A and B run in synch.
His time would then be 'common time' and could be used to synchronize
clocks at A and B.
I, personally, do not really agree, because removal of the run time
delay would have been an option, too, and much easier.
My method has a disadvantage, however, because synchronisation would
require a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity, which does not exist.
But one could measure the delay quite easily (by sending a 'ping' and
cut the delay for the roundtrip in half).
The delay time could be added to the coded timing signal and we have
also synchronisation. But in that case the time at the remote localtions
would be different to the time according to Einstein's method.
The speed of the signal sent by M does not matter to adjust watches A and
watches B as long as the speed is identical.

We therefore do not have to worry about it, the best being to use an
electromagnetic interaction.

When A and B receive the signal they re-transmit to M, and M receives,
ANYWAY, both signals simultaneously.

The two watches A and B are therefore synchronized on M.

That is to say that the two events E(A) and E(B) occurred simultaneously
somewhere in M's present.

This is how GPS works. It is artificially assumed that all terrestrial
watches are synchronized on a point M artificially placed very far and
equidistant from all 3D terrestrial points, in a virtual fourth dimension.

This is what men do, perhaps realizing it, and this is how it works.

So, I repeat, the problem of synchronization was not properly explained in
1905 by Einstein. It does not say that it is M who ensures
synchronization, and that it is on him that the reference used is based.

It does not say that in reality A and B are not synchronized with each
other at all but only on a virtual M.

A and B will NEVER be in sync with each other.

A's present time plan will never be B's present time plan.

To believe it is to imagine an abstract idea of reality.

And he doesn't say that.

Note that if A could see B's present time plane, which is a perfect plane
for B, A would see a hypercone.

R.H.
Python
2024-02-23 15:53:23 UTC
[snip non sense]
Note for Thomas: in case you didn't notice: Richard "Hachel"
Lengrand has his own personal (and idiotic) opinion on
clocks synchronization which has ZERO common ground with
Einstein/Poincaré procedure.
Thomas Heger
2024-02-24 07:48:37 UTC
Post by Python
[snip non sense]
Note for Thomas: in case you didn't notice: Richard "Hachel"
Lengrand has his own personal (and idiotic) opinion on
clocks synchronization which has ZERO common ground with
Einstein/Poincaré procedure.
Einstein's text.

I tried to make sense out of his method, while maintaining the idea of
time as local phenomenon (opposite to Newton's universal time).

This would be possible, if an additional (hypothetical) observer 'M'
(according to RHs proposal) in the middle between A and B is placed, who
decides, whether or not clocks at A and B are in synch.

(The places A and B are permanently equidistant to M by definition, even
if A or B move)

This is overly complicated, but would make some sense.

The disadvantage, however: it works only for two points (A and B), but
not for three (A, B and C), because three points usually do not have an
equidistant midpoint.

(Because the midpoint of a triangle is not lying on the edges).

TH
Mikko
2024-02-24 09:01:44 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
[snip non sense]
Note for Thomas: in case you didn't notice: Richard "Hachel"
Lengrand has his own personal (and idiotic) opinion on
clocks synchronization which has ZERO common ground with
Einstein/Poincaré procedure.
Einstein's text.
I tried to make sense out of his method, while maintaining the idea of
time as local phenomenon (opposite to Newton's universal time).
This would be possible, if an additional (hypothetical) observer 'M'
(according to RHs proposal) in the middle between A and B is placed,
who decides, whether or not clocks at A and B are in synch.
(The places A and B are permanently equidistant to M by definition,
even if A or B move)
That is another way to define the same concept of synchronicity.
Post by Thomas Heger
This is overly complicated, but would make some sense.
Not really more complicated and often used.
Post by Thomas Heger
The disadvantage, however: it works only for two points (A and B), but
not for three (A, B and C), because three points usually do not have an
equidistant midpoint.
(Because the midpoint of a triangle is not lying on the edges).
Not a signifiacnt disadvantage. But an important question is whether
the syncronicity of A and B and the syncronicity of B and C imply
the syncronicity of A and C. Einstein does not say much about that
in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but elsewhere says "yes".

In Special Relativity any observer who is equidistant from clocks A and
B can determine the synchronization of A and B the same wah as an observer
halfway between. For almost every for points A, B, C, and D an observer
can be equidistant from those points.
--
Mikko
Richard Hachel
2024-02-24 13:06:27 UTC
Post by Mikko
Not a signifiacnt disadvantage. But an important question is whether
the syncronicity of A and B and the syncronicity of B and C imply
the syncronicity of A and C. Einstein does not say much about that
in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but elsewhere says "yes".
In Special Relativity any observer who is equidistant from clocks A and
B can determine the synchronization of A and B the same wah as an observer
halfway between. For almost every for points A, B, C, and D an observer
can be equidistant from those points.
Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony, that is to say
constantly exist at the same present moment, does not make sense in
special relativity (or at least, it should not).

However, Einstein seems to think so, which surprises me a lot.

Two events can only be simultaneous for a given point.

For example, if I send from M, middle of AB, a beep, it is clear that the
reception of the beep will be simultaneous for M, and that the response
will also be simultaneous for M.

But not for A in relation to B, nor B in relation to A.

Those who believe this confuse anisochrony and the speed of light.

I've been explaining this for 40 years.

No one ever understands it.

R.H.
Mikko
2024-02-24 13:52:58 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Mikko
Not a signifiacnt disadvantage. But an important question is whether
the syncronicity of A and B and the syncronicity of B and C imply
the syncronicity of A and C. Einstein does not say much about that
in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but elsewhere says "yes".
In Special Relativity any observer who is equidistant from clocks A and
B can determine the synchronization of A and B the same wah as an observer
halfway between. For almost every for points A, B, C, and D an observer
can be equidistant from those points.
Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony,
It needn't be perfect, just close enough for whatever purpose it
is needed.
Post by Richard Hachel
that is to say constantly exist at the same present moment,
That is not the same thing. But an additional assumption is needed
(as Einstein noted in a later article): if comoving inertial clocks
are synchronized they stay synchronized.
Post by Richard Hachel
does not make sense in special relativity (or at least, it should not).
It does when the meaning on synchrony is defined as Einstein
defined it or by an equivalent definition.
Post by Richard Hachel
However, Einstein seems to think so, which surprises me a lot.
It is reasonable to assume that an observer halfway between A and B
sees the clocks advancing at the same rate and therefore staying
synchronized. Einstein presented his assumptions differently but
this is what his assumptions mean.
Post by Richard Hachel
Two events can only be simultaneous for a given point.
In Special Relativity it is possible to define a reasonable
meaning for simultaneity at different points.
Post by Richard Hachel
For example, if I send from M, middle of AB, a beep, it is clear that
the reception of the beep will be simultaneous for M, and that the
response will also be simultaneous for M.
Simultaneity is meaningless for one beep or one response.
--
Mikko
Maciej Woźniak
2024-02-25 12:30:08 UTC
Post by Mikko
In Special Relativity it is possible to define a reasonable
meaning for simultaneity at different points.
Nope, The Shit's definition of simultaneity
is completely idiotic and practically unusable.
Thomas Heger
2024-02-25 06:50:38 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Mikko
Not a signifiacnt disadvantage. But an important question is whether
the syncronicity of A and B and the syncronicity of B and C imply
the syncronicity of A and C. Einstein does not say much about that
in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but elsewhere says "yes".
In Special Relativity any observer who is equidistant from clocks A and
B can determine the synchronization of A and B the same wah as an observer
halfway between. For almost every for points A, B, C, and D an observer
can be equidistant from those points.
Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony, that is to
say constantly exist at the same present moment, does not make sense in
special relativity (or at least, it should not).
Points are actually timeless (in euclidean space), because 'point'
denotes a location. And locations do not move (by definition of 'location').

But you apparently mean 'local time' (or 'A-time' at point A).

Here SRT influences and changes local time in remote locations, hence
A-time and B-time are not in synch per se.

Now it's getting tricky to synchronize clocks in A and B, because not
only the time values (and dates) must be sent to the remote place, but
also the length of the second.

The time and date values from, say, A can be sent to B, if A reduces the
timme encoded into the signal by the expected delay.

Or it could be synched by B, if B adds the delay value to the encoded
time value in the timing signal.

Now we get a similar clock at the remote position, say B, which is in
synch with the remote time (A-time), but not with the local time (B-time).

It is actually not possible to bring that clock (showing A-time at place
B) in synch with B-time, if the second in B is e.g. twice as long as in A.
Post by Richard Hachel
However, Einstein seems to think so, which surprises me a lot.
Two events can only be simultaneous for a given point.
No.

Events have only a single time value and no duration, hence can be
synchronized, if the delay is taken into consideration.

To do this, the delay should be measured (by cutting the time for a
round-trip in half) and added to the timing information.

