Discussion:
Watch problem
Richard Hachel
2021-11-22 22:25:06 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Richard Hachel
2021-11-25 20:52:12 UTC
Post by Python
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
rotchm
2021-11-26 19:45:29 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
rotchm
2021-11-28 14:13:44 UTC
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
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
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
2021-12-01 15:57:45 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
This is sometimes paired with feelings of persecution or paranoia.
Note, it's like in France. It seems that there is a growing feeling of
insecurity in some suburbs. But as the minister said, it's just a feeling.
LOL.

R.H.
Harif Kuloo
2021-12-02 19:42:40 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Odd Bodkin
This is sometimes paired with feelings of persecution or paranoia.
Note, it's like in France. It seems that there is a growing feeling of
insecurity in some suburbs. But as the minister said, it's just a
feeling. LOL.
wrong. If the child per woman is under 2.1 in europe, India and China
etc, then the population will decrease, the growth is negative without
the toxic vaccines.
Richard Hachel
2021-11-28 19:13:33 UTC
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
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.
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
Post by Michael Moroney
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
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Michael Moroney
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
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
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
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
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.
Richard Hachel
2021-11-30 13:04:29 UTC
Post by Python
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.
But I like to lie, Jean-Pierre, I like to lie.
I, at my hosiery-making factory, lie to the workers all the time.
But the people like to be lied to.
Relativities too.
So I lie to him.
I even make him believe that the relativistic theory is so false that if
we treat an exercise in apparent speeds (that is to say what we would see
in telescopes) the conclusions are absurd.
And the people love it.
I lie to him, and he asks for more.
R.H.
Richard Hachel
2021-11-30 16:41:36 UTC
I haven't thought about either in detail but both appear to be
relativity of simultanety issues, by assuming there is a "now" that's
true for the entire universe implicitly.
There is no such thing as a "now".
It is an idea of ​​Jean-Pierre Messager and all his relativistic
friends.
Their only goal is to keep the power over the conscience.
Above all, do not lose it ...
Above all...

R.H.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-30 16:51:00 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
I haven't thought about either in detail but both appear to be
relativity of simultanety issues, by assuming there is a "now" that's
true for the entire universe implicitly.
There is no such thing as a "now".
It is an idea of ​​Jean-Pierre Messager and all his relativistic
friends.
Their only goal is to keep the power over the conscience.
Above all, do not lose it ...
Above all...
R.H.
Wow. Classic paranoid weirdo crap.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-12-01 07:12:27 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
I haven't thought about either in detail but both appear to be
relativity of simultanety issues, by assuming there is a "now" that's
true for the entire universe implicitly.
There is no such thing as a "now".
It is an idea of ​​<whoever>
A LIE again as SR is exactly about not assuming any significance
for a single "now" for every reference frame. You are a dumb and
disgusting LIAR, Richard Lengrand.
And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.
Richard Hachel
2021-12-01 16:13:29 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.
It is precisely because the universe is based on strict and true laws such
as that of universal gravitation or that of spatial anisochrony that gps
exist.
If there were not this "original anisochrony" the observable speed c of
light would be infinite, and there would not be this temporal Doppller
effect of the first degree which makes it possible to measure distances
and therefore positions.

R.H.
Thomas Heger
2021-11-25 06:49:18 UTC
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

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

TH
Nabor Nave
2021-11-27 18:22:56 UTC
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
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
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
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
Chason Aceta
2021-11-28 20:15:27 UTC
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
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
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
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
rotchm wrote:

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

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)
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
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
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)
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
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.
Justo Lugo
2021-12-01 10:47:23 UTC
Post by Chason Aceta
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.
The zero point of the co-moving 3d space are actually we ourselves.
The world we see is an internal representation of the outer world, which
is based on a certain spot within our brain.
So lets call that hypothetical spot 'observer' and what we see with our
eyes 'universe'.
this is wrong even more. What's the distance between an arbitrary
coordinate system and "you", in millimetres?
Then we have a valid model of the process of seeing and of what is
seen. This 'universe' is, of course, not universal, but an subjective
image, that only represents the outer world.
Only, we humans are so used to use this method, that we usually forget,
that an internal representaion of the world is not the world, but an
image.
wrong even more. Think!
1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

wasting your time. Better just focus on Einstine. He was wrong.
Thomas Heger
2021-12-02 06:53:47 UTC
Post by Justo Lugo
Post by Chason Aceta
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.
The zero point of the co-moving 3d space are actually we ourselves.
The world we see is an internal representation of the outer world, which
is based on a certain spot within our brain.
So lets call that hypothetical spot 'observer' and what we see with our
eyes 'universe'.
this is wrong even more. What's the distance between an arbitrary
coordinate system and "you", in millimetres?
I relocate the coordinate system in question, that its center coincides
with the observer.

