https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

The problem with Einstein's synchronization is that it is defined in a
Galilean way.
Einstein presupposes in his frame of reference, a flat and absolute
present time, and therefore goes very quickly to definition, to move on to
the next paragraph.
What is he really saying new? Nothing.
The great thing is to say:
tA'-tA=2AB/c
I can also add, in the same sense, that a swallow is a swallow.
Then Einstein will commit the enormous relativistic error of immediately
and without paying attention to t(AB)=t(BA), a proposition which can only
be true for a neutral observer placed at an equal distance from A and B,
and having to take into account only identical anisochrony, and perfect
simultaneity of the two watches.
The equality that he posits is therefore completely false, intellectually
false, physically false, for the enormous majority of points in his space
that he will take as reference.

His synchronization method, but he does not say it, is ONLY valid for a
given point P, and the simultaneity of various events occurring in the
frame of reference is ONLY valid for this point and not the integrity of
the frame of reference.

He doesn't explain this.

Or worse, he doesn't know it.

R.H.

Den 26.02.2024 18:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
>
> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
>
> The problem with Einstein's synchronization is that it is defined in a
> Galilean way.
> Einstein presupposes in his frame of reference, a flat and absolute
> present time, and therefore goes very quickly to definition, to move on
> to the next paragraph.
> What is he really saying new? Nothing.
> The great thing is to say:
> tA'-tA=2AB/c
> I can also add, in the same sense, that a swallow is a swallow.
> Then Einstein will commit the enormous relativistic error of immediately
> and without paying attention to t(AB)=t(BA), a proposition which can
> only be true for a neutral observer placed at an equal distance from A
> and B, and having to take into account only identical anisochrony, and
> perfect simultaneity of the two watches.
> The equality that he posits is therefore completely false,
> intellectually false, physically false, for the enormous majority of
> points in his space that he will take as reference.

Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.

You claim this is impossible, so please point out exactly
what can't be done in the real world.

We have two equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any way,
but they are using the same time unit, let's call it second.
The clocks run at the same rate.

In our very big lab, we have two points A and B which are
L = 299.792458 metres apart.
We know that the speed of light is c = 299792458 m/s.
The transit time for light to go from A to B is:
t = L/c = 1.0E-6 seconds = 1 μs

(c, L and t do not have to be known, as t will be measured in
the experiment. So this is only to put numbers on what will
be measured.)

At point A we have:
Clock C_A, a light-detector, a flash-light and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the flash-light is flashing, and when the light-detector
registers a light-flash.

At point B we have:
Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the light-detector registers a light-flash.

Now we let the flash-light at point A flash.
At this instant, C_A is showing tA = t₁
tA is measured by C_A at A.

When the flash hits the light-detector at B,
Clock C_B shows tB = t₂
tB is measured by C_B at B.

A short time later the light detector at A registers
the light reflected by the mirror at B.
At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A = t₁ + 2.0 μs
t'A is measured by C_A at A.

Einstein:
"The two clocks synchronize if tB − tA = t'A − tB."

Or: tB = (tA + t'A)/2 = (t₁+t₁+2.0 μs)/2 = (t₁ + 1.0 μs)

That is, to be synchronous clock C_B must show a time midway
between tA and t'A when the light is reflected by the mirror.
So tB should show (t₁ + 1.0 μs) when the light is reflected
by the mirror.
But at that instant tB is showing t₂ seconds, so to make the two
clocks synchronous, we must adjust clock C_B by:
δ = (t₁-t₂) + 1.0 μs

After this correction, we have:

tB − tA = t₂ - t₁ + δ = 1.0 μs
t'A − tB = t₁ + 2.0 μs - t₂ - δ = 1.0 μs

The clocks are now synchronised.
-------

>
> His synchronization method, but he does not say it, is ONLY valid for a
> given point P, and the simultaneity of various events occurring in the
> frame of reference is ONLY valid for this point and not the integrity of
> the frame of reference.
>
> He doesn't explain this.
>
> Or worse, he doesn't know it.
>
> R.H.
>

Please consider this example of synchronism from the real world.

