Eisntein said:
------------------
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at
the point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for
an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neigh-
bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare,
in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A
time” tA from
A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = tA − tB.
---------------------
I don't understand anything this man is saying.
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand anything at all?
R.H.
Eisntein said:
------------------
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at
the point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for
an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neigh-
bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare,
in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined
only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from
A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = tA − tB.
---------------------
I don't understand anything this man is saying.
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand anything at all?
No he didn't wrote that.
He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
You are a moron.
Le 20/02/2024 à 15:41, Python a écrit :
No he didn't wrote that.
He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
C'est là où est le problème.
On 2024-02-20 17:06:24 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 20/02/2024 à 15:41, Python a écrit :
No he didn't wrote that.
He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
C'est là où est le problème.
It only means that t_A and t'_A are equally distant from t_B but
in opposite directions.
Le 21/02/2024 à 10:58, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-20 17:06:24 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 20/02/2024 à 15:41, Python a écrit :
No he didn't wrote that.
He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
C'est là où est le problème.
It only means that t_A and t'_A are equally distant from t_B but
in opposite directions.
The problem with the theory of relativity is that it explains things very poorly.
And this has been happening for 120 years now.
From the first words of the precis, where we talk about watch synchronization, everything is very poorly said.
What is synchronizing a watch? How to synchronize it? On which?
I have always said that it is absolutely impossible to synchronize two watches with each other. I said “between them”. It's impossible.
You must then choose a third watch, a third observer, to synchronize them "between the two of them and FOR this third observer".
I am criticized for not knowing that the GPS system works.
But I know that the GPS system works, and that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. What happens to the GPS system? We synchronize all terrestrial watches on
a virtual watch placed in a virtual fourth spatial dimension, and placed virtually equidistant from all the points of our three D marker.
We then obtain an abstract, but useful, synchronization.
We come back to the fact that two separate watches can never be in tune,
and find themselves in the same absolute present time.
This is an a priori, a caprice.
It doesn't exist in nature.
Le 21/02/2024 à 10:58, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-20 17:06:24 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 20/02/2024 à 15:41, Python a écrit :
No he didn't wrote that.
He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
C'est là où est le problème.
It only means that t_A and t'_A are equally distant from t_B but
in opposite directions.
The problem with the theory of relativity is that it explains things
very poorly.
You seem to mean that the theory is very poorly explained. Which is
true to some extent. Some books explein it better than some other
books.
Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 21/02/2024 à 10:58, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-20 17:06:24 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 20/02/2024 à 15:41, Python a écrit :
No he didn't wrote that.
He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
C'est là où est le problème.
It only means that t_A and t'_A are equally distant from t_B but
in opposite directions.
The problem with the theory of relativity is that it explains things very
poorly.
And this has been happening for 120 years now.
From the first words of the precis, where we talk about watch
synchronization, everything is very poorly said.
What is synchronizing a watch? How to synchronize it? On which?
I have always said that it is absolutely impossible to synchronize two
watches with each other. I said “between them”. It's impossible.
You must then choose a third watch, a third observer, to synchronize them
"between the two of them and FOR this third observer".
I am criticized for not knowing that the GPS system works.
But I know that the GPS system works, and that's EXACTLY what I'm saying.
What happens to the GPS system? We synchronize all terrestrial watches on
a virtual watch placed in a virtual fourth spatial dimension, and placed
virtually equidistant from all the points of our three D marker.
We then obtain an abstract, but useful, synchronization.
We come back to the fact that two separate watches can never be in tune,
and find themselves in the same absolute present time.
This is an a priori, a caprice.
It doesn't exist in nature.
So GPS doesn't exist in nature? What a discovery.
Merci de ne pas répondre n'importe quoi à mes posts.
Le 21/02/2024 à 19:15, Mikko a écrit :
You seem to mean that the theory is very poorly explained. Which is
true to some extent. Some books explein it better than some other
books.
Yes, it's true.
I noticed this about forty years ago.
Certainly, there are things that are not too badly said, sometimes, but
most of the time it is very poorly explained, and we clearly see that
the author of the article, the site, or the book does not understand
clearly what he says and uses abstract mathematics to explain things he doesn't understand.
Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
physical meaning.
Mikko
Richard Hachel wrote:
We must describe the Langevin as I do it
No, we must understand, first of all, that
*** THERE IS NO PARADOX *** in the Langevin gedanken.
Le 22/02/2024 à 10:30, Mikko a écrit :
Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the
inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
physical meaning.
Mikko
I don't know the point of abstract mathematics, and maybe you're right.
But my point is that in some cases they are both unnecessary and wrong. Consider the case of the theory of special relativity. What does Doctor Hachel say who, like Poincaré, has the fault of being French?
He says that his abstractions are useless because we do things faster
and better with simple school-level calculations.
On 2024-02-22 14:08:59 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 22/02/2024 à 10:30, Mikko a écrit :
Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the >>> inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
physical meaning.
Mikko
I don't know the point of abstract mathematics, and maybe you're right.
But my point is that in some cases they are both unnecessary and wrong.
Consider the case of the theory of special relativity. What does Doctor
Hachel say who, like Poincaré, has the fault of being French?
He says that his abstractions are useless because we do things faster
and better with simple school-level calculations.
Simple scool level calculations are abstract mathematics.
Changes in the traveling twin's motion do not affect the
stay-at-home twin at all. They only change what instants
in the stay-at-home twin's timeline that the traveling twin
considers to be simultaneous to his own.
There is nothing mysterious about this. You mistakenly believe
that you have some sort of heightened insight into a basic
consequence of the relativity of simultaneity.
You do not.
On 2024-02-21 19:31:31 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 21/02/2024 19:15, Mikko a crit :
You seem to mean that the theory is very poorly explained. Which is
true to some extent. Some books explein it better than some other
books.
Yes, it's true.
I noticed this about forty years ago.
Certainly, there are things that are not too badly said, sometimes, but most of the time it is very poorly explained, and we clearly see that
the author of the article, the site, or the book does not understand clearly what he says and uses abstract mathematics to explain things he doesn't understand.
Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
physical meaning.
Huh? The usual statement of the twin paradox holds that
Stella flies straight out, turns, and then flies straight
back. Even if it takes her 24 hours by her clock to
accomplish the turnaround, there is no semi-circle for
Terrence to observe.
Richard Hachel wrote:
For 40 years, I have been trying to do serious relativistic science, with
serious models.
As for what happens at the moment of the U-turn for the space traveler,
and for his twin who observes him through the telescope,
I would even say, which will shock my reader (but stuck as he is either in >> Newtonism or in Minkowskianism), that almost nothing happens at all.
Correct. Nothing happens at all.
She changes from a radial speed of 0.8c outwards to a
radial speed of 0.8c inwards over a 24 hour period by
her clock.
What's all this "tangential speed" stuff?
Be very, very careful here. What Terrence and Stella "see" is
quite different from what they would "measure" after properly
compensating for speed of light effects.
What they each "see" is that light from their twin changes
from pronounced redshift to pronounced blueshift, and
their twin's apparent motions changes from super slow due to
relativistic Doppler effect to super fast.
I presume from the numbers that you have presented that
the star system is 4 ly away for a total trip time, by
Terrence's clock, of 10 years. Measured by Stella's clock,
the total trip time would be 6 years.
Richard Hachel wrote:
You are confusing "seeing" with "measurement". When Stella reaches
the destination star, the light entering her telescope is from
4 years previous. On her way back, she catches up with all of the
"missing" light.
Eisntein said:
------------------
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at
the point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for
an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neigh-
bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare,
in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined
only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from
A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = tA − tB.
---------------------
I don't understand anything this man is saying.
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand anything at all?
...
Einstein assumed, that a place called 'A' and a very remote place called
'B' have own times ('A-Time' and 'B-Time') which do not necessarily
coincide.
To find a time 'AB-time' allowing to synchronize clocks at place 'A' and place 'B', he took the local time of a place exactly in the middle
between A and B.
This time local to a location at (A+B)/2 would then allow to synchronize clocks at equidistant locations like A and B.
The dependence of time on the location stems from an error of Einstein,
who made no efforts to compensate the delay of a light signal, caused by
the finite speed of light.