An arbitrary coordinate system could have any conceivable distance to

Because the location of an inertial FoR can be be chosen, I always chose
it that way, where its zero spot coincides with the observer.

This is only one of many possible ways, but has advantages.
Post by Justo Lugo
Then we have a valid model of the process of seeing and of what is
seen. This 'universe' is, of course, not universal, but an subjective
image, that only represents the outer world.
Only, we humans are so used to use this method, that we usually forget,
that an internal representaion of the world is not the world, but an
image.
wrong even more. Think!
We look into the past if we look into the sky.

The stars we see do not exist any more in many cases.

Therefore, seeing has a time-depency, while Euclidean space has not.

That's why the space we see and call 'universy' is actually non Euclidean.

It is also not universal, but the image the observer has from the world.

This image is actually not real for a number of reasons. One reason is,
that the things seen are not, where they are seen.

(Some stars seen do not exist at all anymore.)

The other main reason is, that we cannot see the world directly, but
have only an internal representation of the outside world in our brain.
Post by Justo Lugo
1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
wasting your time. Better just focus on Einstine. He was wrong.
Einstein defined 'now' in a different way than me.

I would use a hypothetical signal with infinite speed. Then I needed to
use light, which is significantly slower, hence had to measure the delay
for the signal in transit and add the result to the received time-codes.

Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading of
a remote clock as time at that remote location.

I also disliked his description of induction, because he used a
conductor instead of a loop of wire.

Another set of errors was related to the symbol x'.

He also wrote no quotes or references at all.

His system of variable names was at best 'strange'.

I have written about 420 annotations, from which most mean errors.

TH
Python
2021-12-02 09:06:01 UTC
Thomas Heger wrote:
...
Post by Thomas Heger
Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading of
a remote clock as time at that remote location.
This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
propagation time.

As a matter of fact what you pretend (wrongly) about Einstein's method
is exactly what Richard (Lengrand) Hachel claim as the only correct
method (this is wrong too btw).
Maciej Wozniak
2021-12-02 12:04:28 UTC
Post by Python
...
Post by Thomas Heger
Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading of
a remote clock as time at that remote location.
This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
propagation time.
As a matter of fact what you pretend (wrongly) about Einstein's method
is exactly what Richard (Lengrand) Hachel claim as the only correct
method (this is wrong too btw).
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.
Thomas Heger
2021-12-03 08:23:50 UTC
Post by Python
...
Post by Thomas Heger
Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading
of a remote clock as time at that remote location.
This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
propagation time.
Sure, that is correct.

But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the
remote clock.

I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention
to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find
any hint.

Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want.

TH
Post by Python
As a matter of fact what you pretend (wrongly) about Einstein's method
is exactly what Richard (Lengrand) Hachel claim as the only correct
method (this is wrong too btw).
Thomas Heger
2021-12-03 08:47:57 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
...
Post by Thomas Heger
Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading
of a remote clock as time at that remote location.
This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
propagation time.
Sure, that is correct.
But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the
remote clock.
I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention
to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find
any hint.
Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want.
let me try to explain this statement:

I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second
to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury.

That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs,
which commonly communicate with us.

This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition.

The clock is now able to sent coded signals, which we can receive. The
signals contain also the current time at that location (as measured by
our clock there).

The remote time is called t_B and the local time is called t_A.

So: a signal from there would reach us with a delay of three years.

Which was the assumption of Einstein about t_B, if the signal contains
the time t_A - 3years ?

He should have added 3 years, of course, but apparently didn't.

If he had actually calculated this delay and added it to the remote
reading, than I could, at least, not find his calculation.

Would you be so kind and tell me, where that calculation can be found?

TH
Python
2021-12-03 09:47:43 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
...
Post by Thomas Heger
Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading
of a remote clock as time at that remote location.
This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
propagation time.
Sure, that is correct.
But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the
remote clock.
I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention
to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find
any hint.
Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want.
I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second
to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury.
That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs,
which commonly communicate with us.
This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single
person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs
or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are
supposed to be used everywhere.
Post by Thomas Heger
This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition.
Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until
you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein
wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason.
Post by Thomas Heger
The clock is now able to sent coded signals, which we can receive. The
signals contain also the current time at that location (as measured by
our clock there).
The remote time is called t_B and the local time is called t_A.
So: a signal from there would reach us with a delay of three years.
Which was the assumption of Einstein about t_B, if the signal contains
the time t_A - 3years ?
He should have added 3 years, of course, but apparently didn't.
He did, look below : t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + (3 years)
Post by Thomas Heger
If he had actually calculated this delay and added it to the remote
reading, than I could, at least, not find his calculation.
Would you be so kind and tell me, where that calculation can be found?
Again, just apply equations from part I.1 in the original paper, I've
shown you this numerous times, this is basic algebra:

2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c (Einstein's paper)
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (Einstein's paper)

implies:

t_B = t_A + (AB)/c

(AB)/c is the delay.