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

All physicists will agree on the following:

In the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (aka ECI-frame),
where the clocks are moving eastwards with the speed 465.1 m/s,
the clocks are synchronous according to Einstein's definition of
simultaneity.
But in the ground frame, where the clocks are stationary, will the
eastern clock always lag ≈ 0.051 ns behind the western clock,
so the clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.

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

The GPS wouldn't work if the time reported by the satellites
weren't synchronous with UTC, so Einstein's definition of
simultaneity seems to work in the real world.

Do you agree?

Will you ignore this because you are not interested in what
works in the real world?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> We have two equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any way,
> but they are using the same time unit, let's call it second.
> The clocks run at the same rate.

nonsense, "equal" clocks are always synced with offsets. Read this, to
undrestand even more.

𝗪𝗮𝗿_𝗣𝗶𝗴_𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗛𝗮𝘀_𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/FWoCOARqFLEB

𝗡𝗼𝘁_𝗮_𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗻𝘆_𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/iloqV2zu306Z

𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗_𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆_𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗳𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲_𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/OZaUGR8ROnyA

On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 26.02.2024 18:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>
>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
>>
>> The problem with Einstein's synchronization is that it is defined in a
>> Galilean way.
>> Einstein presupposes in his frame of reference, a flat and absolute
>> present time, and therefore goes very quickly to definition, to move
>> on to the next paragraph.
>> What is he really saying new? Nothing.
>> The great thing is to say:
>> tA'-tA=2AB/c
>> I can also add, in the same sense, that a swallow is a swallow.
>> Then Einstein will commit the enormous relativistic error of
>> immediately and without paying attention to t(AB)=t(BA), a proposition
>> which can only be true for a neutral observer placed at an equal
>> distance from A and B, and having to take into account only identical
>> anisochrony, and perfect simultaneity of the two watches.
>> The equality that he posits is therefore completely false,
>> intellectually false, physically false, for the enormous majority of
>> points in his space that he will take as reference.
>
>
> Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
> synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.
>
> You claim this is impossible, so please point out exactly
> what can't be done in the real world.
>
> We have two equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any way,
> but they are using the same time unit, let's call it second.
> The clocks run at the same rate.
>
> In our very big lab, we have two points A and B which are
> L = 299.792458 metres apart.
> We know that the speed of light is c = 299792458 m/s.
> The transit time for light to go from A to B is:
> t = L/c = 1.0E-6 seconds = 1 μs
>
> (c, L and t do not have to be known, as t will be measured in
> the experiment. So this is only to put numbers on what will
> be measured.)
>
> At point A we have:
> Clock C_A, a light-detector, a flash-light and a computer.
> The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
> the flash-light is flashing, and when the light-detector
> registers a light-flash.
>
> At point B we have:
> Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
> The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
> the light-detector registers a light-flash.
>
> Now we let the flash-light at point A flash.
> At this instant, C_A is showing tA = t₁
> tA is measured by C_A at A.
>
> When the flash hits the light-detector at B,
> Clock C_B shows tB = t₂
> tB is measured by C_B at B.
>
> A short time later the light detector at A registers
> the light reflected by the mirror at B.
> At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A = t₁ + 2.0 μs
> t'A is measured by C_A at A.
>
> Einstein:
> "The two clocks synchronize if tB − tA = t'A − tB."
>
> Or: tB = (tA + t'A)/2 = (t₁+t₁+2.0 μs)/2 = (t₁ + 1.0 μs)
>
> That is, to be synchronous clock C_B must show a time midway
> between tA and t'A when the light is reflected by the mirror.
> So tB should show (t₁ + 1.0 μs) when the light is reflected
> by the mirror.
> But at that instant tB is showing t₂ seconds, so to make the two
> clocks synchronous, we must adjust clock C_B by:
> δ = (t₁-t₂) + 1.0 μs
>
> After this correction, we have:
>
> tB − tA = t₂ - t₁ + δ = 1.0 μs
> t'A − tB = t₁ + 2.0 μs - t₂ - δ = 1.0 μs
>
> The clocks are now synchronised.
> -------
>
>
>>
>> His synchronization method, but he does not say it, is ONLY valid for
>> a given point P, and the simultaneity of various events occurring in
>> the frame of reference is ONLY valid for this point and not the
>> integrity of the frame of reference.
>>
>> He doesn't explain this.
>>
>> Or worse, he doesn't know it.
>>
>> R.H.
>>
>
> Please consider this example of synchronism from the real world.
>
> Given two clocks on the geoid at the equator.
> Both clocks are showing UTC.
> The clocks are 10 km apart as measured in the ground frame.
>
> All physicists will agree on the following:
>
> In the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (aka ECI-frame),
> where the clocks are moving eastwards with the speed 465.1 m/s,
> the clocks are synchronous according to Einstein's definition of
> simultaneity.
> But in the ground frame, where the clocks are stationary, will the
> eastern clock always lag ≈ 0.051 ns behind the western clock,
> so the clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
>
> Do you agree with the physicists?
> If not, please explain what's wrong.
> Please be concrete.
>
> The GPS wouldn't work if the time reported by the satellites
> weren't synchronous with UTC, so Einstein's definition of
> simultaneity seems to work in the real world.
>
> Do you agree?
>
> Will you ignore this because you are not interested in what
> works in the real world?
>

