Discussion:
Watch problem
Add Reply
Richard Hachel
2021-11-22 22:25:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and
terms you use.
It is not always easy.
For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches
are triggered".
As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we
trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?"
A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling.
And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is
obvious".
And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be
those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off."
And against all, he is right.
It is necessarily not those that we trigger.
I love this guy.

R.H.
robby
2021-11-23 07:15:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words
and terms you use.
ce groupe est francophone.
--
Fabrice
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2021-11-23 07:18:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and
terms you use.
And you are not.
Post by Richard Hachel
It is not always easy.
It becomes easier when you study this so that you know what you are talking
about. When will you start?
Post by Richard Hachel
For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches
are triggered".
As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we
trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?"
A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling.
And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is
obvious".
Nonsense. These are origins of spaceTIME coordinate systems. It is the
same as saying: There are two watches which are in the same place and
*there* they show the same time.
Post by Richard Hachel
And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be
those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off."
Nonsense.
Post by Richard Hachel
And against all, he is right.
It is necessarily not those that we trigger.
I love this guy.
But you still do not understand special relativity.


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)
Maciej Wozniak
2021-11-23 08:57:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Richard Hachel
In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and
terms you use.
And you are not.
Post by Richard Hachel
It is not always easy.
It becomes easier when you study this so that you know what you are talking
about. When will you start?
Post by Richard Hachel
For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches
are triggered".
As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we
trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?"
A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling.
And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is
obvious".
Nonsense. These are origins of spaceTIME coordinate systems. It is the
same as saying: There are two watches which are in the same place and
*there* they show the same time.
Post by Richard Hachel
And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be
those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off."
Nonsense.
Post by Richard Hachel
And against all, he is right.
It is necessarily not those that we trigger.
I love this guy.
But you still do not understand special relativity.
And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your moronic
religion GPS clcoks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-23 13:09:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and
terms you use.
It is not always easy.
For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches
are triggered".
As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we
trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?"
A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling.
And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is
obvious".
And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be
those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off."
And against all, he is right.
It is necessarily not those that we trigger.
I love this guy.
R.H.
Knowing full well that you are off your rocker, we are talking about
synchronizing a watch near O that is at rest in S, with another watch near
O’ that is at rest in S’. The only opportunity to do that is when O and O’
coincide, putting these watches very near each other.

It is also then necessary to apply a synchronization procedure for the
clock near O and all the other clocks at rest in S, as well as for the
clock near O’ and all the other clocks at rest in S’. That is a different
synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but
though different it is not complicated.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-11-23 13:37:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hachel
In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and
terms you use.
It is not always easy.
For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches
are triggered".
As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we
trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?"
A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling.
And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is
obvious".
And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be
those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off."
And against all, he is right.
It is necessarily not those that we trigger.
I love this guy.
R.H.
Knowing full well that you are off your rocker, we are talking about
synchronizing a watch near O that is at rest in S, with another watch near
O’ that is at rest in S’. The only opportunity to do that is when O and O’
coincide, putting these watches very near each other.
It is also then necessary to apply a synchronization procedure for the
clock near O and all the other clocks at rest in S, as well as for the
clock near O’ and all the other clocks at rest in S’. That is a different
synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but
though different it is not complicated.
In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your moronic
religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.
Richard Hachel
2021-11-23 20:39:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hachel
In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and
terms you use.
It is not always easy.
For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches
are triggered".
As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we
trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?"
A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling.
And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is
obvious".
And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be
those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off."
And against all, he is right.
It is necessarily not those that we trigger.
I love this guy.
R.H.
Knowing full well that you are off your rocker, we are talking about
synchronizing a watch near O that is at rest in S, with another watch near
O’ that is at rest in S’. The only opportunity to do that is when O and O’
coincide, putting these watches very near each other.
It is also then necessary to apply a synchronization procedure for the
clock near O and all the other clocks at rest in S, as well as for the
clock near O’ and all the other clocks at rest in S’. That is a different
synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but
though different it is not complicated.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?5Ku14XS-g-***@jntp/Data.Media:1>
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2021-11-24 00:44:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Wrong (as you have been told /ad nauseam/ before).


PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)
Richard Hachel
2021-11-24 12:25:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Wrong (as you have been told /ad nauseam/ before).
PointedEars
Merci de votre participation.

Mais j'espère que vous vous rendez compte qu'elle n'est d'aucune espèce
d'intérêt.

Les chiens aboient ; la caravane passe.

On ne crache pas efficacement sur des vérités éternelles.

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2021-11-24 17:24:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Knowing full well that you are off your rocker, we are talking about
synchronizing a watch near O that is at rest in S, with another watch near
O’ that is at rest in S’. The only opportunity to do that is when O and O’
coincide, putting these watches very near each other.
It is also then necessary to apply a synchronization procedure for the
clock near O and all the other clocks at rest in S, as well as for the
clock near O’ and all the other clocks at rest in S’. That is a different
synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but
though different it is not complicated.
You're absolutely right.
If we lived in a universe where gravity didn't exist, bodies wouldn't
fall, and there wouldn't be anything called "universal gravity".
It is the same if there were no rupture of simultaneity by change of
observer in a simple given frame of reference and one would not speak of
"universal anisochrony".
I remind you that two benches located in the same playground, or two
stations placed on the same railway network will never be able to agree on
"what time it is".
Moreover, when two observers are in relativistic motion relative to each
other, an additional quadratic effect appears and further complicates
matters. This time a break in chronotropy appears. The hands of the shows
reciprocally rotate at different speeds according to their direction and
speed.
This is what must be understood.
But that's not all.
We must also give the right transformations, and understand what we are
talking about when we talk about x, y, z (easy) and To and t (more
difficult if we are not attentive to what I am saying).