This is equivalent to a hypothetical timing signal with infinite velocity.

To use light instead would require to compensate the delay for the
transit of the light signal. That can be done with a measurement of the
delay (and not so without knowing the delay).
...
Richard Hachel
2024-02-25 15:42:08 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Mikko
Not a signifiacnt disadvantage. But an important question is whether
the syncronicity of A and B and the syncronicity of B and C imply
the syncronicity of A and C. Einstein does not say much about that
in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but elsewhere says "yes".
In Special Relativity any observer who is equidistant from clocks A and
B can determine the synchronization of A and B the same wah as an observer
halfway between. For almost every for points A, B, C, and D an observer
can be equidistant from those points.
Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony, that is to
say constantly exist at the same present moment, does not make sense in
special relativity (or at least, it should not).
Points are actually timeless (in euclidean space), because 'point'
denotes a location. And locations do not move (by definition of 'location').
But you apparently mean 'local time' (or 'A-time' at point A).
Here SRT influences and changes local time in remote locations, hence
A-time and B-time are not in synch per se.
Now it's getting tricky to synchronize clocks in A and B, because not
only the time values (and dates) must be sent to the remote place, but
also the length of the second.
The time and date values from, say, A can be sent to B, if A reduces the
timme encoded into the signal by the expected delay.
Or it could be synched by B, if B adds the delay value to the encoded
time value in the timing signal.
Now we get a similar clock at the remote position, say B, which is in
synch with the remote time (A-time), but not with the local time (B-time).
It is actually not possible to bring that clock (showing A-time at place
B) in synch with B-time, if the second in B is e.g. twice as long as in A.
Post by Richard Hachel
However, Einstein seems to think so, which surprises me a lot.
Two events can only be simultaneous for a given point.
No.
Events have only a single time value and no duration, hence can be
synchronized, if the delay is taken into consideration.
To do this, the delay should be measured (by cutting the time for a
round-trip in half) and added to the timing information.
This is equivalent to a hypothetical timing signal with infinite velocity.
To use light instead would require to compensate the delay for the
transit of the light signal. That can be done with a measurement of the
delay (and not so without knowing the delay).
...
It seems that you don't quite understand what I'm saying, and it's very
annoying for me, for forty years having to repeat things that are very
simple but that no one WANTS to understand.
The behavior being more human than scientific. “We do not WANT this man
to rule over us.”
I repeat these simple things again:
The notion of time, that is to say instant in Hashelian language, is
relative to POSITION in defined space. We can therefore NEVER "absolutely"
synchronize two watches placed in different places, we can only do it FOR
a third watch placed equidistant from two others, and BETWEEN these two
others. This third watch (observer) can then say. Events A and B occurred
simultaneously, FOR ME, and they were simultaneous for all the other
watches in the universe placed on the bisector M of AB.
But between A and B, there will NEVER be absolute simultaneity.
We can synchronize A on B, or B on A (FOR A), but the reciprocal will then
no longer be true. B will look at things with even more astonishment and
say: "It's worse, the gap is now double what it was before).
You talk about time passing faster in A than in B, but I never talked
about that. It goes without saying that time is perfectly isochronotropic.
A watch in A, in B, in C, in Y, and Z, in the same inertial frame of
reference, will always beat, this is a tautology, at the same speed as the
others; and the opposite would be absurd.
It is only by change of reference that chronotropy varies.

In short, time, that is to say the moment, is RELATIVE to the position;
chronotropy, i.e. duration, is RELATIVE to speed.

It is childishly simple, but sad to cry because this beauty, this
simplicity, is refused by men for the simple fact that it hurts their
eyes.

We prefer to spit on Doctor Hachel, it's funnier, and we pass ourselves
off as great scientific geniuses.

The world is crazy.

“This world stinks.”
Rav H. Dynovisz

R.H.
Paul B. Andersen
2024-02-25 20:36:39 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
The notion of time, that is to say instant in Hashelian language, is
relative to POSITION in defined space. We can therefore NEVER
"absolutely" synchronize two watches placed in different places, we can
only do it FOR a third watch placed equidistant from two others, and
BETWEEN these two others. This third watch (observer) can then say.
Events A and B occurred simultaneously, FOR ME, and they were
simultaneous for all the other watches in the universe placed on the
bisector M of AB.
But between A and B, there will NEVER be absolute simultaneity.
We can synchronize A on B, or B on A (FOR A), but the reciprocal will
then no longer be true. B will look at things with even more
astonishment and say: "It's worse, the gap is now double what it was
before).
You talk about time passing faster in A than in B, but I never talked
about that. It goes without saying that time is perfectly
isochronotropic. A watch in A, in B, in C, in Y, and Z, in the same
inertial frame of reference, will always beat, this is a tautology, at
the same speed as the others; and the opposite would be absurd.
It is only by change of reference that chronotropy varies.
In short, time, that is to say the moment, is RELATIVE to the position;
chronotropy, i.e. duration, is RELATIVE to speed.
It is childishly simple, but sad to cry because this beauty, this
simplicity, is refused by men for the simple fact that it hurts their eyes.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
But I will present an example of synchronism from the real world.

Given two clocks on the geoid at the equator.
Both clocks are showing UTC.
The clocks are 10 km apart as measured in the ground frame.

All physicists will agree on the following:

In the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (aka ECI-frame),
where the clocks are moving easwards with the speed 465.1 m/s,
the clocks are synchronous according to Einstein's definition of
simultaneity.
But in the ground frame, where the clocks are stationary, will the
eastern clock always lag ≈ 0.051 ns behind the western clock.

Do you agree with the physicists?
If not, please explain what's wrong.

The GPS woulnd't work if the SV clocks weren't synchronous with UTC,
so Einstein's definition of simultaneity seems to work in the real
world.

Do you agree?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Thomas Heger
2024-02-26 06:30:51 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The notion of time, that is to say instant in Hashelian language, is
relative to POSITION in defined space. We can therefore NEVER
"absolutely" synchronize two watches placed in different places, we
can only do it FOR a third watch placed equidistant from two others,
and BETWEEN these two others. This third watch (observer) can then
say. Events A and B occurred simultaneously, FOR ME, and they were
simultaneous for all the other watches in the universe placed on the
bisector M of AB.
But between A and B, there will NEVER be absolute simultaneity.
We can synchronize A on B, or B on A (FOR A), but the reciprocal will
then no longer be true. B will look at things with even more
astonishment and say: "It's worse, the gap is now double what it was
before).
You talk about time passing faster in A than in B, but I never talked
about that. It goes without saying that time is perfectly
isochronotropic. A watch in A, in B, in C, in Y, and Z, in the same
inertial frame of reference, will always beat, this is a tautology, at
the same speed as the others; and the opposite would be absurd.
It is only by change of reference that chronotropy varies.
In short, time, that is to say the moment, is RELATIVE to the
position; chronotropy, i.e. duration, is RELATIVE to speed.
It is childishly simple, but sad to cry because this beauty, this
simplicity, is refused by men for the simple fact that it hurts their eyes.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
But I will present an example of synchronism from the real world.
I would actually support the idea of local time, too (which was a
proposal from Henry Poincaré).

the reason to think so:

time is based on the counting of certain events, like day and night or
the vibrations of a quartz.

But why should all days be equal and why, if the plantes are not equal,
upon which the day is based?

For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence.

But no such thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local
and clocks depend on the local environment and count something there.

Then other environments have other days and other seconds.

Even the direction of time does not need to be the same, because worlds
are thinkable, where time runs backwards (from our perspective).
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Given two clocks on the geoid at the equator.
Both clocks are showing UTC.
The clocks are 10 km apart as measured in the ground frame.
In the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (aka ECI-frame),
where the clocks are moving easwards with the speed 465.1 m/s,
the clocks are synchronous according to Einstein's definition of
simultaneity.
This is not true, because the frame of reference can be chosen in SRT,
hence the velocity v is also arbitrary.

You mean actually, that a point on the equator rotates with that angular
velocity, if we would regard the solar system as stationary.

But we know with certainty, that the solar system isn't, since it
rotates around the centre of our home galaxy, which also moves around in
the local cluster.

Since the latter movements are far faster than the rotation of the
Earth' equator, we could actually ignore that rotation and concentrate
on the movement of the local cluster.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
But in the ground frame, where the clocks are stationary, will the
eastern clock always lag ≈ 0.051 ns behind the western clock.
I do not understand this sentence:

what is an 'eastern clock' and why should it lack behind a 'western clock'?
...