Apply these equations, which are DIRECT consequences of equations in
part I.1. in Einstein's article to your specific case you'll end
up with:

t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + (3 years)

How come you cannot understand something that is SO OBVIOUS Thomas?
Harif Kuloo
2021-12-03 12:02:28 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Thomas Heger
I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second
to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury.
That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs,
which commonly communicate with us.
This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single
shut the fuck up, you stupid frog troll.
Harif Kuloo
2021-12-03 12:12:50 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Thomas Heger
That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs,
which commonly communicate with us.
This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks
mutually at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by
a single person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more
labs or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit
are supposed to be used everywhere.
In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your moronic
agree, Python is a stupid nym'shifting troll. A wannabe physicist,
uneducated like hell.
Thomas Heger
2021-12-04 06:42:58 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
...
Post by Thomas Heger
Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading
of a remote clock as time at that remote location.
This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
propagation time.
Sure, that is correct.
But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the
remote clock.
I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention
to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find
any hint.
Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want.
I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second
to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury.
That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs,
which commonly communicate with us.
This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single
person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs
or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are
supposed to be used everywhere.
No.

SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!!

SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we think

of space and time.

The question is, whether or not his method makes sense.

I would say:

no SRT is a piece of garbadge, which is seemingly intentionally created,
to prevent people from doing exactly that: thinking about the nature of
space and time.

If he wanted to tell about the local time at a remote location and how
that would be perceived by remote observers, than a discussion of the
distortion of such measurements by relative motion and by distance would
have been mandatory.

But in fact he ascribed the effects of relative motion erroneously to
the real behaviour of objects on the remote side.

But that is not even nonsense, but pure bunk, because the objects on the
remote side cannot possibly be affected by relative motion of a remote
observer
Post by Python
Post by Thomas Heger
This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition.
Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until
you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein
wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason.
No, things do not exist, because we can see them.

Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the
requirement, that something real must also be visible.

And: in fact we could synchronize clocks in cosmological distances only,
if we had communication partners there.

But the required procedure would not function like Einstein wrote it
would function.

Einstein erroneously assumed, that time is universal and remote
observers could measure the same absolute time, hence only velocity
(also meant as relative to the universe) would make a difference.

But in fact only local time makes sense and we have neither absolute
time, nor absolute space, against which velocity could eventually be
measured.

So, we had to communicate with someone remote. And I assumed
three-legged aliens.

(But you can assume whatever you like.)

To synchronize clocks, we first need to negotiate the meaning of the
term 'clock' and how that should look like.

Now we cannot assume, that processes here on Earth have the same
frequency as processes at that remote location.

We cannot even assume, that future for us is future there, too.

So we need to find out the relation of frequency in equivalent processes.

That could eventually be a certain frequency of a gas, which we could
identify as similar. From this we could built a clock, on which both
sides could agree.

Then we needed to estimate the distance and relative velocity of the
remote system.

We could do that by sending a signal there, which is immidiatly
retransmitted there.

Then we could measure the delay and calculate the distance.

Next we need to fix a certain reference point in time, from where the
local calender starts the new year and the calender itself (here: birth
of Christ, there: ???).

This year has most likely a diffent length, hence we need to maintain a
system, that translates our dates into dates there.

We could also measure Doppler shift and calcule relative motion.

Then we could create a system here, which is in synch with the remote
clocks there and those aliens could do the same, but with our clocks.

If we now calculate the current time at the remote location, we could
generate a time-coded signal, which is in synch with the remote clock,
once or signal arrives there.

This signal would be composed from the results of several calculations.

For instance we had to calculate the position of that planet in the
local orbit at the time of arrival of the signal.

Than we can calculte the precise distance from our position in our orbit
towards that position.

Then we need to figure out the local speed of light in relation to our
planet and to our local solar system (because of local gravity).

We should do the same for the remote side, too.

After a number of iterations we can figuere out, how that signal should
look like and when we should send it.

Would be a little difficult, but we have actually computers.

But nothing of this procedure was mentioned in Einstein's text.

Einstein wrote nowhere, that the addition of the dealy would be required.

He did not even calculate this delay or even mentioned it.

Now you say, he had done that and only forgot to write something about
that delay, because it is so obvious.

But what is written in a text is relevant, and not, what you think it
should contain.

Therefore a required statement is missing, if it is missing in the text.
A reader must not alter a paper, only because it should contain
something which it does not.

...