R.H.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-25 13:46:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Odd Bodkin
Knowing full well that you are off your rocker, we are talking about
synchronizing a watch near O that is at rest in S, with another watch near
O’ that is at rest in S’. The only opportunity to do that is when O and O’
coincide, putting these watches very near each other.
It is also then necessary to apply a synchronization procedure for the
clock near O and all the other clocks at rest in S, as well as for the
clock near O’ and all the other clocks at rest in S’. That is a different
synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but
though different it is not complicated.
You're absolutely right.
If we lived in a universe where gravity didn't exist, bodies wouldn't
fall, and there wouldn't be anything called "universal gravity".
It is the same if there were no rupture of simultaneity by change of
observer in a simple given frame of reference and one would not speak of
"universal anisochrony".
I remind you that two benches located in the same playground, or two
stations placed on the same railway network will never be able to agree on
"what time it is".
Don’t be silly. This is easy to come to an agreement for park benches at
the playground. I note on my watch that it is 12:38:21, and leaving my
watch behind, I walk at a steady pace to the other park bench. There I ask
the fellow sitting there what time it is, and he looks at his watch tells
me it’s 12:40:24. If the watches are synchronized, the time it took me to
walk there was 00:02:03. I immediately walk back to the first bench at the
same steady pace and when I arrive, I see that the time on my watch is
12:42:07. This tells me that indeed the watches are synchronized, and the
other fellow and I agree what time it is. Right now, in fact, it is
12:45:19, and he would say the same.
Post by Richard Hachel
Moreover, when two observers are in relativistic motion relative to each
other, an additional quadratic effect appears and further complicates
matters. This time a break in chronotropy appears. The hands of the shows
reciprocally rotate at different speeds according to their direction and
speed.
This is what must be understood.
But that's not all.
We must also give the right transformations, and understand what we are
talking about when we talk about x, y, z (easy) and To and t (more
difficult if we are not attentive to what I am saying).
R.H.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Richard Hachel
2021-11-25 14:47:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Don’t be silly. This is easy to come to an agreement for park benches at
the playground. I note on my watch that it is 12:38:21, and leaving my
watch behind, I walk at a steady pace to the other park bench. There I ask
the fellow sitting there what time it is, and he looks at his watch tells
me it’s 12:40:24. If the watches are synchronized, the time it took me to
walk there was 00:02:03. I immediately walk back to the first bench at the
same steady pace and when I arrive, I see that the time on my watch is
12:42:07. This tells me that indeed the watches are synchronized, and the
other fellow and I agree what time it is. Right now, in fact, it is
12:45:19, and he would say the same.
Il faut nommer correctement les choses.
Ma propre montre, je la nomme R (comme Richard, béni soit-il).
La première : A ; la deuxième : B.

Vous dites qu'au départ, vous synchronisez les montres R et A.

Je vous suis parfaitement dans cette idée. Les deux montres notent
chacune la même heure.

Si elles ne notaient pas la même heure, alors qu'elles sont au même
endroit au même moment, ce serait absurde.

On note donc pour R et pour A : 38'21.

Je quitte donc le premier banc de la cour de récréation, et je me dirige
très lentement, vers un autre banc, placé de l'autre côté de la cour.

Lorsque j'arrive là bas, je remarque qu'il est 40'24 à ma montre.

Que puis-je en déduire? Que j'ai mis un temps propre, ou temps réel,
Tr=2'03".

Je remarque alors que l'autre montre B marque alors la même heure que la
mienne, qui marquait
la même heure que la montre A. J'en conclus DEJA que les trois montres
sont accordées.

Pas besoin de revenir en A, car si entre B et R les montres sont
accordées quand je pars de A, il va de soi que les montres A et R seront
accordées si je pars de B.

Donc votre procédure semble valable.

MAIS elle n'est valable que dans un univers isochrone. De même que la
géométrie plane n'est plus valable
sur un globe terrestre.

On peut, en physique, lorsqu'on ne va pas très loin, ou lorsqu'on ne va
pas très vite, simplifier les choses. Mais lorsqu'on va très loin
(j'observe les lunes de Jupiter), ou lorsqu'on va très vite
(je lance des particules relativistes), quelque chose de nouveau entre en
jeu.

L'anisochronie spatiale : deux événements ayant lieu dans un même
référentiel inertiel ne pourront, entre
eux, jamais s'accorder sur leurs instants, voire même sur leur
antériorité ou leur postériorité.

Pour mieux comprendre, prenons un exemple simple. L'heure solaire. Il
n'est pas la même heure, à Paris qu'à Denver.

On peut, éventuellement synchroniser les montres. On peut.

Mais l'heure solaire, c'est à dire la nature même des choses pour le
fermier du coin, vous ne pourrez
pas la changer. Denver, sur le cadran solaire, retardera toujours de
quelques heures.

Il en va de même dans le monde relativiste, où, cette fois, le principe
est réciproque. Chacune des deux montres va réellement considérer comme
principe formel et vrai, que l'autre montre retarde sur elle d'une durée
de t=x/c.

C'est comme ça.

L'univers est fait comme ça.

On peut alors essayer, comme vous le faites, ou comme Einstein le fait, de
trouver une procédure de synchronisation pour accorder "quand même" les
montres.

On les synchronise donc sur ma montre R.

Parce que c'est ça que l'on fait, si l'on comprend bien ce qu'on est en
train de faire.

On ne synchronise pas A avec B. C'est d'ailleurs impossible physiquement.

Ce qu'on fait, c'est qu'on prend le temps de R (qui se déplace lentement
parce que s'il se déplace à vitesse relativiste, un autre facteur du
second degré intervient en surplus), et qu'on va le proposer partout, en
temps que "temps local".

Un peu comme si je prenais le temps solaire de Paris, et que je le
télégraphiais instantanément à Denver et à Moscou.

On aurait alors toutes les horloges solaires qui marquerait la même
heure, il suffirait alors de tourner les socles des horloges de pierre.

Mais vous comprenez fort bien qu'il s'agit là d'un subterfuge.

Et qu'en réalité, il n'est pas la même heure solaire à Denver qu'à
Moscou.

L'exemple et un peu trivial et faux, je l'accorde.

Mais il peut être utile pour placer un doute dans l'esprit du lecteur, et
pour lui permettre de réfléchir à cette notion d'anisochronie que je
défends bec et ongle depuis des décennies déjà, avec, au total,
des explications bien plus satisfaisantes que celles des physiciens sur
des choses qu'ils ne comprennent pas clairement (vitesses apparentes dans
le Langevin, effet-zoom relativiste, paradoxe d'Andromède, impossibilité
d'effet quantique instantanée en RR mais possible en MQ).