Yeah, "Heisenberg's Certainty" makes for a great accuracy of laser
range-finding.

The "Heisenberg's Certainty" is a complementary concept,
to "Heisenberg's Uncertainty".

It's like, "what's 0 m/s, it's infinity s/m".

The light-like is a great and wonderful fact of information,
the image, its propagation, in empty space, among non-accelerating
bodies. Then, dynamics enter.

The synchronization of objects in the ephemeris is a
constant re-evaluation, and clocks both down here and
up there then have emitted signals, that are accorded
measuring differences, up to tolerances.

That "there are no closed time-like curves", in the geodesy,
and no negative times, has that when clocks are synchronized,
from time to time, it is at, each, the _same_ _time_.

So, acceleration, is a great dynamism.

Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
> On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

For several weeks now, we have no longer received posts from Paul
B.Andersen in France.
The usenet network no longer works very well and the withdrawal of Google
Groups may cause some additional communications problems.

R.H.

Le 27/02/2024 à 01:29, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
>> On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> For several weeks now, we have no longer received posts from Paul
> B.Andersen in France.
> The usenet network no longer works very well and the withdrawal of
> Google Groups may cause some additional communications problems.

Not "in France", this is not the point, the point is that Nemo NNTP
server did not relay the post. This is unrelated to Google Groups
shutdown as Paul in not posting through this gateway,

Instead of complaining here, which is pointless, you'd better
advise Nemo's administrator.

Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
> On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 26.02.2024 18:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>
>>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

>> Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
>> synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.
>>
>> You claim this is impossible, so please point out exactly
>> what can't be done in the real world.
>>
>> We have two equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any way,
>> but they are using the same time unit, let's call it second.
>> The clocks run at the same rate.
>>

It is not possible to absolutely synchronize two watches placed in
different locations.

It's not that it's difficult to do, it's not that it's complicated, it's
not that we can't find a fun way to do it, it's that it's absurd .

It is as absurd as imagining a round square, or believing that one can say
that a swallow is a swallow, and believing that one has stated something
coherent and useful.

Paul B. Anderson (whom I read from the previous poster) tells us that
two clocks placed in the same inertial frame of reference beat at the same
rhythm. This is obviously a tautology, but it is very important to
clarify, to avoid distorted understandings.

At Doctor Hachel, we call this the invariance of chronotropy in the same
inertial frame of reference.

We can, moreover, prove it through the absurd, and it does not take long
to explain that if watches have good mechanisms, there is no reason why
the watch placed on the table beats more quickly than the one placed on
the edge of the fireplace, and less quickly than the one placed on the
cupboard and so on.

They all have the same chronotropy, that is to say they all measure time
in the same way, and with the same internal mechanism.

“In an inertial frame of reference, that is to say in a stationary
system, the chronotropy is invariant without change of position”

We will see that this is no longer the case by changing the frame of
reference according to relative speeds between the watches.

And there: "Chrontropy becomes relative by change of frame of reference,
the internal mechanism of two watches placed in different kinetic frames
of reference beats reciprocally faster than the mechanism of the other
watch".

This is called the relativity of chronotropy.

We will be able to ensure the veracity of this when we are able to set up
small experiments
of the “Lagevin traveler” type.