TH
Michael Moroney
2021-12-04 07:30:55 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single
person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs
or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are
supposed to be used everywhere.
No.
SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!!
SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we think
Python was writing about a theoretical experiment when he wrote "some
experiment". Say measuring something happening on Alpha Centauri and
needing accurate time measurements of the events for the data to be
useful. You'd want synchronized clocks for that.
Post by Thomas Heger
of space and time.
The question is, whether or not his method makes sense.
Since relativity has never failed when GR/SR are used within their
domains, then yes it does make sense.
Post by Thomas Heger
no SRT is a piece of garbadge, which is seemingly intentionally created,
to prevent people from doing exactly that: thinking about the nature of
space and time.
Scientists don't care what you think. Scientists care whether it makes
accurate predictions and is consistent with existing results. As I
stated, relativity hasn't failed so far, nor is there anything better
yet. But you must be popular with the anti-relativity cranks.
Post by Thomas Heger
If he wanted to tell about the local time at a remote location and how
that would be perceived by remote observers, than a discussion of the
distortion of such measurements by relative motion and by distance would
have been mandatory.
The "distortion" is Einstein's relativity!
Post by Thomas Heger
But in fact he ascribed the effects of relative motion erroneously to
the real behaviour of objects on the remote side.
No, on the relative motion of both sides.
Post by Thomas Heger
But that is not even nonsense, but pure bunk, because the objects on the
remote side cannot possibly be affected by relative motion of a remote
observer
???

Relative to what, the local observer?
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
Post by Thomas Heger
This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition.
Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until
you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein
wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason.
No, things do not exist, because we can see them.
Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the
requirement, that something real must also be visible.
It must be visible for us to know about the real thing.
Post by Thomas Heger
And: in fact we could synchronize clocks in cosmological distances only,
if we had communication partners there.
But the required procedure would not function like Einstein wrote it
would function.
Einstein erroneously assumed, that time is universal and remote
observers could measure the same absolute time,
There is no absolute time in relativity!
Post by Thomas Heger
hence only velocity
(also meant as relative to the universe) would make a difference.
But in fact only local time makes sense and we have neither absolute
time, nor absolute space, against which velocity could eventually be
measured.
Velocity is relative, between the observer and observed.
Post by Thomas Heger
So, we had to communicate with someone remote. And I assumed
three-legged aliens.
(But you can assume whatever you like.)
Why are the three legged aliens necessary? We send signals and receive
answers from the Moon without any aliens there. (Except us, when Apollo
missions planted the laser reflectors we're still using)
Post by Thomas Heger
To synchronize clocks, we first need to negotiate the meaning of the
term 'clock' and how that should look like.
Now we cannot assume, that processes here on Earth have the same
frequency as processes at that remote location.
Clocks are what measure time.
Post by Thomas Heger
We cannot even assume, that future for us is future there, too.
????
Post by Thomas Heger
So we need to find out the relation of frequency in equivalent processes.
First Postulate states the laws of physics and the processes are
identical both here and there.
Post by Thomas Heger
That could eventually be a certain frequency of a gas, which we could
identify as similar. From this we could built a clock, on which both
sides could agree.
No "both sides" needed. In Einstein's work, the clocks are assumed
identical. In reality they need to have the same accuracy and tick the
same units.
Post by Thomas Heger
Then we needed to estimate the distance and relative velocity of the
remote system.
We could do that by sending a signal there, which is immidiatly
retransmitted there.
As the Apollo laser reflectors do.
Post by Thomas Heger
Then we could measure the delay and calculate the distance.
Next we need to fix a certain reference point in time, from where the
local calender starts the new year and the calender itself (here: birth
of Christ, there: ???).
Irrelevant. We use our time.
Post by Thomas Heger
We could also measure Doppler shift and calcule relative motion.
Yes.
Post by Thomas Heger
Then we could create a system here, which is in synch with the remote
clocks there and those aliens could do the same, but with our clocks.
If there are any aliens, and if so, if they wish to do so. But they
aren't needed, just like with the Moon. We just use our time system.

<bla bla bla>
Post by Thomas Heger
Einstein wrote nowhere, that the addition of the dealy would be required.
He did not even calculate this delay or even mentioned it.
It's part of his time synchronization test procedure!
Post by Thomas Heger
Now you say, he had done that and only forgot to write something about
that delay, because it is so obvious.
It's part of his time synchronization test procedure!
Post by Thomas Heger
But what is written in a text is relevant, and not, what you think it
should contain.
Therefore a required statement is missing, if it is missing in the text.
A reader must not alter a paper, only because it should contain
something which it does not.
It's in there. Remember the paper was written for other scientists of
his time, not ignoramuses 115 years later.

Einstein didn't write down 2+2=4, either.
Python
2021-12-04 13:29:16 UTC
...

For some reason Thomas' post does not appear on the nttp server
I'm using, so I didn't see it before Michael's answer.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
If he wanted to tell about the local time at a remote location and how
that would be perceived by remote observers, than a discussion of the
distortion of such measurements by relative motion and by distance
would have been mandatory.
of distant co-moving clocks in order to be able to label distant events
with a consistent time coordinate.