R.H.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-25 16:19:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Odd Bodkin
Don’t be silly. This is easy to come to an agreement for park benches at
the playground. I note on my watch that it is 12:38:21, and leaving my
watch behind, I walk at a steady pace to the other park bench. There I ask
the fellow sitting there what time it is, and he looks at his watch tells
me it’s 12:40:24. If the watches are synchronized, the time it took me to
walk there was 00:02:03. I immediately walk back to the first bench at the
same steady pace and when I arrive, I see that the time on my watch is
12:42:07. This tells me that indeed the watches are synchronized, and the
other fellow and I agree what time it is. Right now, in fact, it is
12:45:19, and he would say the same.
Il faut nommer correctement les choses.
Nope. This is an English speaking newsgroup
Post by Richard Hachel
Ma propre montre, je la nomme R (comme Richard, béni soit-il).
La première : A ; la deuxième : B.
Vous dites qu'au départ, vous synchronisez les montres R et A.
Je vous suis parfaitement dans cette idée. Les deux montres notent
chacune la même heure.
Si elles ne notaient pas la même heure, alors qu'elles sont au même
endroit au même moment, ce serait absurde.
On note donc pour R et pour A : 38'21.
Je quitte donc le premier banc de la cour de récréation, et je me dirige
très lentement, vers un autre banc, placé de l'autre côté de la cour.
Lorsque j'arrive là bas, je remarque qu'il est 40'24 à ma montre.
Que puis-je en déduire? Que j'ai mis un temps propre, ou temps réel,
Tr=2'03".
Je remarque alors que l'autre montre B marque alors la même heure que la
mienne, qui marquait
la même heure que la montre A. J'en conclus DEJA que les trois montres
sont accordées.
Pas besoin de revenir en A, car si entre B et R les montres sont
accordées quand je pars de A, il va de soi que les montres A et R seront
accordées si je pars de B.
Donc votre procédure semble valable.
MAIS elle n'est valable que dans un univers isochrone. De même que la
géométrie plane n'est plus valable
sur un globe terrestre.
On peut, en physique, lorsqu'on ne va pas très loin, ou lorsqu'on ne va
pas très vite, simplifier les choses. Mais lorsqu'on va très loin
(j'observe les lunes de Jupiter), ou lorsqu'on va très vite
(je lance des particules relativistes), quelque chose de nouveau entre en
jeu.
L'anisochronie spatiale : deux événements ayant lieu dans un même
référentiel inertiel ne pourront, entre
eux, jamais s'accorder sur leurs instants, voire même sur leur
antériorité ou leur postériorité.
Pour mieux comprendre, prenons un exemple simple. L'heure solaire. Il
n'est pas la même heure, à Paris qu'à Denver.
On peut, éventuellement synchroniser les montres. On peut.
Mais l'heure solaire, c'est à dire la nature même des choses pour le
fermier du coin, vous ne pourrez
pas la changer. Denver, sur le cadran solaire, retardera toujours de
quelques heures.
Il en va de même dans le monde relativiste, où, cette fois, le principe
est réciproque. Chacune des deux montres va réellement considérer comme
principe formel et vrai, que l'autre montre retarde sur elle d'une durée
de t=x/c.
C'est comme ça.
L'univers est fait comme ça.
On peut alors essayer, comme vous le faites, ou comme Einstein le fait, de
trouver une procédure de synchronisation pour accorder "quand même" les
montres.
On les synchronise donc sur ma montre R.
Parce que c'est ça que l'on fait, si l'on comprend bien ce qu'on est en
train de faire.
On ne synchronise pas A avec B. C'est d'ailleurs impossible physiquement.
Ce qu'on fait, c'est qu'on prend le temps de R (qui se déplace lentement
parce que s'il se déplace à vitesse relativiste, un autre facteur du
second degré intervient en surplus), et qu'on va le proposer partout, en
temps que "temps local".
Un peu comme si je prenais le temps solaire de Paris, et que je le
télégraphiais instantanément à Denver et à Moscou.
On aurait alors toutes les horloges solaires qui marquerait la même
heure, il suffirait alors de tourner les socles des horloges de pierre.
Mais vous comprenez fort bien qu'il s'agit là d'un subterfuge.
Et qu'en réalité, il n'est pas la même heure solaire à Denver qu'à
Moscou.
L'exemple et un peu trivial et faux, je l'accorde.
Mais il peut être utile pour placer un doute dans l'esprit du lecteur, et
pour lui permettre de réfléchir à cette notion d'anisochronie que je
défends bec et ongle depuis des décennies déjà, avec, au total,
des explications bien plus satisfaisantes que celles des physiciens sur
des choses qu'ils ne comprennent pas clairement (vitesses apparentes dans
le Langevin, effet-zoom relativiste, paradoxe d'Andromède, impossibilité
d'effet quantique instantanée en RR mais possible en MQ).
R.H.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Richard Hachel
2021-11-25 19:56:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hachel
Il faut nommer correctement les choses.
Nope. This is an English speaking newsgroup
There are now very good translators when the subject interests people.

Le français est encore une très belle langue, vous savez.

R.H.
Python
2021-11-25 20:02:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hachel
Il faut nommer correctement les choses.
Nope. This is an English speaking newsgroup
There are now very good translators when the subject interests people.
The subject of clocks synchronisation is interesting, what you
have to say, nevertheless, is complete crap.
Post by Richard Hachel
Le français est encore une très belle langue, vous savez.
It is, unfortunately your have very low writing ability, in
French to start with, and your English is atrocious.
Richard Hachel
2021-11-25 20:52:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
and your English is atrocious.
On aura au moins été d'accord sur quelque chose, mon petit poussin
chéri.

Tu vois Jean-Pierre, il ne faut jamais désespérer.

La vie mérite d'être vécue.

R.H.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-26 02:20:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hachel
Il faut nommer correctement les choses.
Nope. This is an English speaking newsgroup
There are now very good translators when the subject interests people.
An English speaking newsgroup should not require a language translation
service.
Post by Richard Hachel
Le français est encore une très belle langue, vous savez.
R.H.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-25 16:19:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Don’t be silly. This is easy to come to an agreement for park benches at
the playground. I note on my watch that it is 12:38:21, and leaving my
watch behind, I walk at a steady pace to the other park bench. There I ask
the fellow sitting there what time it is, and he looks at his watch tells
me it’s 12:40:24. If the watches are synchronized, the time it took me to
walk there was 00:02:03. I immediately walk back to the first bench at the
same steady pace and when I arrive, I see that the time on my watch is
12:42:07. This tells me that indeed the watches are synchronized, and the
other fellow and I agree what time it is. Right now, in fact, it is
12:45:19, and he would say the same.
Don't be silly, and take a little intellectual height.
Who do you think you're talking to?
Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand a timing idea?
But that's not what I mean when I say that it is impossible to tune
watches, and that in relativity, we can neither tune two watches placed in
different places (anisochrony),
I JUST explained how to tune watches in two different places. Did you not
read?
nor, a fortiori , evolving at different
speeds (chronotropy).
R.H.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Richard Hachel
2021-11-25 19:52:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Don’t be silly. This is easy to come to an agreement for park benches at
the playground. I note on my watch that it is 12:38:21, and leaving my
watch behind, I walk at a steady pace to the other park bench. There I ask
the fellow sitting there what time it is, and he looks at his watch tells
me it’s 12:40:24. If the watches are synchronized, the time it took me to
walk there was 00:02:03. I immediately walk back to the first bench at the
same steady pace and when I arrive, I see that the time on my watch is
12:42:07. This tells me that indeed the watches are synchronized, and the
other fellow and I agree what time it is. Right now, in fact, it is
12:45:19, and he would say the same.
Don't be silly, and take a little intellectual height.
Who do you think you're talking to?
Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand a timing idea?
But that's not what I mean when I say that it is impossible to tune
watches, and that in relativity, we can neither tune two watches placed in
different places (anisochrony),
I JUST explained how to tune watches in two different places. Did you not
read?
nor, a fortiori , evolving at different
speeds (chronotropy).
R.H.
Yes, of course, I can read.