In the classic Langevin traveler, x=24 al (two times twelve),
Vo=0.8c. T=30 years T'=18 years.

No one today can contradict, and the only incomprehension consists of the
fact that: "If Terrence sees his sister aging less quickly, why does
Stella see her brother older upon returning, which from her point of view?
view is a real paradox?"
The paradox is removed if we understand that the relativity of chronotropy
does not mean the relativity of global time.
The chronotropy is constantly reciprocal, and of type
t'=t.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²), t' being the chronotropy of the other watch.
But it's not the time shown on the other watch. This is just taking into
account the internal mechanism of watches.
The physicist must not forget the external mechanism (radial speed) which
will also play its own role on the final times).

R.H.

Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :

>> In our very big lab, we have two points A and B which are
>> L = 299.792458 metres apart.
>> We know that the speed of light is c = 299792458 m/s.
>> The transit time for light to go from A to B is:
>> t = L/c = 1.0E-6 seconds = 1 μs
>>

Yes, absolutely.

L=300m
c=3.10^8m/s

t=L/c

t=1µs (for a transversal observer).

R.H.

Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
> On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 26.02.2024 18:23, skrev Richard Hachel:

>> At point A we have:
>> Clock C_A, a light-detector, a flash-light and a computer.
>> The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
>> the flash-light is flashing, and when the light-detector
>> registers a light-flash.
>>
>> At point B we have:
>> Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
>> The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
>> the light-detector registers a light-flash.
>>
>> Now we let the flash-light at point A flash.

Well...

>> At this instant, C_A is showing tA = t₁

Absolutely.

At this instant, C_A is showing tA = t₁

But... whe mesures this instant? It's A.

>> tA is measured by C_A at A.

By A.

>>
>> When the flash hits the light-detector at B,
>> Clock C_B shows tB = t₂

Absolutely.

>> tB is measured by C_B at B.

BY B !!!

>> A short time later the light detector at A registers
>> the light reflected by the mirror at B.
>> At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A = t₁ + 2.0 μs
>> t'A is measured by C_A at A.

BY A !!!

>> Einstein:
>> "The two clocks synchronize if tB − tA = t'A − tB."

Absolutely not...

Einstein dit n'importe quoi.

Deux montres placées en des endroits différents dans un référentiel
donné, même inertiel,
même en système statique, bâtissent des systèmes de simultanéité
différents.

Leur chronotropie est la même, je le veux bien.

Mais elles bâtissent des système de simultanéité différents.

Le plan du temps présent, est une idée aussi abstraite que la terre
plate.

R.H.

On 2/26/24 13:16, Rózsa Erdős Kálmán wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> We have two equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any way,
>> but they are using the same time unit, let's call it second.
>> The clocks run at the same rate.
>
> nonsense, "equal" clocks are always synced with offsets. Read this, to
> undrestand even more.
>
> 𝗪𝗮𝗿_𝗣𝗶𝗴_𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗛𝗮𝘀_𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻
> https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/FWoCOARqFLEB
>
> 𝗡𝗼𝘁_𝗮_𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗻𝘆_𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲.
> https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/iloqV2zu306Z
>
>
𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗_𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆_𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗳𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲_𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀
> https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/OZaUGR8ROnyA
>

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is clearly the president of the combined
Soviet Union of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia.

Vladimir Putin is clearly engaging in armed insurrection against
the Soviet Union, by not accepting commands from his commander-in-chief,
Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

If a compromise is wanted than the President of the Soviet Union is
clearly Alexander Lukashenko.

Who can clearly know, who can understand? I am thinking that Boris
Yeltsin did clearly secede Russia from the Soviet Union. At least
I guess, that was a little while back. Vladimir Lenin did put in
his Constitution Article 4 - something like 'Soviet Socialist
Republics can secede from the Soviet Union'. Was it outrageous
to think that someone might have obeyed his Constitution at
some point in time?

Who can clearly know, who can understand? Then there are those
exchanges here between some 'Radical Republican' 'starmaker'
and this other guy. Is it better or worse than that 'forgive
me I'm sick I cry' guy maybe from Birmingham, England rather
than Birmingham, Alabama? Who can clearly know, who can understand?

Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
> On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 26.02.2024 18:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>
>>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

>> Or: tB = (tA + t'A)/2

Noooo !!!!