TH
Paul B. Andersen
2024-02-26 10:02:09 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Given two clocks on the geoid at the equator.
Both clocks are showing UTC.
The clocks are 10 km apart as measured in the ground frame.
In the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (aka ECI-frame),
where the clocks are moving eastwards with the speed 465.1 m/s,
the clocks are synchronous according to Einstein's definition of
simultaneity.
This is not true, because the frame of reference can be chosen in SRT,
hence the velocity v is also arbitrary.
You mean actually, that a point on the equator rotates with that angular
velocity, if we would regard the solar system as stationary.
But we know with certainty, that the solar system isn't, since it
rotates around the centre of our home galaxy, which also moves around in
the local cluster.
Since the latter movements are far faster than the rotation of the
Earth' equator, we could actually ignore that rotation and concentrate
on the movement of the local cluster.
A bit confused, Thomas? :-D
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Paul B. Andersen
But in the ground frame, where the clocks are stationary, will the
eastern clock always lag ≈ 0.051 ns behind the western clock.
what is an 'eastern clock' and why should it lack behind a 'western clock'?
...
TH
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Piotr Babchenko Bakulev
2024-02-26 20:57:41 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and
clocks depend on the local environment and count something there.
actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in relativity
you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny indeed. As for
instance

𝗖𝗜𝗔_𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁_𝗵𝘂𝗴𝗲_𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝘆_𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗡𝗬𝗧
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/eRQk2S3Ro0KP

and lol

𝗔𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘀_𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗸_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁_(𝗙𝗜𝗥𝗦𝗧_𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗢)_–_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮
The Russian military has knocked out one of the US-supplied tanks serving
with Kiev’s army, footage circulating online suggests
https://r%74.com/russia/593197-abrams-tank-ukraine/

only took a day since the first was finally spotted moving towards the
front to take one out..

The ukies probably thought they were on some "wonder weapon" until they
started seeing it burn like a piece of paper

In case you missed it, the Houthi rebels were pretty happy destroying
Abrams Tanks and nullifying Patriot Systems on a daily basis, for years...
Until the swindled Saudis finally gave up on all these US 'WonderWeapons'
SCAMS. LoL.

𝗗𝗲𝗻𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸_𝗱𝗿𝗼𝗽𝘀_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱_𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/NKxUy7Pep61l

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲’𝘀_𝗔𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘀_𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗸𝘀_𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗻_𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲_𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀_–_𝗞𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗹𝗶𝗻
The first US-supplied Ukrainian M1 Abrams has been destroyed the conflict
https://r%74.com/russia/593218-ukraine-abrams-tanks-peskov/

𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀_𝗰𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲
Protecting the region from Kiev’s attacks was one of the key reasons for
the Ukraine conflict, according to Moscow
https://r%74.com/russia/593166-putin-zelensky-donbass-ceasefire/

Zelensky works for the CIA, not Ukraine. Fact

You don't need 20 years to pull back troops. Zelensky was clearly already
taking coke and lying in 2019. Very right Mr. Putin did not trust him.

We know who wanted the War. Just remember Covid stopped on the 24th Feb
2022 and we all know why.

I don't get it. It seems Zelensky is admitting that Ukraine provoked
Russia into this conflict.
Thomas Heger
2024-02-27 06:48:03 UTC
Post by Piotr Babchenko Bakulev
Post by Thomas Heger
For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and
clocks depend on the local environment and count something there.
actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in relativity
you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny indeed. As for
instance
Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.

But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
required for the increase of entropy in the first place.

And you cannot define things in a circular fashion.

Here you need time first and then can say something about entropy, but
cannot use entropy to define time, anymore.

I would say, that time is local and a function of the local environment,
which dictates, what local observers could see and take as time.

So: the local environment is a place in the universe, where local
observers are stable entities and see the local universe, which they can
measure with local means.

But if you would go somewhere else (like to Alpha Centaury), you would
see a different universe, because the local environment there uses a
different time.

TH
Huy Kántor Hegedűs
2024-02-28 22:22:44 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Piotr Babchenko Bakulev
Post by Thomas Heger
For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and clocks
depend on the local environment and count something there.
actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in
relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny
indeed. As for instance
Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
required for the increase of entropy in the first place.
the Entropy 𝗜𝗦 time. Please stop 𝗻𝗼𝘁 undrestanding tensors. Look at this:

𝗞𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗹𝗶𝗻_𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗢𝗿𝗯𝗮𝗻’𝘀_𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗳𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀
Russia doesn’t threaten non-hostile countries, presidential spokesman
Dmitry Peskov has said
https://r%74.com/russia/593320-orban-ukraine-border-kremlin/

Orban is a bastard traitor, he has signed up Sweden and Finland to the
NATO terrorist gang in exchange of money, and is serving as proxy to send
weapons to Ukraine.

USUK, will show you the virtuous path.

Looks like Orban has fallen on to the wrong side of the fence. Great
shame. Guess the pressure got to him after all. Poor man.
Thomas Heger
2024-02-29 05:51:49 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Piotr Babchenko Bakulev
Post by Thomas Heger
For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and clocks
depend on the local environment and count something there.
actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in
relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny
indeed. As for instance
Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
required for the increase of entropy in the first place.
No, because both terms are related, but not equal.

Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.

Heat dissipates, hence entropy increases.

But that is not time.

The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which we
assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.

That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and the
second.

Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.

But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.

But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether these
frequencies are universally constant or not.

This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.

TH
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-02-29 16:54:53 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which we
assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and the
second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether these
frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?

Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the term.
The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his definition.
I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to what I have written
here.

A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components) comprising
a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a monitoring
component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will
optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of component (B)
so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.

Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self-
contained in its power requirements.)

If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
"good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
selection of "better clocks".

A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component
is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and
locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks"
are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor)
of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
instrumentation that monitors their cycles.

Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished by the
physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components,
one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard clock".

By the above definition,
1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock" because it
is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of the
pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
3) Stonehenge is not a "clock". However, the Stonehenge-Earth-Sun system
comprises not just a "clock", but a "useful clock" that had utility in
timing religious ceremonies and crop plantings.
4) Hourglasses and water clocks are not "clocks".
5) A clock based on a quartz crystal, although potentially highly stable,
cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because the frequency of
crystal oscillation is not set by a fundamental physical process, but
rather depends on details of how the crystal is cut.
6) Although a clock based on, say, the period of a millisecond pulsar may
be an "extremely good clock", it cannot be a "candidate standard clock"
because its central timing component cannot be locally reproduced by
individuals in different areas of the universe. Individuals in different
states of motion and in differing gravitational potentials will observe
that the pulsar period, although highly stable, will not correlate
exactly with times they they measure on "local standard clocks".
Furthermore, the phase of the received signal depends on one's location
with respect to the distant timing component, which varies with the
Earth's rotation, its orbit around the Sun, the Sun's travel through
the galaxy, etc.

Suggestions for improving on my attempt at defining different types of
clock are welcome!
Paul B. Andersen
2024-02-29 21:23:37 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Thomas Heger
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the term.
The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his definition.
I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to what I have written
here.
A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components) comprising
a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a monitoring
component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will
optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of component (B)
so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.
Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self-
contained in its power requirements.)
If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
"good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
selection of "better clocks".
A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component
is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and
locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks"
are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor)
of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
instrumentation that monitors their cycles.
Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished by the
physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components,
one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard clock".
By the above definition,
1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock" because it
is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of the
pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
So Newton had no clock! :-)

The Royal Observatory at Greenwich had pendulum clocks as
standard clocks at least until 1939.
From 1853 electrical sensors detected the motion of the pendulum
and sent the signal via wire to repeaters in the observatory
and via telegraph to other cities (later to BBC).

Stationary pendulum clocks can be very precise clocks because
gravitation is an environmental parameter that is pretty constant.
Temperature changes can be compensated for.
No other mechanical clock can compete with it.

But of course it is can't be used if not stationary.