I know.

It is YOU who cannot read ME.

I tell you that we cannot tune two watches placed in different places and
a fortiori if they are in relativistic movement with respect to each
other.

Don't pretend you don't understand.

It is this property of space that Galileo will perceive for the first time
in human history when he will point his telescope at Jupiter and observe
the rotation of its moons.

The moons seem to turn faster when Jupiter approaches, and slower when the
star moves away.

Galileo Galilei will then commit one of the most immense blunder in human
history. He will start to think that it is a Doppler effect due to the
limited speed of light.

This blunder still persists among scientists.

Whether it's a Doppler effect, I don't mind.

But I call it the "first degree relativistic Doppler effect".

As I call "the transverse relativistic Doppler effect of the second
degree" the relativity of the chronotropy of relativistic watches between
them.

R.H.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-26 02:20:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Don’t be silly. This is easy to come to an agreement for park benches at
the playground. I note on my watch that it is 12:38:21, and leaving my
watch behind, I walk at a steady pace to the other park bench. There I ask
the fellow sitting there what time it is, and he looks at his watch tells
me it’s 12:40:24. If the watches are synchronized, the time it took me to
walk there was 00:02:03. I immediately walk back to the first bench at the
same steady pace and when I arrive, I see that the time on my watch is
12:42:07. This tells me that indeed the watches are synchronized, and the
other fellow and I agree what time it is. Right now, in fact, it is
12:45:19, and he would say the same.
Don't be silly, and take a little intellectual height.
Who do you think you're talking to?
Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand a timing idea?
But that's not what I mean when I say that it is impossible to tune
watches, and that in relativity, we can neither tune two watches placed in
different places (anisochrony),
I JUST explained how to tune watches in two different places. Did you not
read?
nor, a fortiori , evolving at different
speeds (chronotropy).
R.H.
Yes, of course, I can read.
I know.
It is YOU who cannot read ME.
I tell you that we cannot tune two watches placed in different places
But I just told you how. Are you saying I cannot physically walk from one
park bench to another? Are you saying o cannot look at watches? Are you
saying this does not synchronize the watches?
Post by Richard Hachel
and
a fortiori if they are in relativistic movement with respect to each
other.
Don't pretend you don't understand.
It is this property of space that Galileo will perceive for the first time
in human history when he will point his telescope at Jupiter and observe
the rotation of its moons.
The moons seem to turn faster when Jupiter approaches, and slower when the
star moves away.
Galileo Galilei will then commit one of the most immense blunder in human
history. He will start to think that it is a Doppler effect due to the
limited speed of light.
This blunder still persists among scientists.
Whether it's a Doppler effect, I don't mind.
But I call it the "first degree relativistic Doppler effect".
As I call "the transverse relativistic Doppler effect of the second
degree" the relativity of the chronotropy of relativistic watches between
them.
R.H.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Richard Hachel
2021-11-26 14:24:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
But I just told you how. Are you saying I cannot physically walk from one
park bench to another? Are you saying o cannot look at watches? Are you
saying this does not synchronize the watches?
Yes, that's what I'm saying: it can't sync the watches to each other.
There is, between two different places of the same space, of the same
frame of reference, a special property called spatial anisochrony.
This is a true, real phenomenon.
As is also real that solar time is not the same in Moscow, as in Paris, as
in Denver.
We can then synchronize the hours by calling from Paris, and when it is
noon, adjust all the sundials so that the shadow of the hand falls on
noon.
We can.
The clocks are then synchronized.
When it is noon, it is noon everywhere.
Except that it no longer gives the real solar time.

So, I repeat, we cannot synchronize the watches like the relativists do
(believing they are doing well). Watches are not synchronized and can
never be. In this attempt at synchronization, based only on the R watch
which joins the AB watches, the two AB watches see the other watch being
delayed by T = x / c.
They can never be absolutely syndhronized.
If I then synchronize A on B. This time it is B which will be
desynchronized by t = 2x / c.
This is only synchronized on the R watch.
And again, only when R touches A (for A) and when R touches B (for B).
And above all, if the watch R moves quickly between A and B, there is a
chronotropy problem. It beats (on average round trip) less quickly than
the other two for the other two.

R.H.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-26 14:37:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Odd Bodkin
But I just told you how. Are you saying I cannot physically walk from one
park bench to another? Are you saying o cannot look at watches? Are you
saying this does not synchronize the watches?
Yes, that's what I'm saying: it can't sync the watches to each other.
Well, you’ll have to excuse me, but that is simply delusional and you have
fallen off the edge of madness. The procedure I described is so ordinary,
so simple, and so demonstrably successful, that your muttering “impossible”
means nothing. Furthermore, please notice that what I described involved
nothing but walking between two park benches and two wristwatches. There is
absolutely nothing relativistic about it, and there is nothing involving
light signals, other than the ambient light needed to walk, and to see the
faces of the watches. This is the way people would have synchronized
watches back in the 1800s.

You have managed to confuse yourself into believing that something
commonplace and simple is impossible.