You definitely completely overlook part I.1. of Einstein's paper even
if it is referenced all over the article when dealing with time and
space coordinates of distant events in a single frame of reference.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
Now you say, he had done that and only forgot to write something about
that delay, because it is so obvious.
It's part of his time synchronization test procedure!
Michael is right.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
But what is written in a text is relevant, and not, what you think it
should contain.
Therefore a required statement is missing, if it is missing in the
text. A reader must not alter a paper, only because it should contain
something which it does not.
What is written in the text is relevant, right.

When it comes to time-labelling events in a single frames, here are the
equations in the text:

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

These equations obviously imply t_B = t_A + (AB)/c

(AB)/c is the delay you pretend is not taken into account.

I've already explained you why it make more sense to consider
the synchronization that way instead of postulating that one-trip
light speed is constant, I doubt you even read it, and if you
did I'm sure you didn't try to understand it. Like all cranks
you, Thomas, always prefer to stick to whatever ill-defined
understand what *others* are stating. It's one of the worst
pathological symptom of autism.

So when pretending that Einstein didn't take into account light
propagation delays you are the one making up something that is
not in the text, moreover you are making up something that is
in direct contradiction with what is actually in the original
text, Thomas. You are not intellectually able to understand
what is in Einstein's article, and why it is presented in such
a way.
Thomas Heger
2021-12-05 20:38:29 UTC
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single
person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs
or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are
supposed to be used everywhere.
No.
SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!!
SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we
Python was writing about a theoretical experiment when he wrote "some
experiment". Say measuring something happening on Alpha Centauri and
needing accurate time measurements of the events for the data to be
useful. You'd want synchronized clocks for that.
I wrote, that 'time dilation' and relativist length contraction and so
forth make more sense in cosmology.

Therefore I use distances, which are a little larger than those, that
you could place in a laboratory.

Our nearest star Alpha Centaury and a hypothetical planet there, which
is inhabited by aliens with clocks is my usual setting.

This makes the required procedures for synchronisation a little more
obvious then an experiment in a lab could do.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
of space and time.
The question is, whether or not his method makes sense.
Since relativity has never failed when GR/SR are used within their
domains, then yes it does make sense.
I'm actually not discussing SRT per se, but a certain text, which
Einstein wrote (called 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies').

(I personally think, that Einstein actually mocked his audience, because
he used an encoded message in the title, which actually means 'sex'.)

So, I cannot tell you, wether or not other versions of SRT make more
sense, because that was not my subject.

I meant: the prodecure, which Einstein described in his text, would not
enable humans to synchronize clocks with Alpha Centaury.

Since the requirement to synchronize clocks there with our clocks is
rather mild (it is actually our closest star), I cannot agree, that SRT
would not fail cosmology.

Sure, most likely such a scenario was not intended by Einstein.

But what else did he want to do with his theory, if it is not applicable
in cosmology?
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
no SRT is a piece of garbadge, which is seemingly intentionally
created, to prevent people from doing exactly that: thinking about the
nature of space and time.
Scientists don't care what you think. Scientists care whether it makes
accurate predictions and is consistent with existing results. As I
stated, relativity hasn't failed so far, nor is there anything better
yet. But you must be popular with the anti-relativity cranks.
No. You are talking about your own profession and call that 'science',
even if you are not doing any research in nature.

I'm also not an 'anti-relativity crank', because I have based my own
'book' on relativity (but not on SRT).
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
If he wanted to tell about the local time at a remote location and how
that would be perceived by remote observers, than a discussion of the
distortion of such measurements by relative motion and by distance
would have been mandatory.
The "distortion" is Einstein's relativity!
No.

I think, that Einstein erroneously ascribed the effects of relative
motion to the 'far end' of the observation, while he should have
researched the effect of motion on the perception on the 'near side'.

The effect of movement on vision is closely related to the Doppler effect.

This would make things look distorted, while the thing itself is not.

The reason is, that the IMAGE is distorted, not the thing observed.

So the effects occur on the side of the observer, while the observed
thing is not affected, because a thing can simply ignore observers
passing by at a distance.

But Einstein wrote about real length contraction, which apparently meant
the observed thing itself, which should become shorter.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
But in fact he ascribed the effects of relative motion erroneously to
the real behaviour of objects on the remote side.
No, on the relative motion of both sides.
???

'Length contraction' is depending of 'length', which is an attribute of
an object, but 'relative motion' is not an object, hence cannot get shorter.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
But that is not even nonsense, but pure bunk, because the objects on
the remote side cannot possibly be affected by relative motion of a
remote observer
???
Relative motion can affect the observation of an observer, but not
possibly the observed thing itself, if that is far away.
Post by Michael Moroney
Relative to what, the local observer?
I usually use a scheme, where the observer is halted and regarded as not
moving, while the observed thing is moving.