Absolutely not !!!

>> Or: tB = (tA + t'A)/2 = (t₁+t₁+2.0 μs)/2 = (t₁ + 1.0 μs)

Noooooo !!!

Votre erreur est de poser (en croyant bien faire, et personne ne
s'apercevra de l'énorme bourde sauf quelqu'un qui comprend correctement
les choses depuis 40 ans), une carotte et un navet.

tA=t₁ mesuré par A !!!

tA'=(t₁+2µs) mesuré par A !!!

On ne sait pas DU TOUT ce qui se passe entre A et B.

Vous savez juste que tB=t₁+1µs

Mais vous ne savez rien du tout du rapport entre A et B.

A et B co-existent-ils dans le même instant présent, pour A? Pour B?

Non.

Les montres sont donc accordées sur C, un point situées à égale
distances de A et de B,
et ce point va considérer que les deux montres ainsi accordées sont
accordées, qu'elle co-existent en parfaite simultanéité.

C'est évidemment vrai. Mais seulement pour C qui va considérer que
quand il est t₁ sur A il est t₁ sur Bn
et qu'il y a parfaite simultanéité d'existence dans le temps présent.

Mais dans le temps présent de C.

Pas de A, pas de B.

>> That is, to be synchronous clock C_B must show a time midway
>> between tA and t'A when the light is reflected by the mirror.
>> So tB should show (t₁ + 1.0 μs) when the light is reflected
>> by the mirror.
>> But at that instant tB is showing t₂ seconds, so to make the two
>> clocks synchronous, we must adjust clock C_B by:
>> δ = (t₁-t₂) + 1.0 μs
>>
>> After this correction, we have:
>>
>> tB − tA = t₂ - t₁ + δ = 1.0 μs
>> t'A − tB = t₁ + 2.0 μs - t₂ - δ = 1.0 μs
>>
>> The clocks are now synchronised.

Absolutely not !!!

Only for C. Not for A, or B.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
>
> The problem with Einstein's synchronization is that it is defined in a
> Galilean way.
> Einstein presupposes in his frame of reference, a flat and absolute
> present time, and therefore goes very quickly to definition, to move on to
> the next paragraph.
> What is he really saying new? Nothing.
> The great thing is to say:
> tA'-tA=2AB/c
> I can also add, in the same sense, that a swallow is a swallow.
> Then Einstein will commit the enormous relativistic error of immediately
> and without paying attention to t(AB)=t(BA), a proposition which can only
> be true for a neutral observer placed at an equal distance from A and B,
> and having to take into account only identical anisochrony, and perfect
> simultaneity of the two watches.
> The equality that he posits is therefore completely false, intellectually
> false, physically false, for the enormous majority of points in his space
> that he will take as reference.
>
> His synchronization method, but he does not say it, is ONLY valid for a
> given point P, and the simultaneity of various events occurring in the
> frame of reference is ONLY valid for this point and not the integrity of
> the frame of reference.
>
> He doesn't explain this.
>
> Or worse, he doesn't know it.
>
> R.H.

Nature forgot to synchronize.

Nature does not display any...clocks.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On 02/26/2024 05:11 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
>

>> Paul Andersen a ecrit:

>>> In our very big lab, we have two points A and B which are
>>> L = 299.792458 metres apart.
>>> We know that the speed of light is c = 299792458 m/s.
>>> The transit time for light to go from A to B is:
>>> t = L/c = 1.0E-6 seconds = 1 μs
>>>
>
> Yes, absolutely.
>
> L=300m
> c=3.10^8m/s
>
> t=L/c
> t=1µs (for a transversal observer).
> R.H.