I do not prolong conversations with horribly confused people who have
disconnected from reality.
Post by Richard Hachel
There is, between two different places of the same space, of the same
frame of reference, a special property called spatial anisochrony.
This is a true, real phenomenon.
As is also real that solar time is not the same in Moscow, as in Paris, as
in Denver.
We can then synchronize the hours by calling from Paris, and when it is
noon, adjust all the sundials so that the shadow of the hand falls on
noon.
We can.
The clocks are then synchronized.
When it is noon, it is noon everywhere.
Except that it no longer gives the real solar time.
So, I repeat, we cannot synchronize the watches like the relativists do
(believing they are doing well). Watches are not synchronized and can
never be. In this attempt at synchronization, based only on the R watch
which joins the AB watches, the two AB watches see the other watch being
delayed by T = x / c.
They can never be absolutely syndhronized.
If I then synchronize A on B. This time it is B which will be
desynchronized by t = 2x / c.
This is only synchronized on the R watch.
And again, only when R touches A (for A) and when R touches B (for B).
And above all, if the watch R moves quickly between A and B, there is a
chronotropy problem. It beats (on average round trip) less quickly than
the other two for the other two.
R.H.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Richard Hachel
2021-11-26 18:18:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
I do not prolong conversations with horribly confused people who have
disconnected from reality.
That is what I am saying. People are so confused and out of touch with
reality that they don't understand anything I'm trying to explain to them.
The worst part is that it is all over the place, not only in science, but
also in philosophy, in theology, in sociology, in criminology.
People don't understand what I'm trying to tell them, and since they
don't, they imagine I'm the deepest jerk the world has created.
Do you see Emmanuel Kant teaching Jamel Debouzze, do you?
I exaggerate a little.
But we are not far from what is happening.
We live in times of apocalyptic revolt.
Nothing is loved more than the cutesy, the blurry, the ugly, the
misunderstood.
No period in the history of mankind has been more revolted than ours.

Yes, that is what I am saying.

The problem is not me.

R.H.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-26 19:34:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Odd Bodkin
I do not prolong conversations with horribly confused people who have
disconnected from reality.
That is what I am saying. People are so confused and out of touch with
reality that they don't understand anything I'm trying to explain to them.
I think a good reality check is whether you are the only one claiming to
have a special insight about reality that everyone else misses. If you find
this is true for you, the problem is not with others. It’s with you. This
may not be something you wish to accept, but it is exceedingly —
extraordinarily exceedingly — likely nevertheless.
Post by Richard Hachel
The worst part is that it is all over the place, not only in science, but
also in philosophy, in theology, in sociology, in criminology.
People don't understand what I'm trying to tell them, and since they
don't, they imagine I'm the deepest jerk the world has created.
Do you see Emmanuel Kant teaching Jamel Debouzze, do you?
I exaggerate a little.
But we are not far from what is happening.
We live in times of apocalyptic revolt.
Nothing is loved more than the cutesy, the blurry, the ugly, the
misunderstood.
No period in the history of mankind has been more revolted than ours.
Yes, that is what I am saying.
The problem is not me.
See above.

You will find yourself dying lonely, believing you are an unappreciated
genius.

The foreshadowing of apocalypse is a related symptom.
Post by Richard Hachel
R.H.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
rotchm
2021-11-26 19:45:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:

I haven't been following this thread.
But by quickly glancing at it, it looks like it's just a matter of definition. You weren't arguing a definition, no?
If so, then you are arguing for nothing since definition are to be taken True by all parties. That's how language works, that's how communication works.

Two distanced clocks at rest with respect to each other can be synchronized. Just apply the definition of "synchronize".
I also saw in your rants, the expression "absolute synchronisation". This is not synchronisation as used in physics. So make sure you are not mixing up the words and expressions. That is what it looks like is happening.

Perhaps if you would start a new thread, explaining yourself *briefly* and *concisely* in one small paragraph then I might consult it.
Richard Hachel
2021-11-26 21:32:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rotchm
I haven't been following this thread.
But by quickly glancing at it, it looks like it's just a matter of definition.
You weren't arguing a definition, no?
If so, then you are arguing for nothing since definition are to be taken True by
all parties. That's how language works, that's how communication works.
Two distanced clocks at rest with respect to each other can be synchronized.
Just apply the definition of "synchronize".
I also saw in your rants, the expression "absolute synchronisation". This is not
synchronisation as used in physics. So make sure you are not mixing up the words
and expressions. That is what it looks like is happening.
Perhaps if you would start a new thread, explaining yourself *briefly* and
*concisely* in one small paragraph then I might consult it.
Thank you for your answer, but I think the problem is not scientific but
human.
I absolutely do not believe that the various stakeholders who despise or
insult me ​​do not understand anything at all about my grievances
against the synchronization methods they are proposing.
I don't believe at all that they consider me a complete jerk either, and I
think they understand very well where I am going.
I have been telling them for decades, that when it comes to relativity, WE
CANNOT physically tune two watches placed in different places, and if we
tune two watches in the same place, then slowly separate them, they are
out of tune. conversely and naturally of a time t = x / c.
Just as there exists between two distant objects a notion of distances,
which we will denote by distance d,
there will inexorably be a time lag between the two objects (dt = x / c in
a vacuum), and just as we can never match two solar clocks placed one in
Moscow and the other in Paris, we cannot can never actually tune two
watches distant from each other. Each will always see the other lagging
behind. A bit as if taking a watch away also took it away in "my past".
This is what I mean when I speak of universal anisochrony.
The idea is easily understood by a child of nine to ten.
If we do not understand it, it is because we do not want to understand it.
And there, it is a question of giving drink to donkeys who are not
thirsty.

R.H.
rotchm
2021-11-26 22:02:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Your reply is too long for my liking. Try to be succinct.
Post by Richard Hachel
that when it comes to relativity, WE
CANNOT physically tune two watches placed in different places,
Yes we can, provided we give a (operational) definition of " tune to watches".
Post by Richard Hachel
and if we tune two watches in the same place, then slowly separate them, they are
out of tune.
OK, looks like you are talking about synchronizing (two) clocks, aka: synching, synch, e-synch, coordinating (the space).
Post by Richard Hachel
Just as there exists between two distant objects a notion of distances,
aka: coordination of the space, positions, distances.
Post by Richard Hachel
and just as we can never match two solar clocks placed one in
Moscow and the other in Paris,
Yes we can, depending on the definition of "match...".
Post by Richard Hachel
we cannot can never actually tune two watches distant from each other.
"actually" ?