The opposite is also possible, but less practical.

So I always halt the observer and let the observed thing move.

That is just a possible setting, but one, which makes sense.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
Post by Thomas Heger
This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition.
Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until
you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein
wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason.
No, things do not exist, because we can see them.
Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the
requirement, that something real must also be visible.
It must be visible for us to know about the real thing.
Sure. But whether you regard something real or not is irrelevant at the
remote side.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
And: in fact we could synchronize clocks in cosmological distances
only, if we had communication partners there.
But the required procedure would not function like Einstein wrote it
would function.
Einstein erroneously assumed, that time is universal and remote
observers could measure the same absolute time,
There is no absolute time in relativity!
Post by Thomas Heger
hence only velocity (also meant as relative to the universe) would
make a difference.
But in fact only local time makes sense and we have neither absolute
time, nor absolute space, against which velocity could eventually be
measured.
Velocity is relative, between the observer and observed.
Post by Thomas Heger
So, we had to communicate with someone remote. And I assumed
three-legged aliens.
(But you can assume whatever you like.)
Why are the three legged aliens necessary? We send signals and receive
answers from the Moon without any aliens there. (Except us, when Apollo
missions planted the laser reflectors we're still using)
That's is why we don't know the time, when the signal arrives on the Moon.

We only assume, they arrive in the middle between sending them out and
receiving the reflected signal.

That is a very plausible guess, but not exactly knowledge.

So, in fact we don't know the local time of arrival of a signal on the
Moon. Instead we calculate the middle between emission and return time
with our own clocks, while possible clocks on the Moon are not involved.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
To synchronize clocks, we first need to negotiate the meaning of the
term 'clock' and how that should look like.
Now we cannot assume, that processes here on Earth have the same
frequency as processes at that remote location.
Clocks are what measure time.
Post by Thomas Heger
We cannot even assume, that future for us is future there, too.
????
It is actually possible, that remote systems have a future, where we
have our past.

IOW: the arrow of time does not point into the same direction everywhere
(in the universe).
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
So we need to find out the relation of frequency in equivalent processes.
First Postulate states the laws of physics and the processes are
identical both here and there.
Sure, but the environment is different.

Gulliver could feel big or small, depending on the environment and its
inhabitants, without any change of his own body.

If you allow different timelines, then also similar processes can be
looking much faster in our view, then how they are perceived there.

Also processes may be observed, which run backwards in our
understanding, while we do in the understanding of observers there.

Now this would make synchronization of clocks in cosmological distances
very difficult, because the remote side could have such a 'tilted axis
of time' in their local environment, even if the laws of nature are the
same there.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
That could eventually be a certain frequency of a gas, which we could
identify as similar. From this we could built a clock, on which both
sides could agree.
No "both sides" needed. In Einstein's work, the clocks are assumed
identical. In reality they need to have the same accuracy and tick the
same units.
sure. But how could you get our clocks to Alpha centaury?
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
Then we needed to estimate the distance and relative velocity of the
remote system.
We could do that by sending a signal there, which is immidiatly
retransmitted there.
As the Apollo laser reflectors do.
Post by Thomas Heger
Then we could measure the delay and calculate the distance.
Next we need to fix a certain reference point in time, from where the
birth of Christ, there: ???).
Irrelevant. We use our time.
If you do NOT want to negotiate the synchronization procedure with
remote observers in cosmolgical distances, you could als leave that and
do other things, that are more relevant to you (like e.g. playing soccer).

But I was talking about procedures, which were required, to synchronize
clocks in cosmological distances.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
We could also measure Doppler shift and calcule relative motion.
Yes.
Actually not, because prior to that calculation we need to figure out,
whether or not same processes here tick at the same rate in the remote
system.
...