S'il correctez cette attribution c'est de M. Andersen pas mois. Merci.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> > https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
> >
> > The problem with Einstein's synchronization is that it is defined in a
> > Galilean way.
> > Einstein presupposes in his frame of reference, a flat and absolute
> > present time, and therefore goes very quickly to definition, to move on to
> > the next paragraph.
> > What is he really saying new? Nothing.
> > The great thing is to say:
> > tA'-tA=2AB/c
> > I can also add, in the same sense, that a swallow is a swallow.
> > Then Einstein will commit the enormous relativistic error of immediately
> > and without paying attention to t(AB)=t(BA), a proposition which can only
> > be true for a neutral observer placed at an equal distance from A and B,
> > and having to take into account only identical anisochrony, and perfect
> > simultaneity of the two watches.
> > The equality that he posits is therefore completely false, intellectually
> > false, physically false, for the enormous majority of points in his space
> > that he will take as reference.
> >
> > His synchronization method, but he does not say it, is ONLY valid for a
> > given point P, and the simultaneity of various events occurring in the
> > frame of reference is ONLY valid for this point and not the integrity of
> > the frame of reference.
> >
> > He doesn't explain this.
> >
> > Or worse, he doesn't know it.
> >
> > R.H.
>
> Nature forgot to synchronize.
>
> Nature does not display any...clocks.

The shorest distance between two points is a straight line.

But Nature does not display any straight lines.

Otherwise, ...ants would travel in staight lines...but they don't.

Only Platonists see straight lines.

(just another cult)

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On 02/26/2024 09:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
>>
>> The problem with Einstein's synchronization is that it is defined in a
>> Galilean way.
>> Einstein presupposes in his frame of reference, a flat and absolute
>> present time, and therefore goes very quickly to definition, to move on to
>> the next paragraph.
>> What is he really saying new? Nothing.
>> The great thing is to say:
>> tA'-tA=2AB/c
>> I can also add, in the same sense, that a swallow is a swallow.
>> Then Einstein will commit the enormous relativistic error of immediately
>> and without paying attention to t(AB)=t(BA), a proposition which can only
>> be true for a neutral observer placed at an equal distance from A and B,
>> and having to take into account only identical anisochrony, and perfect
>> simultaneity of the two watches.
>> The equality that he posits is therefore completely false, intellectually
>> false, physically false, for the enormous majority of points in his space
>> that he will take as reference.
>>
>> His synchronization method, but he does not say it, is ONLY valid for a
>> given point P, and the simultaneity of various events occurring in the
>> frame of reference is ONLY valid for this point and not the integrity of
>> the frame of reference.
>>
>> He doesn't explain this.
>>
>> Or worse, he doesn't know it.
>>
>> R.H.
>
>
>
> Nature forgot to synchronize.
>
>
> Nature does not display any...clocks.
>
>

The old story is that man, or a woman,
invented time-keeping, humming a tune,
tossing a pile of rocks.

The sun-dial, is the traditional apparatus.

Foucault's pendulum, and the Allais pendulum,
both measure not only time, also cosmic alignment.

An atomic clock lattice detects hand-waving.

Time symmetry's never been falsified.

There are no closed time-like curves.

Einstein's total field theory includes
a clock hypothesis, that nature _is_ a clock.

On 2024-02-26 17:23:19 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> The problem with Einstein's synchronization is that it is defined
> in a Galilean way.

There is nothing Galilean in the definition.

> Einstein presupposes in his frame of reference, a flat and absolute
> present time, and therefore goes very quickly to definition, to move on
> to the next paragraph.

No, he does not. He assumes that at one place you can have a clock that
tells the time at that place and then asks whether it is possible to have
a time that is common to two places. To as a questnion is not the same
as to presuppose but the opposite

--
Mikko

On 2024-02-27 01:02:36 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
>> On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 26.02.2024 18:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
>
>>> Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
>>> synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.
>>>
>>> You claim this is impossible, so please point out exactly
>>> what can't be done in the real world.
>>>
>>> We have two equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any way,
>>> but they are using the same time unit, let's call it second.
>>> The clocks run at the same rate.
>>>
>
> It is not possible to absolutely synchronize two watches placed in
> different locations.

Yes, that is what Special Relativity says, and real world experience
does not say otherwise.

So a reasonable question is, what is the best we can do instead.

--
Mikko

Den 27.02.2024 01:46, skrev Python:
> Le 27/02/2024 à 01:29, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
>>> On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> For several weeks now, we have no longer received posts from Paul
>> B.Andersen in France.
>> The usenet network no longer works very well and the withdrawal of
>> Google Groups may cause some additional communications problems.
>
> Not "in France", this is not the point, the point is that Nemo NNTP
> server did not relay the post. This is unrelated to Google Groups
> shutdown as Paul in not posting through this gateway,
>
> Instead of complaining here, which is pointless, you'd better
> advise Nemo's administrator.
>
>

Please post these links so Richard Hackel can read them.