To 'tune two watches' you mean to e-synch them. We can 'really', 'actually' e-synch them; we can synch them
(since 'synch' means to e-synch).
Post by Richard Hachel
This is what I mean when I speak of universal anisochrony.
OK... you are referring to the 'absolute synch' and the anisochrony it entails. A well known, old & defunct subject.
Note that that is not physics though; they are notions that are not defined and unmeasurable. They are thus useless concepts.
If you mean some other Concepts, then clearly defined them, give the operational definitions.
Chason Aceta
2021-11-28 20:49:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by rotchm
I haven't been following this thread.
Thank you for your answer, but I think the problem is not scientific but
human.
but he's an imbecile, and you are wasting your time.
Chason Aceta
2021-11-28 20:47:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rotchm
I haven't been following this thread.
you are too stupid and uneducated to follow everything, you inbreed
cretin. lol
Paul B. Andersen
2021-11-28 09:03:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
It is this property of space that Galileo will perceive for the first
time in human history when he will point his telescope at Jupiter and
observe the rotation of its moons.
The moons seem to turn faster when Jupiter approaches, and slower when
the star moves away.
Galileo Galilei will then commit one of the most immense blunder in
human history. He will start to think that it is a Doppler effect due to
the limited speed of light.
This blunder still persists among scientists.
Can you please explain why this is a blunder?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Richard Hachel
2021-11-28 14:06:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
It is this property of space that Galileo will perceive for the first
time in human history when he will point his telescope at Jupiter and
observe the rotation of its moons.
The moons seem to turn faster when Jupiter approaches, and slower when
the star moves away.
Galileo Galilei will then commit one of the most immense blunder in
human history. He will start to think that it is a Doppler effect due to
the limited speed of light.
This blunder still persists among scientists.
Can you please explain why this is a blunder?
Sometimes you have to be wary of the most obvious ideas, and those on
which everyone agrees. What could be clearer than in 1940, Nazi Germany
was going to dominate the world, that Hitler was going to be the tallest
man in all of human history, that he had a superb motorway network built,
an invincible and dedicated army, and that the whole world will speak
German for at least a thousand years.
The face of Germany seen from the sky five years later showed that the
Germans were wrong.
We have the same thing with human beings today. They say: "What could be
clearer than the speed of light is 3.10 ^ 8m / s. We know it, we have
measured it, and we are measuring it more and more precisely every day,
and today , to the nearest centimeter ". Their blindness is total.

R.H.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-28 14:13:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
It is this property of space that Galileo will perceive for the first
time in human history when he will point his telescope at Jupiter and
observe the rotation of its moons.
The moons seem to turn faster when Jupiter approaches, and slower when
the star moves away.
Galileo Galilei will then commit one of the most immense blunder in
human history. He will start to think that it is a Doppler effect due to
the limited speed of light.
This blunder still persists among scientists.
Can you please explain why this is a blunder?
Sometimes you have to be wary of the most obvious ideas, and those on
which everyone agrees. What could be clearer than in 1940, Nazi Germany
was going to dominate the world, that Hitler was going to be the tallest
man in all of human history, that he had a superb motorway network built,
an invincible and dedicated army, and that the whole world will speak
German for at least a thousand years.
The face of Germany seen from the sky five years later showed that the
Germans were wrong.
We have the same thing with human beings today. They say: "What could be
clearer than the speed of light is 3.10 ^ 8m / s. We know it, we have
measured it, and we are measuring it more and more precisely every day,
and today , to the nearest centimeter ". Their blindness is total.
R.H.
Richard, just a reminder… just about everyone here knows you are not well.
You deflecting by insisting that YOU are the doctor and everyone else is
sick, isn’t going to change that. Please seek help.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Richard Hachel
2021-11-28 14:49:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Richard, just a reminder… just about everyone here knows you are not well.
That is what I am saying.

R.H.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-28 15:11:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Odd Bodkin
Richard, just a reminder… just about everyone here knows you are not well.
That is what I am saying.
Then get some help please, to try to become well.
Post by Richard Hachel
R.H.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
rotchm
2021-11-28 14:13:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
"What could be
clearer than the speed of light is 3.10 ^ 8m / s. We know it, ...
Lets put it this way:

E-synch two (distant) clock (in the same i-frame), calling them A & B and the distance between them D (this distance is performed via the definition of Demeter, say.)

Now, send a pulse of light from A to B. Compute D/(TB - TA). What will you get?
Or, from B to A. What will you get?

Conclusion?
Michael Moroney
2021-11-28 15:53:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
It is this property of space that Galileo will perceive for the first
time in human history when he will point his telescope at Jupiter and
observe the rotation of its moons.
The moons seem to turn faster when Jupiter approaches, and slower
when the star moves away.
Galileo Galilei will then commit one of the most immense blunder in
human history. He will start to think that it is a Doppler effect due
to the limited speed of light.
This blunder still persists among scientists.
Can you please explain why this is a blunder?
Sometimes you have to be wary of the most obvious ideas, and those on
which everyone agrees. What could be clearer than in 1940, Nazi Germany
was going to dominate the world, that Hitler was going to be the tallest
The history of Nazi Germany is not a scientific reason why the Doppler
Effect on Jupiter's moons is a 'blunder'.

Please either give a scientific reason why that is a 'blunder', or do as
Odd suggests, seek professional help.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-28 16:32:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
It is this property of space that Galileo will perceive for the first
time in human history when he will point his telescope at Jupiter and
observe the rotation of its moons.
The moons seem to turn faster when Jupiter approaches, and slower
when the star moves away.
Galileo Galilei will then commit one of the most immense blunder in
human history. He will start to think that it is a Doppler effect due
to the limited speed of light.
This blunder still persists among scientists.
Can you please explain why this is a blunder?
Sometimes you have to be wary of the most obvious ideas, and those on
which everyone agrees. What could be clearer than in 1940, Nazi Germany
was going to dominate the world, that Hitler was going to be the tallest
The history of Nazi Germany is not a scientific reason why the Doppler
Effect on Jupiter's moons is a 'blunder'.
Please either give a scientific reason why that is a 'blunder', or do as
Odd suggests, seek professional help.
If someone like Richard feels different than others, like he doesn’t fit
in, it is tempting to suppose this is because he is special (as opposed to
ill). Then the search is on for the cause of being special. This quickly
leads to believing in unique insights, while the rest of humanity is
deluded. This is sometimes paired with feelings of persecution or paranoia.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Richard Hachel
2021-11-28 19:13:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
The history of Nazi Germany is not a scientific reason why the Doppler
Effect on Jupiter's moons is a 'blunder'.
Je n'ai pas dis ça, Ô abruti.

J'ai simplement dit que c'était, comme l'autre, une croyance à la con.

L'effet Doppler n'est pas du à la vitesse de la lumière, mais à un
effet de perspective relativiste.

Effet du premier degré jouant sur la notion de simultanéité.

Comme l'effet de chronotropie du second degré joue, de plus, sur la
vitesse dont battent les montres placées en des référentiels inertiels
différents.

Bandes de pauvres cons, cerveaux de singes. Apprenez au moins à lire ce
que je dis avant de critiquer comme des malades que vous êtes.

Abrutis, va!!!