Pendulum clocks are "clocks" according to your definition above,
even if we today would prefer other types of clocks for most applications.
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
3) Stonehenge is not a "clock". However, the Stonehenge-Earth-Sun system
comprises not just a "clock", but a "useful clock" that had utility in
timing religious ceremonies and crop plantings.
4) Hourglasses and water clocks are not "clocks".
5) A clock based on a quartz crystal, although potentially highly stable,
cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because the frequency of
crystal oscillation is not set by a fundamental physical process, but
rather depends on details of how the crystal is cut.
6) Although a clock based on, say, the period of a millisecond pulsar may
be an "extremely good clock", it cannot be a "candidate standard clock"
because its central timing component cannot be locally reproduced by
individuals in different areas of the universe. Individuals in different
states of motion and in differing gravitational potentials will observe
that the pulsar period, although highly stable, will not correlate
exactly with times they they measure on "local standard clocks".
Furthermore, the phase of the received signal depends on one's location
with respect to the distant timing component, which varies with the
Earth's rotation, its orbit around the Sun, the Sun's travel through
the galaxy, etc.
Suggestions for improving on my attempt at defining different types of
clock are welcome!
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Ross Finlayson
2024-03-01 04:13:55 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Thomas Heger
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the
term. The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his
definition. I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to
what I have written
here.
A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components) comprising
a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a monitoring
component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will
optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of component (B)
so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.
Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self-
contained in its power requirements.)
If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
"good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
selection of "better clocks".
A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component
is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and
locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks"
are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor)
of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
instrumentation that monitors their cycles.
Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished by the
physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components,
one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard clock".
By the above definition,
1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock" because it
is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of the
pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
So Newton had no clock! :-)
The Royal Observatory at Greenwich had pendulum clocks as
standard clocks at least until 1939.
From 1853 electrical sensors detected the motion of the pendulum
and sent the signal via wire to repeaters in the observatory
and via telegraph to other cities (later to BBC).
Stationary pendulum clocks can be very precise clocks because
gravitation is an environmental parameter that is pretty constant.
Temperature changes can be compensated for.
No other mechanical clock can compete with it.
But of course it is can't be used if not stationary.
Pendulum clocks are "clocks" according to your definition above,
even if we today would prefer other types of clocks for most applications.
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
3) Stonehenge is not a "clock". However, the Stonehenge-Earth-Sun system
comprises not just a "clock", but a "useful clock" that had utility in
timing religious ceremonies and crop plantings.
4) Hourglasses and water clocks are not "clocks".
5) A clock based on a quartz crystal, although potentially highly stable,
cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because the frequency of
crystal oscillation is not set by a fundamental physical process, but
rather depends on details of how the crystal is cut.
6) Although a clock based on, say, the period of a millisecond pulsar may
be an "extremely good clock", it cannot be a "candidate standard clock"
because its central timing component cannot be locally reproduced by
individuals in different areas of the universe. Individuals in different
states of motion and in differing gravitational potentials will observe
that the pulsar period, although highly stable, will not correlate
exactly with times they they measure on "local standard clocks".
Furthermore, the phase of the received signal depends on one's location
with respect to the distant timing component, which varies with the
Earth's rotation, its orbit around the Sun, the Sun's travel through
the galaxy, etc.
Suggestions for improving on my attempt at defining different types of
clock are welcome!
Thanks that's interesting.

At really very tiny small scales, it seems like that according
to the metric and according to the gauge that the quantities
of mass and length become indeterminate, conflated, gometrically
mutated, combined in the definition of the metric, then back
out again as that's the static in that regime, but effective
the effects of quantization, and, space-time contraction.

Now you might say "what? what the? what the huh?" and I'd agree,
indeed, how-the-what, yet, it sort of means _exactly_ that, ....

Then for something like a gravitational singularity it's
like, "the cube wall", about the horizon and utterly
different coordinates inside-outside, vis-a-vis the
usual gravity well and inverse-square, and how these
days it looks like MOND is a very good fit for the
Newtonian side of things, about Newtonian gravity
and Einsteinian and Relativistic dynamics, space-contraction.
I.e., Einstein's bridge results and about the central
symmetries, is where needs be this sort super-classical
complement in the usual particle model, being that the
idea overall is some sort unified theory, which for
Einstein is a differential system and what results as
how it's a gauge theory. Today as recently as yesterday,
the consensus was it being a gauge theory.

Then, clocks and clock action, under acceleration, sort
of reflect moving slower back and forth, ... going forward.

Basically looking at usual sorts neutrinos as the backflow,
for usual theories of the virtual particles and supersymmetry,
and then for the photons the photinos, those double, in a sense,
the photons as flux the photinos as flux, then for the various
complementary quantities, of the graviton(s)' gravitinos, with
mostly the atom as the real graviton not the Higgs boson,
and it being particular its own usual virtual partner,
vis-a-vis "the Higgs' jig", as it were, that these
are modern concepts and after NIST CODATA and running constants.

And Einstein could be like, "you know, that's straight down, ...."
Maciej Woźniak
2024-03-01 06:27:54 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Thomas Heger
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the
term. The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his
definition. I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to
what I have written
here.
A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components) comprising
a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a monitoring
component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will
optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of component (B)
so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.
Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self-
contained in its power requirements.)
If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
"good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
selection of "better clocks".
A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component
is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and
locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks"
are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor)
of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
instrumentation that monitors their cycles.
Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished by the
physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components,
one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard clock".
By the above definition,
1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock" because it
is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of the
pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
So Newton had no clock! :-)
Isn't that the reason of his mistakes?
Well, now we may see whet The Shit's indoctrination
can do to the brain of its victims.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-03-01 17:04:05 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the term.
The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his definition.
I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to what I have written
here.
A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components) comprising
a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a monitoring
component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will
optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of component (B)
so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.
Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self-
contained in its power requirements.)
If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
"good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
selection of "better clocks".
A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component
is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and
locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks"
are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor)
of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
instrumentation that monitors their cycles.
Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished by the
physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components,
one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard clock".
By the above definition,
1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock" because it
is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of the
pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
So Newton had no clock! :-)
Not according to this definition of "clock".
A pendulum + Earth system, however, would together constitute
a "clock".
Post by Paul B. Andersen
The Royal Observatory at Greenwich had pendulum clocks as
standard clocks at least until 1939.
From 1853 electrical sensors detected the motion of the pendulum
and sent the signal via wire to repeaters in the observatory
and via telegraph to other cities (later to BBC).
Stationary pendulum clocks can be very precise clocks because
gravitation is an environmental parameter that is pretty constant.
Temperature changes can be compensated for.
No other mechanical clock can compete with it.
The pinnacle of pendulum clock design may have been the
Shortt-synchronome clocks, whose stability reached the
fractional second per year level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortt%E2%80%93Synchronome_clock
Post by Paul B. Andersen
But of course it is can't be used if not stationary.
Pendulum clocks are "clocks" according to your definition above,
even if we today would prefer other types of clocks for most applications.
As explained above, a combination of pendulum clock + Earth by my
definition would constitute a "clock". :-)

Also, by my definition, no matter how precise a pendulum + Earth
clock may be, it cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because
two clockmakers cannot independently construct clocks that will
beat together at the same frequency, since their frequencies are
not set by a fundamental physical process. The two clocks must be
carefully tuned to match each other.

In my proposed classification scheme, no "candidate standard
clocks" existed until the first ammonia maser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser#History
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
3) Stonehenge is not a "clock". However, the Stonehenge-Earth-Sun system
comprises not just a "clock", but a "useful clock" that had utility in
timing religious ceremonies and crop plantings.
4) Hourglasses and water clocks are not "clocks".
5) A clock based on a quartz crystal, although potentially highly stable,
cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because the frequency of
crystal oscillation is not set by a fundamental physical process, but
rather depends on details of how the crystal is cut.
6) Although a clock based on, say, the period of a millisecond pulsar may
be an "extremely good clock", it cannot be a "candidate standard clock"
because its central timing component cannot be locally reproduced by
individuals in different areas of the universe. Individuals in different
states of motion and in differing gravitational potentials will observe
that the pulsar period, although highly stable, will not correlate
exactly with times they they measure on "local standard clocks".
Furthermore, the phase of the received signal depends on one's location
with respect to the distant timing component, which varies with the
Earth's rotation, its orbit around the Sun, the Sun's travel through
the galaxy, etc.
Suggestions for improving on my attempt at defining different types of
clock are welcome!
Paul B. Andersen
2024-03-01 19:47:05 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the
term. The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his
definition. I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to
what I have written
here.
A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components) comprising
a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a monitoring
component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will
optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of
component (B)
so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.
Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self-
contained in its power requirements.)
If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
"good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
selection of "better clocks".
A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component
is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and
locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks"
are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor)
of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
instrumentation that monitors their cycles.
Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished by the
physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components,
one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard clock".
By the above definition,
1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock" because it
is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of the
pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
So Newton had no clock! :-)
Not according to this definition of "clock".
A pendulum + Earth system, however, would together constitute
a "clock".
So a stationary pendulum clock on Earth is "a clock".
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Paul B. Andersen
The Royal Observatory at Greenwich had pendulum clocks as
standard clocks at least until 1939.
From 1853 electrical sensors detected the motion of the pendulum
and sent the signal via wire to repeaters in the observatory
and via telegraph to other cities (later to BBC).
Stationary pendulum clocks can be very precise clocks because
gravitation is an environmental parameter that is pretty constant.
Temperature changes can be compensated for.
No other mechanical clock can compete with it.
The pinnacle of pendulum clock design may have been the
Shortt-synchronome clocks, whose stability reached the
fractional second per year level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortt%E2%80%93Synchronome_clock
Post by Paul B. Andersen
But of course it is can't be used if not stationary.
Pendulum clocks are "clocks" according to your definition above,
even if we today would prefer other types of clocks for most
applications.
As explained above, a combination of pendulum clock + Earth by my
definition would constitute a "clock". :-)
Also, by my definition, no matter how precise a pendulum + Earth
clock may be, it cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because
two clockmakers cannot independently construct clocks that will
beat together at the same frequency, since their frequencies are
not set by a fundamental physical process. The two clocks must be
carefully tuned to match each other.
In my proposed classification scheme, no "candidate standard
clocks" existed until the first ammonia maser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser#History
Yes,I agree to the above, a pendulum clock cannot be a
"candidate standard clock" today, only atomic clocks can
be that, because the definition of the time unit is based
on a natural atomic constant.