Free NNTP servers:
https://www.eternal-september.org
https://www.i2pn2.org/

Free Newsreader:
https://www.thunderbird.net

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Le 27/02/2024 à 10:58, Mikko a écrit :
> There is nothing Galilean in the definition.
>
>> Einstein presupposes in his frame of reference, a flat and absolute
>> present time, and therefore goes very quickly to definition, to move on
>> to the next paragraph.
>
> No, he does not. He assumes that at one place you can have a clock that
> tells the time at that place and then asks whether it is possible to have
> a time that is common to two places. To as a questnion is not the same
> as to presuppose but the opposite

The vision of a universal present time, including in the same stationary
system, in the same inertial frame of reference, is a Galilean vision of
the world.
I don't share it at all, and no matter how much you try to dissuade me,
you'll never succeed.
I repeat, the solution proposed by Einstein is biased in the sense that we
will never be able to match two watches together, it is IMPOSSIBLE, it is
abstract, it is ridiculous in SR well understood.
The only thing we can do is tune all this to a third watch, placed
equidistant from the other two, and which will consider that two events
occurring there are, or are not, simultaneous for it.

R.H.

Le 27/02/2024 à 11:02, Mikko a écrit :
>> It is not possible to absolutely synchronize two watches placed in
>> different locations.
>
> Yes, that is what Special Relativity says, and real world experience
> does not say otherwise.
>
> So a reasonable question is, what is the best we can do instead.

The best thing we can do then is to take a watch placed equidistant from
all the points considered,
and this watch will then be able to have "a certain idea", a certain
possible synchronization.

This is also what happens with GPS or “universal” time.

The point used is then, a point placed in a virtual fourth dimension, and
equidistant from all points in our three-D universe.

This virtual point gives an idea of its "universal present time", and it
is on it that, unconsciously, we rely.

All the watches are therefore centered on him.

But between them, they are not really attuned, nor tunable.

They never will be.

Cela Einstein ne le dit pas, ne l'explique pas.

Je pense qu'il continue à croire à cette idéologie abstraite du "temps
présent universel", et en la suffisance de la relativité de la
chronotropie par changement de référentiel (facteur gamma).

Ce n'est pas suffisant.

R.H.

R.H.

W dniu 27.02.2024 o 11:02, Mikko pisze:
> On 2024-02-27 01:02:36 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>> Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
>>> On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 26.02.2024 18:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
>>
>>>> Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
>>>> synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.
>>>>
>>>> You claim this is impossible, so please point out exactly
>>>> what can't be done in the real world.
>>>>
>>>> We have two equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any way,
>>>> but they are using the same time unit, let's call it second.
>>>> The clocks run at the same rate.
>>>>
>>
>> It is not possible to absolutely synchronize two watches placed in
>> different locations.
>
> Yes, that is what Special Relativity says, and real world experience
> does not say otherwise.

Anyone can check GPS, yes, the real world experience
does say otherwise. Sorry, poor fanatic, that's where
your madness ends.

On 2/27/2024 5:47 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 27/02/2024 à 10:58, Mikko a écrit :
>> There is nothing Galilean in the definition.
>>
>>> Einstein presupposes in his frame of reference, a flat and absolute
>>> present time, and therefore goes very quickly to definition, to move
>>> on to the next paragraph.
>>
>> No, he does not. He assumes that at one place you can have a clock that
>> tells the time at that place and then asks whether it is possible to have
>> a time that is common to two places. To as a questnion is not the same
>> as to presuppose but the opposite
>
> The vision of a universal present time, including in the same stationary
> system, in the same inertial frame of reference, is a Galilean vision of
> the world.

No. In a Galilean world, time is the same everywhere. In other words, at
time t_A, both clocks C_A and C_B read the time t_A and there is no need
to send a light beam from A to B at all.

> I don't share it at all, and no matter how much you try to dissuade me,
> you'll never succeed.

Typical sign of a crank.

> I repeat, the solution proposed by Einstein is biased in the sense that
> we will never be able to match two watches together, it is IMPOSSIBLE,
> it is abstract, it is ridiculous in SR well understood.