TH
Maciej Wozniak
2021-12-04 19:29:42 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
...
Post by Thomas Heger
Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading
of a remote clock as time at that remote location.
This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
propagation time.
Sure, that is correct.
But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the
remote clock.
I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention
to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find
any hint.
Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want.
I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second
to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury.
That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs,
which commonly communicate with us.
This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single
person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs
or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are
supposed to be used everywhere.
No.
SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!!
Well, yeah it is. All theories are about observations and experiments.
Post by Thomas Heger
SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we think
of space and time.
Well, he hypothesized about space and time based on observations.
But in the real world, forbidden by your moronic religion GPS
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.
As long as it agrees with observations, yes it makes sense. That’s how
science works.
Thinkers more advanced than a poor idiot woodworker
(Poincare, Kuhn, Lakatos) knew better.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-12-05 15:06:01 UTC
Post by Python
Again, just apply equations from part I.1 in the original paper, I've
2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c (Einstein's paper)
Einstein was right.
Post by Python
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (Einstein's paper)
...
OUI, on peut dire 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c.
NON, on ne peut pas en conclure t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B.
You didn't read seriously the article. t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is
NOT deduced from 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c.
This is a typical problems with cranks of your kind. You always
make up stuff then argue against this stuff that was not claimed
by anyone in the first place. This is something that makes
discussion with you cranks impossible.
Remember when you were first, more than a decade ago, presented
to this equation (t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B) you interpreted it as
meaning that clock A and clock B are running at the same rate?
Do you really get, now, that this is completely WRONG? Equality
"the clock [at B] is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
You were unable to read back then, you still are Lengrand.
Considering the logical relation between these two equations, Einstein
2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c is assumed in accordance with experiments
(it refers to actual measures of round-trip time of light signals
in experiments involving a single clock).
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is ASSUMED as a convention about initialization
of clock readings in order to obtain a consistent synchronization
between a network of co-moving clocks in a given frame of reference.
There is NOTHING said about the second equation being a consequence
of the first one, nor the other way around.
You pretend that t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is impossible with absolutely
NO ARGUMENT but "ME, Richard Lengrand 'Hachel' say so". This is
ridiculous.
Not only it is possible; it's routinely done in real setups to configure
clocks preparing an actual experiment, it can be shown mathematically
that this convention, under the hypothesis of the other one
"We assume that this definition of synchronism is possible without
involving any inconsistency, for any number of points, therefore
1. If the clock at B be synchronous with the clock at A, then the
clock at A is synchronous with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A be synchronous with the clock at B as well as
with the clock at C, then also the clocks at B and C are
synchronous."
(a part that, again, you completely misunderstood 15 years ago)
Einstein assumed it, it can actually being (mathematically) proven. It
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.
Python
2021-12-07 15:42:36 UTC
1. If the clock at B be synchronous with the clock at A, then the
clock at A is synchronous with the clock at B.
C'est faux.
With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
definition it is true.

Maciej Wozniak
2021-12-07 15:51:00 UTC
Post by Python
1. If the clock at B be synchronous with the clock at A, then the
clock at A is synchronous with the clock at B.
C'est faux.
With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
definition it is true.
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.
Reese Page
2021-12-07 16:48:16 UTC
Post by Python
1. If the clock at B be synchronous with the clock at A, then the
clock at A is synchronous with the clock at B.
C'est faux.
With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
definition it is true. Your definition if inconsistent. EOS.
this nym'shifting troll posting under "Python" is attacking Richard
because he posts under his name. Have you no shame??
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2021-12-08 02:22:22 UTC
Post by Reese Page
Post by Python
1. If the clock at B be synchronous with the clock at A, then the
clock at A is synchronous with the clock at B.
C'est faux.
With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
definition it is true. Your definition if inconsistent. EOS.
this nym'shifting troll posting under "Python" is attacking Richard
because he posts under his name. Have you no shame??
You are confused: *You* are the ’nym-shifting troll.

PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)
Reese Page
2021-12-07 16:53:26 UTC
Post by Python
With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
definition it is true.
I'm not saying anything else.
Einstein gives his idea about a synchronization, and I say that its
synchronization is mathematically good, why not, but PHYSICALLY wrong.
His idea is perhaps apparently obvious, and I understand that if the
world were built on the mode of universal isochrony (ie if the notion of
uniiversal present existed) he would be right.
so true. The young Einstein never putted his hands on an oscilloscope. He
didn't know timing is the most important in physics and microtechnology.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2021-12-08 02:20:19 UTC
Post by Reese Page
Post by Python
With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
definition it is true.
I'm not saying anything else.
Einstein gives his idea about a synchronization, and I say that its
synchronization is mathematically good, why not, but PHYSICALLY wrong.
His idea is perhaps apparently obvious, and I understand that if the
world were built on the mode of universal isochrony (ie if the notion of
uniiversal present existed) he would be right.
so true. The young Einstein never putted his hands on an oscilloscope.
If true, that may have to do with the fact that the oscilloscope as we know
it today was not manufactured before the late 1930s, and not theoretically
described before 1931 (by Zworykin).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_oscilloscope>
Post by Reese Page
He didn't know timing is the most important in physics […]
By contrast to you dimwit, he studied Physics and completed it, so he must
have known it very well. In fact, special relativity is based on that: It
was the necessity of clock synchronization that arose at the beginning of
the 20th century (e.g. for train schedules), and Einstein’s exposure to
inventions in that regard at the Swiss Patent Office, that inspired him to
consider this problem and to formulate the theory.

Which you would know if you knew the first thing about Albert Einstein.

I could tell you that therefore you are an obnoxious idiot, but then again
what to expect from you as you are just the ’nym-shifting troll.