You wrote categorically: 'A pendulum clock is not a "clock"'.

But the pendulum clock at Greenwich was the "standard clock"
of the world from 1675 to 1939.
At that time the definition of the time units were based on
a mean solar day, and the standard clock could only be calibrated
at an observatory, where they every night measured the time of
the meridian passing of a lot of stars.

My only point was that a pendulum clock is still a "clock".

We do not really disagree, do we?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Maciej Woźniak
2024-03-01 22:44:24 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Yes,I agree to the above, a pendulum clock cannot be a
"candidate standard clock" today, only atomic clocks can
be that, because the definition of the time unit is based
on a natural atomic constant.
Unfortunately, as anyone can check in GPS,
your wannabe definition is pretty useless
when it come to serious measurements; no
surprise, of course, common sense was warning
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-03-02 06:59:55 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
My only point was that a pendulum clock is still a "clock".
We do not really disagree, do we?
No, of course not. Merely proposing a revised classification
scheme for various entities called "clock" does not in any
way alter the underlying physics. A revised classification
scheme may, on the other hand, suggest useful alternative
ways of thinking about these entities. :-)
Maciej Woźniak
2024-03-03 07:04:25 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Paul B. Andersen
My only point was that a pendulum clock is still a "clock".
We do not really disagree, do we?
No, of course not. Merely proposing a revised classification
scheme for various entities called "clock" does not in any way alter the
underlying physics.
Like in Orwell, distorting the meaning
of commonly used words in your absurd
newspeak is a part of your absurd
ideology.
Michelle Tatár Buzás
2024-03-02 09:34:32 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Not according to this definition of "clock".
A pendulum + Earth system, however, would together constitute a
"clock".
So a stationary pendulum clock on Earth is "a clock".
yes, definitely I can see your point. Now, prepare your ass for Siberia,
yet clearly another state_terrorism.

𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰_–_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮
Berlin has reportedly launched a counterintelligence probe into how the
conversation between senior Luftwaffe officers got out
https://r%74.com/news/593571-leaked-german-recording-authentic/

In this game of chess,the west has already lost it's queen,and is busily
rearranging it's other pieces,knowing that total collapse is only two
moves away...Check Mate fools !!
Maciej Woźniak
2024-03-01 06:25:18 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Thomas Heger
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=clock+picture&form=ANNTH1&refig=7f26d3e3f0dd44458d7e38ba627e82c5&pc=U531
These are, poor halfbrain.
Volney
2024-03-01 19:24:27 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of the
pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
To be fair, pendulum clocks (and water clocks and hourglasses) which
depend on the force of gravity really need to include the mass of the
earth as "part" of the clock, as the gravitational force is necessary
for the operation of the clock. At first this definition massively fails
the transportability requirement but actually less so since transporting
the clock between two regions of constant gravity works.

A pendulum clock could work with another force, such as a spring or
metal plate below it with an electrical charge and the pendulum with the
opposite charge. This would require adjustment for the varying distance
between the pendulum and the plate/varying spring force but it could be
compensated for (shape the metal plate so it's not a flat plane)
Maciej Woźniak
2024-03-01 22:41:36 UTC
Post by Volney
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of the
pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
To be fair, pendulum clocks (and water clocks and hourglasses) which
depend on the force of gravity really need to include the mass of the
earth as "part" of the clock, as the gravitational force is necessary
for the operation of the clock.
Is also the sea a part of a boat, stupid Mike?
2024-03-02 00:33:51 UTC
Post by Volney
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of
the pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
To be fair, pendulum clocks (and water clocks and hourglasses) which
depend on the force of gravity really need to include the mass of the
earth as "part" of the clock, as the gravitational force is necessary
for the operation of the clock. At first this definition massively fails
the transportability requirement but actually less so since transporting
the clock between two regions of constant gravity works.
this is double negation, since the "gravity" already includes earth. But
you are right, corresponding to my
"𝗢𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹", where as such, both the
amplitude probability distribution of the earth 𝗔𝗡𝗗 the pendulum are
involved. A good point indeed, which constitutes
"o𝗻𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗘𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗶𝘀_𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴".

https://r%74.com/news/

𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸_𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰_–_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮
Berlin launched a counterintelligence probe into how the conversation
between senior Luftwaffe officers got out

𝗘𝗨_𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿_𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀_𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝘇𝗲𝗻_𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱
Brussels unblocked €2 billion after Budapest approved Sweden’s NATO
membership

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀_𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼_𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸
The Defense Ministry fears that Russia may have spied on Luftwaffe
generals

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱’𝘀_‘𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁_𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲’_𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿_𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹_–_𝗨𝗦_𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹
Washington desperately needs to modernize its own nuclear forces, the
head of the US Strategic Command has said

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗳_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀_𝗼𝗻_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮:_𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗱_𝘀𝗼_𝗳𝗮𝗿_𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗔𝗣
Luftwaffe generals have allegedly talked about secretly helping
Ukraine bomb the Crimean Bridge

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁_𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗼𝗳_𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗻_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗘𝘅𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲
Simonyan, hours after she reported receiving the recording

𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗻_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝘀𝘄𝗶𝗺_𝗶𝗻_𝗦𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗲
Paris will use the river for the opening ceremony of the 2024
Olympics, and as a site for swimming competitions

𝗨𝗦_𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁_𝘁𝗼_𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗶𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_–_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮’𝘀_𝘁𝗼𝗽_𝗯𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘀
Washington uses hyped-up foreign threats as a pretext for military
expansion, Beijing’s defense spokesman has said

𝗣𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗻_𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮-𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝗵
The US defense secretary calls for additional funding for Kiev’s war
effort before it’s too late

100+_𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱_𝗮𝘀_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹𝗶_𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗽𝘀_𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻_𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲_𝗼𝗻_𝗵𝘂𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆_𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗚𝗮𝘇𝗮_–_𝗛𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘀_(𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗢)
An IDF source claimed soldiers “felt threatened” and blamed any
casualties on the Palestinians

𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗻_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗯𝘆_𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝘀_𝗼𝗻_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗽𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
The French president brushed off criticism from fellow NATO members,
insisting his words were “thought-through and measured”

𝗨𝗦-𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆_𝗮𝘀𝗸𝘀_𝗨𝗡_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽_𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱_𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻
Cuba has asked the World Food Programme for donations of powdered milk

𝗨𝗞_‘𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆_𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗱’_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁_–_𝗞𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗹𝗶𝗻
Dmitry Peskov has responded to British media revelations

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆_–_𝗻𝗲𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿
Kiev is within its rights to use Finnish-supplied weaponry as it sees
fit, Helsinki has said

𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸𝘀_𝗼𝗻_𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲_–_𝗪𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘄
Kiev has denied the claim, saying no negotiations about temporarily
closing the border were taking place

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗹𝘀_𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗼𝗳_𝗝𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗚𝗮𝘇𝗮_𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗢𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻
By locking away one journalist and abetting the misery of an entire
people, the West combines oppressive structure with disregard for law

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮-𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁_𝘀𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼_–_𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗱
The media outlet claims to have obtained a new risk analysis devised
for MPs

𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝘇_𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗱_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗨𝗞_𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗽_𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
The chancellor said giving Kiev long-range missiles would require
assistance from German troops, citing London’s example

𝗣𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗻_𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗶𝘁𝘀_𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁_\$4_𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_–_𝗖𝗡𝗡
A new \$60 billion aid package for Kiev faces gridlock in Congress amid
Republican opposition

𝗧ü𝗿𝗸𝗶𝘆𝗲_𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗵𝗼𝘀𝘁_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮-𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸𝘀
Ankara has repeatedly sought to act as mediator since Kiev derailed
the last round of negotiations less than a month into the conflict
Thomas Heger
2024-03-05 20:26:41 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Thomas Heger
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).

Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
and seconds.

But that's not time neither (it's a measure).

So: time and what clocks say are related, but are not equal.

Some mechanism will most likely exist, which pushes time further. But we
know for certain, that this is not done by watches.

...

TH
Boris Kuang She
2024-03-05 23:16:42 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
and seconds. But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
So: time and what clocks say are related, but are not equal.
Some mechanism will most likely exist, which pushes time further. But we
know for certain, that this is not done by watches.
lol, you guys are completely banana in what clocks are supposed to be. But
good news, finally. Capitalist amrica sucks dicks. Gearmony suck dicks
too. Even more. Russia : "see you in Barlin!!" lol.

𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱sky_𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘀
The US Deputy Secretary of State will leave her role in the coming weeks,
her boss Antony Blinken has announced
https://r%74.com/news/593816-us-deputy-secretary-nuland-quits/

"He also noted that her “leadership on Ukraine” will be the subject of
study “for years to come” by diplomats and students of foreign policy."
Somewhat like lucifer directing U on how to get passage to Heaven.

She is going to try and hide. The worm is turning. Its gunna get hot!

They'll throw Biden under the bus next. Watch.

pass the sick bag. I'D vomit all over that thing! That's how MUCH that
THING disgusts me!

When George Galloway recently referred to "lipstick on a pig" I think he

Resignation is NOT an option. She must be tried for treason and dealt with
accordingly. Something big is coming would be my read from this news.
Probably US intelligence run biolabs in Ukraine. Or worse she devoting her
time exclusively to the Trump assassination file. Freaks like this don't
just quit for no reason.

The rats leave the sinking ship

She won't leave before she spits more malignant germs; she is full of it.

Strongest signal I've seen that US is about to change policy on Ukraine.

Some 𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 should be brought back 𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗼𝗻.

Nuland belongs in prison with Biden, Harris, Blinken, Pelosi, AOC....They
talk about corruption, terrorists, and Russia like we the USA are not the
worst offenders in the known world,

Victoria Nuland was HUMILIATED by Niger Coup Leaders.

Mar 5 · Jack Heart Esoteric Evolution
"So, this hideous Jew, who is a dead ringer for Jabba the Hutt, will just
walk away after murdering 𝘂𝗽𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲? Does America
think this is good enough? Eviscerating her and using her entrails to
strangle her husband Kagan, the king of the Jews wouldn't be good enough.
America must suffer the consequences of "worshiping devils and strangers
in bed" to quote Jim Carroll, a poet that was not a Jewish devil."

To market to market he fired the fat pig, home again home again jiggety
jig. She's joining the circus as the ugliest creature on earth, inside and
out.

Good Victoria Nuland quit or dismissed. One less ignorant evil Cretin in

WHEN THE EVIL ZIONIST SHIP SINKS THE EVIL RATS ESCAPE.

Yeah, she's going to be worse somewhere else!
Maciej Woźniak
2024-03-06 05:53:27 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Thomas Heger
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
and seconds.
But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
obligged to.
The Starmaker
2024-03-06 07:17:01 UTC
Post by Maciej WoÅºniak
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Thomas Heger
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
and seconds.
But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
obligged to.
if one clock is running slow,
and the other clock fast...
which one is the real time?

even a sundial does not have the real time...

yous people let clocks
run your life and yous don't even know
that the real time is?

oh, i'm late...i gotta go.

is 't' a number?

numbers don't exist.
--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker
2024-03-06 07:30:59 UTC
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Maciej WoÅºniak
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Thomas Heger
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
and seconds.
But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
obligged to.
if one clock is running slow,
and the other clock fast...
which one is the real time?
even a sundial does not have the real time...
yous people let clocks
run your life and yous don't even know
that the real time is?
oh, i'm late...i gotta go.
is 't' a number?
numbers don't exist.
i got a good idea..
throw away all

No more time.

if you see the sun
moving around...
that is all
it is doing...moving
around.
--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker
2024-03-06 07:44:59 UTC
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Maciej WoÅºniak
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Thomas Heger
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
and seconds.
But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
obligged to.
if one clock is running slow,
and the other clock fast...
which one is the real time?
even a sundial does not have the real time...
yous people let clocks
run your life and yous don't even know
that the real time is?
oh, i'm late...i gotta go.
is 't' a number?
numbers don't exist.
i got a good idea..
throw away all
No more time.
if you see the sun
moving around...
that is all
it is doing...moving
around.
What time is it ...now?

It's always Now.

If a clock moves one second
it tells you the time now..

next second
it tells you the time now..

next second
it tells you the time now..

next second
it tells you the time now..

it's always...Now.

What time is it ...now?

it's always...Now.

What now is it?

the second before is not now,
it's in the past..it doesn't exist.

How do you measure a second before?
--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker
2024-03-06 08:00:50 UTC
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Maciej WoÅºniak
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by Thomas Heger
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
and seconds.
But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
obligged to.
if one clock is running slow,
and the other clock fast...
which one is the real time?
even a sundial does not have the real time...
yous people let clocks
run your life and yous don't even know
that the real time is?
oh, i'm late...i gotta go.
is 't' a number?
numbers don't exist.
i got a good idea..
throw away all
No more time.
if you see the sun
moving around...
that is all
it is doing...moving
around.
What time is it ...now?
It's always Now.
If a clock moves one second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
it's always...Now.
What time is it ...now?
it's always...Now.
What now is it?
the second before is not now,
it's in the past..it doesn't exist.
How do you measure a second before?
I just took the battery
out of the clock.
Time has stopped.

No more time.

I don't know what time it is ...Now.

wait a minute...isn't always Now????

i don't need a clock
to tell me what time
it is now, it's always now!

i need to put the battery back in
so i'll know what time it is...now.

okay, i know what time it is now.

it's 12 O'clock now.

i got the real time..
--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Ross Finlayson
2024-02-29 17:22:36 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Piotr Babchenko Bakulev
Post by Thomas Heger
For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and clocks
depend on the local environment and count something there.
actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in
relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny
indeed. As for instance
Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
required for the increase of entropy in the first place.
No, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
Heat dissipates, hence entropy increases.
But that is not time.
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which we
assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and the
second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether these
frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
TH
Thermodynamics has two laws.

One's about the increase of a cubic centimeter of water, one degree.

The others about the cessation of kinetic energy, zero degrees.

So, in the middle, heat, quantified, calories, has why
the other about the multiplicative annihilator.

That they result pointing to Kelvins on the same scale,
vis-a-vis "the triple point of water, its boiling and freezing",
and with regards to "the motion of heat", in the conductive and
then convective and states of matter and such, gets into that
thermodynamics has dynamics.

Otherwise you can just call it the "thermostatics".

So, Clausius, after Hooke's law, for "entropy",
then on into Kelvin, because "yes everything is
kind of kinetic", has for that "entropy" has two
definitions or a lesser-known secondary definition,
"entropy" : "1, tendency to empty", "2, opposite 1,
propensity to full", or 1:Aristotle's and 2:Leibniz'.

Then, figuring you've studied Fourier, and heat,
then these days it's good to know that "heat bubbles"
are a things, the "magmas" about the "algebras",
in the derivations, quite formally mathematically,
with regards to the "flow" and "flux" of these things,
that while of course "statistical mechanics after the
second law of thermodynamics calling that entropy",
is the great result for the principle of least action,
in statics, what fall, that there are other laws of
large numbers, and any matter of laws of large numbers,
results information, information, information, ....

I discuss such things in my podcasts in
for example "Moment and Motion" and in
"Descriptive Differential Dynamics",
reading a derivation of Fourier's heat equation,
from a book of Gonzalez-Velasco.
Physfitfreak
2024-02-29 18:23:56 UTC
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Huy KÃ¡ntor HegedÅ±s
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Piotr Babchenko Bakulev
Post by Thomas Heger
For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and clocks
depend on the local environment and count something there.
actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in
relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny
indeed. As for instance
Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
required for the increase of entropy in the first place.
the Entropy 𝗜𝗦 time. Please stop 𝗻𝗼𝘁 undrestanding tensors. Look
No, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
Heat dissipates, hence entropy increases.
But that is not time.
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which we
assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and the
second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether these
frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
TH
Thermodynamics has two laws.
One's about the increase of a cubic centimeter of water, one degree.
The others about the cessation of kinetic energy, zero degrees.
So, in the middle, heat, quantified, calories, has why
the other about the multiplicative annihilator.
That they result pointing to Kelvins on the same scale,
vis-a-vis "the triple point of water, its boiling and freezing",
and with regards to "the motion of heat", in the conductive and
then convective and states of matter and such, gets into that
thermodynamics has dynamics.
Otherwise you can just call it the "thermostatics".
So, Clausius, after Hooke's law, for "entropy",
then on into Kelvin, because "yes everything is
kind of kinetic", has for that "entropy" has two
definitions or a lesser-known secondary definition,
"entropy" : "1, tendency to empty", "2, opposite 1,
propensity to full", or 1:Aristotle's and 2:Leibniz'.
Then, figuring you've studied Fourier, and heat,
then these days it's good to know that "heat bubbles"
are a things, the "magmas" about the "algebras",
in the derivations, quite formally mathematically,
with regards to the "flow" and "flux" of these things,
that while of course "statistical mechanics after the
second law of thermodynamics calling that entropy",
is the great result for the principle of least action,
in statics, what fall, that there are other laws of
large numbers, and any matter of laws of large numbers,
results information, information, information, ....
I discuss such things in my podcasts in
for example "Moment and Motion" and in
"Descriptive Differential Dynamics",
reading a derivation of Fourier's heat equation,
from a book of Gonzalez-Velasco.
Fuck off.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Vinson Makricosta Stamatelos
2024-02-29 20:39:26 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Piotr Babchenko Bakulev
actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in
relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny
indeed. As for instance
Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
required for the increase of entropy in the first place.
No, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
Heat dissipates, hence entropy increases. But that is not time.
use your brain. Then you should be able to sense "time" without Entropy
involved. You can't. It always involves a "clock" which is Entropy enough,
comparing it with a place where Entropy 𝗶𝘀_𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗼𝗻. In short, it looks like
𝗮_𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿_𝘄𝗮𝗿 is about to start in fucking europe. If you live in Glucksburg,
leave.

𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆_𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲_𝗮𝗶𝗺_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
Regime Change Karen has said the quiet part out loud, complaining that
Putin’s Russia is “not the Russia we wanted”
https://r%74.com/news/593261-nuland-nukes-west-ukraine-putin/

Scott Ritter to the polaker_𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 misnamed Netaniahu:
"𝗮𝘀_𝗯𝗮𝗱_𝗮𝘀_𝘄𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲,_𝘄𝗲_𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁_𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝗼𝘄𝗻_𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲,_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗳_𝗮_𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵!"

𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁_𝗥𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿ï_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀_𝗠𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 (page 28:20)
https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/video/mzhmKBVGBpRW

𝗪𝗵𝘆_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗮𝗹𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰_𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀_𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿_𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗮𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲_𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄
https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/video/ZEge33Izi84k
Physfitfreak
2024-02-29 21:27:35 UTC
Post by Vinson Makricosta Stamatelos
"𝗮𝘀_𝗯𝗮𝗱_𝗮𝘀_𝘄𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲,_𝘄𝗲_𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁_𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝗼𝘄𝗻_𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲,_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗳_𝗮_𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵!"
Tell your "Scott" Americans killed one million Americans by bioweapon
from 2020 to 2023.

And then fuck yourself Hanson. Go to Hell with your posts.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Maciej Woźniak
2024-02-26 12:36:13 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
The GPS woulnd't work if the SV clocks weren't synchronous with UTC,
so Einstein's definition of simultaneity seems to work in the real
world.
What an impudent lie; of course -
The GPS woulnd't work if the SV clocks weren't synchronous with [GPS
time, learn some subject, GPS time is different than UTC]
so Einstein's definition of simultaneity is useless in the real
world.
Volney
2024-02-27 14:27:36 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
It seems that you don't quite understand what I'm saying, and it's very
annoying for me, for forty years having to repeat things that are very
simple but that no one WANTS to understand.
Maybe it's because we understand you are wrong.
Post by Richard Hachel
But between A and B, there will NEVER be absolute simultaneity.
Because time is not Galilean.
Post by Richard Hachel
It goes without saying that time is perfectly
isochronotropic.
Is that kind of like saying time is perfectly green? Or time is
perfectly cold?
Post by Richard Hachel
A watch in A, in B, in C, in Y, and Z, in the same
inertial frame of reference, will always beat, this is a tautology, at
the same speed as the others; and the opposite would be absurd.
It is only by change of reference that chronotropy varies.
In short, time, that is to say the moment, is RELATIVE to the position;
chronotropy, i.e. duration, is RELATIVE to speed.
Is that chronotropy the temperature of the time or the greenness of the
time?
Post by Richard Hachel
It is childishly simple, but sad to cry because this beauty, this
simplicity, is refused by men for the simple fact that it hurts their eyes.
We prefer to spit on Doctor Hachel,
Why would you claim (by using 'we') that you spit on yourself? Or is
this 'Dr. Hachel' (used in the third person) someone who is not you, but
you (included in 'we') spit on him?
Maria Komáromi Forgács
2024-02-25 17:10:50 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Richard Hachel
Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony, that is to
say constantly exist at the same present moment, does not make sense in
special relativity (or at least, it should not).
Points are actually timeless (in euclidean space), because 'point'
denotes a location. And locations do not move (by definition of 'location').
inconclusive, 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼_𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲 domain points without passage of time makes no
sense. Hence space without time is 100% bullshit. They like 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆,
a gay 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 actor, as the entire 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁 is a cinema. A
cartoon to fool the public. Behind it it's nothing. Read this papers and
write a conclusion in your papers. This is how science works.

2024_𝗙𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗢𝗱𝘆𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘂𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀._𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/IRJv77O6cWkN

𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗴_𝗥𝗲𝗲𝘀𝗲_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗧𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝗠𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗣𝗵𝗼𝘁𝗼𝘀_𝗔𝗿𝗲_𝗙𝗮𝗸𝗲!
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/odq1tFQfoRc5

𝗜_𝗯𝗲𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆_𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆_𝗶𝗻_𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗼_𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/DTaMCoKNnPpy

𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗔_𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘄_𝘂𝗽._𝗜_𝗵𝗮𝗱_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗼𝗻𝗲_𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/KMJxEbrZ2uTi

𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗟𝗜𝗘𝗦!
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/naxHReirDhXq

𝗜𝘁𝘀_𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗻𝘆_𝗵𝗼𝘄_𝘄𝗲'𝘃𝗲_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝘁𝗼_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝗻_50_𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/d5IznWwVk6nF

𝗖𝗟𝗜𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗘_𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮_𝗙𝗿𝗮𝘂𝗱
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/pIHz5hwEkFxO

𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw

𝗜_𝗕𝗘𝗧_𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗬_𝗗𝗢𝗡'𝗧_𝗧𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗛_𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦_𝗜𝗡_𝗦𝗖𝗛𝗢𝗢𝗟!
𝗪𝗮𝗻𝘁_𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗢𝗙-𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲_𝗜𝘁_𝗜𝘀_𝗠𝗨𝗦𝗧_𝗦𝗘𝗘_(2018-2019)
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/FJxc8TFqUCdJ
Physfitfreak
2024-02-25 21:47:41 UTC
Post by Maria KomÃ¡romi ForgÃ¡cs
𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw
Of course they have an identical double in their labs, in case something
happens up there and they would have to improvise.

You're an idiot, Hanson. And you idiots savor and find each other too.
Problem is, you're too stupid to see how others look at you idiots.

I hope at least you're getting paid by my tax money, you _pest_. And
it's of course all clear what else you do with your time. Getting it in
the ass.

If you had decency, you'd hang yourself, Hanson. Decent individuals of
your creed jump down high story buildings.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Ionio Sabbag Nassar
2024-02-25 23:18:19 UTC
Post by Physfitfreak
Post by Maria KomÃ¡romi ForgÃ¡cs
𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw
Of course they have an identical double in their labs, in case something
happens up there and they would have to improvise
LOL, this old fuck. Those publisher are different, cretin. What your
𝘁𝗮𝘅_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆?? When they print 𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 at will, for centuries now, why the
fuck they need your money, you braindead imbecile? That's the idea, lol.

𝗜𝗳_𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝗖𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆_𝗢𝘂𝘁_𝗼𝗳_𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗪𝗵𝘆_𝗗𝗼_𝗪𝗲_𝗣𝗮𝘆_𝗧𝗮𝘅𝗲𝘀
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/6ExEBQiESvNI

𝗧𝗮𝘅𝗲𝘀_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗳𝘁!
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/QJnBzJtEBkDi

𝗨𝗦_𝗗𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮_𝗹𝗼𝗹
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/2HpJQv3Ru7Mz

𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗮_𝗩𝘆𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗿𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝘄𝗮𝘀_𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗯𝘆_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗔𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗼-𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/jO5OSLeGZJfz

𝗜𝘁'𝘀_𝗢𝗞_𝘁𝗼_𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀_𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆_-_𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗱_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝘀𝘂𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗸𝗶𝗱𝘀.
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/QHkNtLQ9yazR

𝗔𝗺𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗿_𝘁𝗼_𝗬𝘂𝗴𝗼𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗮_𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘂𝗽_𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲_𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗕𝗼𝘀𝗻𝗶𝗮_𝘄𝗮𝗿
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/aBzpRQphlavF

then recap the proofs

2024_𝗙𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗢𝗱𝘆𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘂𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀._𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/IRJv77O6cWkN

𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗴_𝗥𝗲𝗲𝘀𝗲_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗧𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝗠𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗣𝗵𝗼𝘁𝗼𝘀_𝗔𝗿𝗲_𝗙𝗮𝗸𝗲!
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/odq1tFQfoRc5

𝗜_𝗯𝗲𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆_𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆_𝗶𝗻_𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗼_𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/DTaMCoKNnPpy

𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗔_𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘄_𝘂𝗽._𝗜_𝗵𝗮𝗱_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗼𝗻𝗲_𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/KMJxEbrZ2uTi

𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗟𝗜𝗘𝗦!
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/naxHReirDhXq

𝗜𝘁𝘀_𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗻𝘆_𝗵𝗼𝘄_𝘄𝗲'𝘃𝗲_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝘁𝗼_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝗻_50_𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/d5IznWwVk6nF

𝗖𝗟𝗜𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗘_𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮_𝗙𝗿𝗮𝘂𝗱
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/pIHz5hwEkFxO

𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw

𝗜_𝗕𝗘𝗧_𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗬_𝗗𝗢𝗡'𝗧_𝗧𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗛_𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦_𝗜𝗡_𝗦𝗖𝗛𝗢𝗢𝗟!
𝗪𝗮𝗻𝘁_𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗢𝗙-𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲_𝗜𝘁_𝗜𝘀_𝗠𝗨𝗦𝗧_𝗦𝗘𝗘_(2018-2019)
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/FJxc8TFqUCdJ
The Starmaker
2024-02-25 23:50:38 UTC
Post by Physfitfreak
Post by Maria KomÃ¡romi ForgÃ¡cs
𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw
Of course they have an identical double in their labs, in case something
happens up there and they would have to improvise.
You're an idiot, Hanson. And you idiots savor and find each other too.
Problem is, you're too stupid to see how others look at you idiots.
I hope at least you're getting paid by my tax money, you _pest_. And
it's of course all clear what else you do with your time. Getting it in
the ass.
If you had decency, you'd hang yourself, Hanson. Decent individuals of
your creed jump down high story buildings.
I never heard of "jump down" in physics. (or any place else for that
matter)

...
don't
you
have
to
jump...
UP first???

i mean, jumping requires
a force that pushes...upwards.

i don't even understand the words..."down high"!

--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Richard Hachel
2024-02-24 12:59:19 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Einstein's text.
I tried to make sense out of his method, while maintaining the idea of
time as local phenomenon (opposite to Newton's universal time).
This would be possible, if an additional (hypothetical) observer 'M'
(according to RHs proposal) in the middle between A and B is placed, who
decides, whether or not clocks at A and B are in synch.
(The places A and B are permanently equidistant to M by definition, even
if A or B move)
This is overly complicated, but would make some sense.
The disadvantage, however: it works only for two points (A and B), but
not for three (A, B and C), because three points usually do not have an
equidistant midpoint.
(Because the midpoint of a triangle is not lying on the edges).
TH
If you take the circumference of a circle, and you synchronize on the
center O, the entire circumference, if we synchronize it by O, is found,
at the moment where it receives its beep in the same "instant here".

But this notion of simultaneity, that is to say of a common present
moment, does not exist for all of the points between them.

This universal belief is false.

To put it better, it is an abstract idea.

We will never be able to "absolutely" agree two points separated by a
distance, even fixed between them, it is impossible, they do not have the
same notion of the universal present.

We can only synchronize virtually, and abstractly, and only on another
point.

This is what happens with GPS. We synchronize, in fact, on a point placed
in a fourth dimension, and equidistant from all the points of the 3D
reference frame considered.

I am surprised that few people understand this obvious fact.

R.H.
JanPB
2024-02-23 21:52:17 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
------------------
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line
of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the
point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is
possible for
an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
neigh-
bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare,
in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined
only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common
“time” for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by
definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the
“time” it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A
time” tA from
A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
..
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = tA − tB.
---------------------
I don't understand anything this man is saying.
He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
Post by Richard Hachel
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand
anything at all?
I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard and simple.
You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for a while.
What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really works.
Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are valid methods
of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.

--
Jan
Richard Hachel
2024-02-23 23:11:20 UTC
Post by JanPB
He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
Post by Richard Hachel
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand
anything at all?
I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard and simple.
You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for a while.
What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really works.
Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are valid methods
of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
--
What is important to understand, before starting to discuss with me, is
that I am a man of great listening (forty years of professionalism where I
have always strived to listen to others with attention and respect ).
Don't laugh friends, those who tell you it's common are lying.
As Sartre said, the problem with bad faith is that bad faith is faith.
You say that the speed of light is equal from A to B, and from B to A, I
agree, but for WHO?
Where is this observer who decrees this?
If, precisely, I pose a problem of anisochrony, it is quite obvious that
the fact can only be true for a neutral observer, that is to say placed
perpendicular to the path of the photon.
Do you understand this?
Thus the equation t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c which is clearly true for everyone
(except for idiots but I have never seen one of this type) does not
necessarily imply t(B)-t(A)=t(A')-t(B).
It is easy and a very common a priori for men to say that.
And yet, it is false.
Is anyone capable of raising their intellectual level to this, and saying
"Sir, you are absolutely right, and I completely understand your point of
view"?

R.H.
Python
2024-02-24 01:00:30 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by JanPB
He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
Post by Richard Hachel
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't
understand anything at all?
I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard and simple.
You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for a while.
What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really works.
Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are valid methods
of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
--
What is important to understand, before starting to discuss with me, is
that I am a man of great listening (forty years of professionalism where
I have always strived to listen to others with attention and respect ).
You've never done that a single time in your life, Lengrand. You are
an infatuated nymphomaniac crank. Not only in physics, btw.

And I can illustrated by your previous post on this very issue. Check
all the crap you've posted on this very part of Einstein paper in 2004
on fr.sci!
Post by Richard Hachel
Don't laugh friends, those who tell you it's common are lying.
As Sartre said, the problem with bad faith is that bad faith is faith.
You are the liar and the hypocrite here, Lengrand.
Post by Richard Hachel
You say that the speed of light is equal from A to B, and from B to A, I
agree, but for WHO?
For the set of clocks conventionally synchronized in a the
Poincaré/Einstein method you've always failed to understand.
Post by Richard Hachel
Where is this observer who decrees this?
If, precisely, I pose a problem of anisochrony, it is quite obvious that
the fact can only be true for a neutral observer, that is to say placed
perpendicular to the path of the photon.
Do you understand this?
Thus the equation t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c which is clearly true for everyone
(except for idiots but I have never seen one of this type) does not
necessarily imply t(B)-t(A)=t(A')-t(B).
Idiot!!! And hypocrite liar, nobody ever pretend the first equation
implied the second one. You missed the point (as always). How can
you be such a stupid git Lengrand? For so many years...
Post by Richard Hachel
It is easy and a very common a priori for men to say that.
And yet, it is false.
Is anyone capable of raising their intellectual level to this, and
saying "Sir, you are absolutely right, and I completely understand your
point of view"?
We do understand your "point of view" and we recognize it as fallacious.

You are a kook, you've always been a kook, and you will die so,
Lengrand.

The fact that you are allowed to practice as an M.D. in France is
a shame and put people lifes at risk for decades.
Maciej Woźniak
2024-02-24 10:44:37 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by JanPB
He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
Post by Richard Hachel
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't
understand anything at all?
I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard and simple.
You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for a while.
What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really works.
Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are valid methods
of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
--
What is important to understand, before starting to discuss with me,
is that I am a man of great listening (forty years of professionalism
where I have always strived to listen to others with attention and
respect ).
You've never done that a single time in your life, Lengrand. You are
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
definition 9 and learnt what a function is?
Ross Finlayson
2024-02-24 22:36:07 UTC
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hachel
------------------
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at
the point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is
possible for
an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the
immediate neigh-
bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare,
in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined
only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
by definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the
“time” it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A
time” tA from
A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
..
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = tA − tB.
---------------------
I don't understand anything this man is saying.
He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
Post by Richard Hachel
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't
understand anything at all?
I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard and simple.
You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for a while.
What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really works.
Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are valid methods
of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
--
Jan
Depending on the relative motion of the A and B in their spacial,
they may have either accelerated what it results that the given
image emitted as light at any point, is in transit in the "open space",
not so necessarily symmetrical with respect to the simpler case
of bodies with constant relative motion.

Over time, ....

Einstein defines "spacial" (not, "spatial") in "Out of My Later Years",
which these days is "SR is local" (and, "Relativity of Simultaneity
is not-necessarily-local"), and space-contraction is part of his
next mass/energy equivalency relation for "Einstein's bridge".

Python
2024-02-24 22:54:04 UTC
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hachel
------------------
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at
the point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is
possible for
an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the
immediate neigh-
bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare,
in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined
only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
by definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the
“time” it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A
time” tA from
A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
..
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = tA − tB.
---------------------
I don't understand anything this man is saying.
He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
Post by Richard Hachel
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't
understand anything at all?
I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard and simple.
You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for a while.
What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really works.
Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are valid methods
of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
--
Jan
Depending on the relative motion of the A and B
In the context at stake here, i.e. part I.1 of A.E. paper,
clocks at A and B are in mutual rest.
Post by Ross Finlayson
[snip rest of dementia]
You need medical help Ross, your posts make less and less
sense.