Einstein defines what it means for two clocks to be synchronized.

> The only thing we can do is tune all this to a third watch, placed
> equidistant from the other two, and which will consider that two events
> occurring there are, or are not, simultaneous for it.

That just creates one specific definition of simultaneous.

W dniu 27.02.2024 o 15:11, Volney pisze:
> On 2/27/2024 5:47 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 27/02/2024 à 10:58, Mikko a écrit :
>>> There is nothing Galilean in the definition.
>>>
>>>> Einstein presupposes in his frame of reference, a flat and absolute
>>>> present time, and therefore goes very quickly to definition, to move
>>>> on to the next paragraph.
>>>
>>> No, he does not. He assumes that at one place you can have a clock that
>>> tells the time at that place and then asks whether it is possible to
>>> have
>>> a time that is common to two places. To as a questnion is not the same
>>> as to presuppose but the opposite
>>
>> The vision of a universal present time, including in the same
>> stationary system, in the same inertial frame of reference, is a
>> Galilean vision of the world.
>
> No. In a Galilean world, time is the same everywhere. In other words, at
> time t_A, both clocks C_A and C_B read the time t_A and there is no need
> to send a light beam from A to B at all.

Similiarly, in the world of your idiot guru time
is the same in an inertial frame, so there is no
need to send a light bam in an inertial frame.
Right, stupid Mike?

On 2/26/24 21:12, The Starmaker wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
>>
>> The problem with Einstein's synchronization is that it is defined in a
>> Galilean way.
>> Einstein presupposes in his frame of reference, a flat and absolute
>> present time, and therefore goes very quickly to definition, to move
on to
>> the next paragraph.
>> What is he really saying new? Nothing.
>> The great thing is to say:
>> tA'-tA=2AB/c
>> I can also add, in the same sense, that a swallow is a swallow.
>> Then Einstein will commit the enormous relativistic error of immediately
>> and without paying attention to t(AB)=t(BA), a proposition which can
only
>> be true for a neutral observer placed at an equal distance from A and B,
>> and having to take into account only identical anisochrony, and perfect
>> simultaneity of the two watches.
>> The equality that he posits is therefore completely false,
intellectually
>> false, physically false, for the enormous majority of points in his
space
>> that he will take as reference.
>>
>> His synchronization method, but he does not say it, is ONLY valid for a
>> given point P, and the simultaneity of various events occurring in the
>> frame of reference is ONLY valid for this point and not the integrity of
>> the frame of reference.
>>
>> He doesn't explain this.
>>
>> Or worse, he doesn't know it.
>>
>> R.H.
>
>
> Nature forgot to synchronize.
>
>
> Nature does not display any...clocks.

You know, if the sun rises in the east and sets in the
west, then in the northern hemisphere.

Then if you are looking north, then the sun is going
counter-clockwise in the sky.

So maybe you are looking at the sun's shadow, but with
respect to north, it is also going counter-clockwise.
I guess there are 12 hours rather than 10, just like
the number of 'months' like the moon? Maybe there are
360 'degrees' rather than 'minutes' or 'seconds'? There
are some places where the 'temperature' is different at
different times of the 'year' which has to do with
'seasons' rather than 'months'? If the sky is 'cloudy'
then it is difficult to see a 'shadow'?

I guess if you are looking toward the south it is going
clockwise. I guess you are supposed to point it at due
north. I guess they were invented in the northern hemisphere?
Then I guess with railroads they no longer had solar time?
Then when the 'Germans' came up with 'Daylight Saving's
Time' during WWI then everybody copied it? But maybe
that was before then?

Who can really know, who can understand?

Le 27/02/2024 à 15:11, Volney a écrit :

>> I don't share it at all, and no matter how much you try to dissuade me,
>> you'll never succeed.

But I don't pretend to do that.

On the contrary, I know that a man who has eaten a rat will always deny
that he ate the rat, even if the tail still protrudes from his mouth.

Of course not, I don't pretend to do that.

On the contrary: I say that I will never convince you.
>
> Typical sign of a crank.

"My opponent is a crank".

LOL.

My opponent is a crank.
I know the song.

R.H.