R.H.
Michael Moroney
2021-11-29 01:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Michael Moroney
The history of Nazi Germany is not a scientific reason why the Doppler
Effect on Jupiter's moons is a 'blunder'.
Je n'ai pas dis ça, Ô abruti.
J'ai simplement dit que c'était, comme l'autre, une croyance à la con.
L'effet Doppler n'est pas du à la vitesse de la lumière, mais à un effet
de perspective relativiste.
Effet du premier degré jouant sur la notion de simultanéité.
Comme l'effet de chronotropie du second degré joue, de plus, sur la
vitesse dont battent les montres placées en des référentiels inertiels
différents.
Bandes de pauvres cons, cerveaux de singes. Apprenez au moins à lire ce
que je dis avant de critiquer comme des malades que vous êtes.
Abrutis, va!!!
R.H.
I asked you why Galileo made an "immense" blunder, in your opinion. You
go off blathering about Nazis rather than answering. You still won't
say why it's a blunder.

The Doppler Effect will be apparent in any wavelike transmission with a
finite speed. Including periodic effects superimposed on it (the orbits
of Jupiter's moons or modulated radio waves, for example),

(Besides, it was Roemer, not Galileo, who used Jupiter's moons' orbital
periods to measure the speed of light!)
Richard Hachel
2021-11-29 13:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
I asked you why Galileo made an "immense" blunder, in your opinion. You
go off blathering about Nazis rather than answering. You still won't
say why it's a blunder.
The Doppler Effect will be apparent in any wavelike transmission with a
finite speed. Including periodic effects superimposed on it (the orbits
of Jupiter's moons or modulated radio waves, for example),
(Besides, it was Roemer, not Galileo, who used Jupiter's moons' orbital
periods to measure the speed of light!)
You answer beside the question. We laugh at the wave theory of light as we
laugh at its alleged "speed".
You go on an a priori basis. That of Galileo Galilei.
What does Galileo say?
He thinks, as any man would (even me) that if the moons seem to turn
slower when Jupiter moves away, and faster when it approaches, then there
is some kind of Doppler effect, and that light travels at finite speed.
This is his mistake.
This is not the real cause.
On earth, men have reproduced the experience by passing light through
small cogwheels.
They found the same thing as Galileo. The light "seems" to move to c.
They therefore deduce that it moves to c.
Their incomprehension of the real phenomenon is hidden from them.
I see an earthquake, it's a fact, I see it, the houses are on the ground
and we can measure its effects precisely (Richter scale, etc.). So, this
is the proof that four gigantic elephants sometimes unstable support the
earth, which is flat.

R.H.
Michael Moroney
2021-11-29 16:06:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Michael Moroney
I asked you why Galileo made an "immense" blunder, in your opinion.
You go off blathering about Nazis rather than answering.  You still
won't say why it's a blunder.
The Doppler Effect will be apparent in any wavelike transmission with
a finite speed.  Including periodic effects superimposed on it (the
orbits of Jupiter's moons or modulated radio waves, for example),
(Besides, it was Roemer, not Galileo, who used Jupiter's moons'
orbital periods to measure the speed of light!)
You answer beside the question. We laugh at the wave theory of light as
we laugh at its alleged "speed".
"We"? Who else besides yourself? Members of some sort of kook club?
Post by Richard Hachel
You go on an a priori basis. That of Galileo Galilei.
What does Galileo say?
He thinks, as any man would (even me) that if the moons seem to turn
slower when Jupiter moves away, and faster when it approaches, then
there is some kind of Doppler effect, and that light travels at finite
speed.
This is his mistake.
This is not the real cause.
And I asked why it is a mistake, and you respond with Nazis losing the war.
Post by Richard Hachel
On earth, men have reproduced the experience by passing light through
small cogwheels.
They found the same thing as Galileo. The light "seems" to move to c.
They therefore deduce that it moves to c.
Their incomprehension of the real phenomenon is hidden from them.
I see an earthquake, it's a fact, I see it, the houses are on the ground
and we can measure its effects precisely (Richter scale, etc.). So, this
is the proof that four gigantic elephants sometimes unstable support the
earth, which is flat.
So Galileo's mistake is not believing that earthquakes are caused by
restlessness in elephants supporting the earth? Or believing that
earthquakes are caused by restless elephants?

I always thought it was turtles, all the way down.
Richard Hachel
2021-11-29 17:14:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Members of some sort of kook club?
Yes, a kind of Kook club.

You are quite right.

We could also say, less vulgarly, a sort of Navel club.

It's exactly that.

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2021-11-29 16:52:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
(Besides, it was Roemer, not Galileo, who used Jupiter's moons' orbital
periods to measure the speed of light!)
Yes. You are right. It's Roemer.

Thanks.

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2021-11-29 17:08:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
The Doppler Effect will be apparent in any wavelike transmission with a
finite speed.
You are wrong, just because there is a Doppler effect does not mean that
the transmission of the message is done at finite speed.
This is obviously what you think at first, until you realize that there is
still (even if it is quite pretty) something wrong with the theory of
relativity.
Take, for example, the notion of apparent speeds in RR. We realize that if
we practice like this, the whole theory collapses, and things are
obviously wrong.
Ditto if we talk about quantum coherence and instantaneous effect.
Ditto if we speak of the Andromeda paradox. It is wrong.
We must therefore find WHY this is wrong, without having to discuss
everything.

R.H.
Python
2021-11-29 23:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Ditto if we talk about quantum coherence and instantaneous effect.
Ditto if we speak of the Andromeda paradox. It is wrong.
These are two LIES.
Thomas Heger
2021-11-25 06:49:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hachel
In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and
terms you use.
It is not always easy.
For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches
are triggered".
As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we
trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?"
A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling.
And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is
obvious".
And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be
those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off."
And against all, he is right.
It is necessarily not those that we trigger.
I love this guy.
R.H.
Knowing full well that you are off your rocker, we are talking about
synchronizing a watch near O that is at rest in S, with another watch near
O’ that is at rest in S’. The only opportunity to do that is when O and O’
coincide, putting these watches very near each other.
It is also then necessary to apply a synchronization procedure for the
clock near O and all the other clocks at rest in S, as well as for the
clock near O’ and all the other clocks at rest in S’. That is a different
synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but
though different it is not complicated.
We could think about two clocks only, which are located at the center of
their coordinate system.

The relative velocity v is zero for comoving clocks in the own
coordinate system and have v>0 in a moving system.

The synchronisation procedure for the own system would be, to measure
the delay, which is caused by the distance, which the synchronisation
signal needs to reach the remote clock.

The 'master clock' at point 0 would subtract the delay, hence the remote
clocks receives the synch-signal at the intended time.

For the control-reading of the remote clock by the master clock, the
delay needed to be added to the received time-code.

For a moving system we would need to compensate the Doppler effect, too.