*PLONK*

PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)
Reese Page
2021-12-08 20:39:19 UTC
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Reese Page
so true. The young Einstein never putted his hands on an oscilloscope.
If true, that may have to do with the fact that the oscilloscope as we
know it today was not manufactured before the late 1930s, and not
theoretically described before 1931 (by Zworykin).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_oscilloscope>
this inbreed half-german feels the need to look wikipedia to learn about
oscilloscopes. Then posting pages of crap and ends plonking. What a
stupid half-german homepage designer.
Richard Hachel
2021-12-07 22:38:27 UTC
Post by Python
1. If the clock at B be synchronous with the clock at A, then the
clock at A is synchronous with the clock at B.
C'est faux.
With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
definition it is true.
Ton problème à toi, Jean-Pierre Messager, c'est que tu es incapable de
comprendre que la notion de "temps présent universel" dans un
référentiel inertiel donné, c'est du pipeau.

Ou alors pire et plus grave, tu le comprends (car tu m'as lu), mais tu
fais semblant de pas comprendre ce que c'est que cette notion
d'anisochronie universelle.

Et là, je peux rien faire pour toi.

Je te laisse avec Einstein accorder tes montres comme tu l'entends.

J'aurais bien aimé le rencontrer ce monsieur, et lui demander de
m'expliquer comment il faisait pour décrire un simple Langevin en

Ca fait des années que j'explique comment il faut faire et pourquoi il
faut le faire.

Mais ça passe obligatoirement par la notion d'élasticité des distances,
qui est la clé finale de la solution.

L'équation de cette élasticité, je l'ai donnée ici, hier.

C'est la première des trois équations, elle traite des longueurs (ou des
distances, c'est pareil).

Tu remarqueras qe je n'ai pas posé bêtement l'=l.sqrt(1-v²/c²).

Des conneries pareilles, je les laisses aux théoriciens qui se croient
plus malins que moi.

R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-12-08 12:35:53 UTC
In the context of part I.1. clock A and B are at rest relative to each
other. It took you years to understand this (even if it is obvious
given the introduction of this part of the article), but you finally
admitted it was the case. Why are you now, again, bringing this up?
And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by
your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.
Richard Hachel
2021-12-08 13:47:06 UTC
Post by Python
Again, just apply equations from part I.1 in the original paper, I've
2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c (Einstein's paper)
Einstein was right.
Post by Python
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (Einstein's paper)
...
OUI, on peut dire 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c.
NON, on ne peut pas en conclure t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B.
You didn't read seriously the article. t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is
NOT deduced from 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c.
Sure.
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is actually an assumption (a false assumption btw).
It means, that the time for a ray is the same on the way towards the
target, compared to the time on the way back to the source.
This is, of course, not always the case, because there are effects
possible, which would make the equation wrong.
E.g. there might be gravity, which has an effect on the speed of light,
hence would eventually make light speed faster in one direction than in
the opposite.
We could also have different media, through which the ray had to pass on
the way forth and on the way back.
But the most important case is movement, where emitter and reflector are
not at rest in respect to each other.
The second equation says, that the ray arrives at the mirror in the
middle between emission and returning to the emitter.
This had all the requirements mentioned above. Otherwise the time for
the travel could be different on the way forth and on the way back.
You're saying some interesting things, but I think, as of now, you still
haven't figured out where I'm going.

It is much more astonishing than that if one understands the principle of
anisochrony well that I have been trying to explain to theorists for

R.H.
Thomas Heger
2021-12-10 05:49:25 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Python
Again, just apply equations from part I.1 in the original paper, I've
2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c (Einstein's paper)
Einstein was right.
Post by Python
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (Einstein's paper)
...
OUI, on peut dire 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c.
NON, on ne peut pas en conclure t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B.
You didn't read seriously the article. t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is
NOT deduced from 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c.
Sure.
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is actually an assumption (a false assumption btw).
It means, that the time for a ray is the same on the way towards the
target, compared to the time on the way back to the source.
This is, of course, not always the case, because there are effects
possible, which would make the equation wrong.
E.g. there might be gravity, which has an effect on the speed of
light, hence would eventually make light speed faster in one direction
than in the opposite.
We could also have different media, through which the ray had to pass
on the way forth and on the way back.
But the most important case is movement, where emitter and reflector
are not at rest in respect to each other.
The second equation says, that the ray arrives at the mirror in the
middle between emission and returning to the emitter.
This had all the requirements mentioned above. Otherwise the time for
the travel could be different on the way forth and on the way back.
You're saying some interesting things, but I think, as of now, you still
haven't figured out where I'm going.
It is much more astonishing than that if one understands the principle
of anisochrony well that I have been trying to explain to theorists for
anisochrony was actually never a subject for me.

But I did something quite similar and allowed several different axes of
time, even a realm, where time runs backwards.

The effect of waves in time running fowards interacting with waves
running backwards is what I assume to create timelike stable standing
waves, which is, what we call 'matter'.

TH

Richard Hachel
2021-12-01 16:03:40 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
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