TH
Nabor Nave
2021-11-27 18:22:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Odd Bodkin
synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but
though different it is not complicated.
We could think about two clocks only, which are located at the center of
their coordinate system.
coordinate systems has no centers.
Thomas Heger
2021-11-28 06:45:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nabor Nave
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Odd Bodkin
synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but
though different it is not complicated.
We could think about two clocks only, which are located at the center of
their coordinate system.
coordinate systems has no centers.
Well...in a way...

I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance.

I call this point 'center', even if this point could be relocated and
another point can be regarded as 'center'.

The zero-spot is the point, from where the position vectors of the other
points start.

I think, the position of the observer is a good choice for the zero
spot, because then the zero spot could be called 'observer'.

This is an arbitrary setting, but the one which I usually chose.

The idea behind this setting is, that if the observer is located at the
zero spot, then all position vectors start at him.

This is a good setting, because then the term 'space' (of all the other
endpoints of all possible 'sight-vectors') coincides with what is called
'past-light-cone'.

Now we usually call that 'sight-space' 'universe', even if it is only
the space of the events, the observer could possibly see.

We only need to think, that also position vectors operate like light
rays and do not connect with infinete velocity, but with c.

This view is different to the Euclidean space, where vectors are
timeless, hence connect with infinite pace.

The disadvantage of Euclidean space: we cannot see with infinite speed,
hence the content of Euclidean space is invisible. Therefore we usually
call the own past-light-cone 'space' and our own position 'observer'.


TH
rotchm
2021-11-28 14:04:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Nabor Nave
coordinate systems has no centers.
Well...in a way...
I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance.
It knows that, so why did you reply to it?
Didn't you notice? You replied to the nym Shifting troll.
It will say anything to get you, and it got you. You fell for it.

Just reported spam. And don't fall for it again. It's so obvious when it is the troll.
You should have noticed it.
Chason Aceta
2021-11-28 20:01:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rotchm
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Nabor Nave
coordinate systems has no centers.
Well...in a way...
I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance.
It knows that, so why did you reply to it?
Didn't you notice? You replied to the nym Shifting troll.
It will say anything to get you, and it got you. You fell for it.
He admits making mistake you inbreed cretin. That's origo, not center.
There are no centers in coordinate systems, you stupid bag of rocks.

Go report yourself, you gave google your phone number, how can you be
this stupid? Also, this group is not moderated, and Hager will shit a big
one in your mouth and the mouth of your stinking mother.
Chason Aceta
2021-11-28 20:15:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Nabor Nave
coordinate systems has no centers.
Well...in a way...
I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance.
that's origo or origin, not center. Kindergarten stuff.
Thomas Heger
2021-11-29 07:24:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chason Aceta
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Nabor Nave
coordinate systems has no centers.
Well...in a way...
I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance.
that's origo or origin, not center. Kindergarten stuff.
I'm actually German and English is a second language for me.

Therefore I use eventually wrong words or words with wrong meanings. The
term 'center' I use for 'the central point of something'.

Possibly this is not correct, but I meant actually that.

This central point gets the coordinates (0, 0, 0) in a 3-dimensional
non-Euclidean space, which we usually call 'Universe'.

This IS actually the center of the own 'space of observations', because
all rays seen arrive actually there.

This 3D-space has no real center, because the observer could be moved to
any desired location and watch the universe from there, but the space of
observations obviously has.

This point is the point 'here and now', which therefore gets the
four-vector (0,0,0,0) (coordinates meant as relative to the observer).

This point is the center of the co-moving coordinate system, which the
observer usually uses.

The real universe (which is mainly not visible) has no center and no
zero spot.

The real universe is infinite in space and time, because it undergoes a
process, where it 'folds inside out'. The observer experiences this as
space and time, just by being somewhere.

That spot 'somewhere' serves then as center of the universe, which is
special for the observer in question.


TH
rotchm
2021-11-29 14:24:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chason Aceta
that's origo or origin, not center. Kindergarten stuff.
I'm actually German and English is a second language for me.
Therefore I use eventually wrong words or words with wrong meanings.
Why did you refer respond to the troll?
Didn't you notice his sole purpose was to make fun of you, and you fell for it?
Try harder to notice Such trivial things. Learn a little respect by not responding to the trolls. Else you are just contributing to their mischief.
What you should do, is to report them, report them as spam.
Chason Aceta
2021-11-29 23:03:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rotchm
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chason Aceta
that's origo or origin, not center. Kindergarten stuff.
I'm actually German and English is a second language for me.
Therefore I use eventually wrong words or words with wrong meanings.
Why did you refer respond to the troll?
Didn't you notice his sole purpose was to make fun of you, and you fell for it?
Heger is a doctor, compared to you, you stupid basics uneducated
imbecile, not even knowing elementary stuff. There are no centers in
coordinate systems, you shit eater. lol
Chason Aceta
2021-11-29 23:13:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
rotchm wrote:

here is how to report the crap coming from this stupid spammer:

Complaints-To: groups-***@google.com
Message-ID: <bb3952fb-ae7b-44b8-83d8-***@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Watch problem
From: rotchm <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:24:18 +0000
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 06:24:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <***@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=184.160.32.227;
posting-account=BHsbrQoAAAANJj6HqXJ987nOEDAC1EsJ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.160.32.227
References: <R9GjEL1FIXnAIviXPOpB5G1yt-***@jntp>
Python
2021-11-29 23:18:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chason Aceta
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Watch problem
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 23:13:35 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Microsoft Windows Live Mail/14.0.8117.416 (MSIE 8; Windows NT 5.1;
Trident/4.0; GTB7.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR
3.5.30729; TmstmpExt)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Right!
Chason Aceta
2021-11-29 23:27:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:24:18 +0000 User-Agent: G2/1.0
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 06:24:17 -0800
(PST)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=184.160.32.227;
Right!
eat shit you stupid incompetent troll spammer. Uneducated frogs are
sticking together as I can see. Disgusting sacks of subhuman excrement.
Chason Aceta
2021-11-29 23:23:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chason Aceta
that's origo or origin, not center. Kindergarten stuff.
I'm actually German and English is a second language for me.
Therefore I use eventually wrong words or words with wrong meanings. The
term 'center' I use for 'the central point of something'.
Possibly this is not correct, but I meant actually that.
This central point gets the coordinates (0, 0, 0) in a 3-dimensional
non-Euclidean space, which we usually call 'Universe'.
what's the "center" when you have an angle driven coordinate system? And
the universe is 4D not 3. And your (0,0,0) is arbitrary, hence not fixed.
Loading...