That's why a remote clock was seemingly too late and the later, the
further away.
But a hypothetical observer in the middle would see both ends of the connecting line from A to B at the same time, hence could be used as a
judge, whether or not the clocks at A and B run in synch.
His time would then be 'common time' and could be used to synchronize
clocks at A and B.
I, personally, do not really agree, because removal of the run time
delay would have been an option, too, and much easier.
My method has a disadvantage, however, because synchronisation would
require a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity, which does not exist.
But one could measure the delay quite easily (by sending a 'ping' and
cut the delay for the roundtrip in half).
The delay time could be added to the coded timing signal and we have
also synchronisation. But in that case the time at the remote localtions would be different to the time according to Einstein's method.
TH
TH
You fail to maintain the reciprocal relationship between length
contraction and time dilation.
If we applied your math to the survival of atmospheric
muons to Earth, the time dilation approach would yield different results
from the length contraction approach.
Einstein assumed, that a place called 'A' and a very remote place called
'B' have own times ('A-Time' and 'B-Time') which do not necessarily
coincide.
To find a time 'AB-time' allowing to synchronize clocks at place 'A' and place 'B', he took the local time of a place exactly in the middle
between A and B.
This time local to a location at (A+B)/2 would then allow to synchronize clocks at equidistant locations like A and B.
The dependence of time on the location stems from an error of Einstein,
who made no efforts to compensate the delay of a light signal, caused by
the finite speed of light.
That's why a remote clock was seemingly too late and the later, the
further away.
But a hypothetical observer in the middle would see both ends of the connecting line from A to B at the same time, hence could be used as a
judge, whether or not the clocks at A and B run in synch.
His time would then be 'common time' and could be used to synchronize
clocks at A and B.
I, personally, do not really agree, because removal of the run time
delay would have been an option, too, and much easier.
My method has a disadvantage, however, because synchronisation would
require a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity, which does not exist.
But one could measure the delay quite easily (by sending a 'ping' and
cut the delay for the roundtrip in half).
The delay time could be added to the coded timing signal and we have
also synchronisation. But in that case the time at the remote localtions would be different to the time according to Einstein's method.
[snip non sense]
The two equations in part I.1. in Einstein paper are precisely about
taking such a delay into account without having to pre-suppose pre-
synch.
The "delay" is embedded in the synch procedure so to speak, in quite
an obvious way for any decent reader.
He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand
anything at all?
I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard and simple.
You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for a while.
What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really works. Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are valid methods
of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
--
Le 23/02/2024 à 22:52, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't
understand anything at all?
I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard
and simple.
You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for
a while.
What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really
works.
Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are
valid methods
of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
--
What is important to understand, before starting to discuss with me, is
that I am a man of great listening (forty years of professionalism where
I have always strived to listen to others with attention and respect ).
Don't laugh friends, those who tell you it's common are lying.
As Sartre said, the problem with bad faith is that bad faith is faith.
You say that the speed of light is equal from A to B, and from B to A, I agree, but for WHO?
Where is this observer who decrees this?
If, precisely, I pose a problem of anisochrony, it is quite obvious that
the fact can only be true for a neutral observer, that is to say placed perpendicular to the path of the photon.
Do you understand this?
Thus the equation t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c which is clearly true for everyone
(except for idiots but I have never seen one of this type) does not necessarily imply t(B)-t(A)=t(A')-t(B).
It is easy and a very common a priori for men to say that.
And yet, it is false.
Is anyone capable of raising their intellectual level to this, and
saying "Sir, you are absolutely right, and I completely understand your
point of view"?
Le 23/02/2024 à 16:47, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
[snip non sense]
Note for Thomas: in case you didn't notice: Richard "Hachel"
Lengrand has his own personal (and idiotic) opinion on
clocks synchronization which has ZERO common ground with
Einstein/Poincaré procedure.
Am 23.02.2024 um 16:53 schrieb Python:
Le 23/02/2024 à 16:47, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
[snip non sense]
Note for Thomas: in case you didn't notice: Richard "Hachel"
Lengrand has his own personal (and idiotic) opinion on
clocks synchronization which has ZERO common ground with
Einstein/Poincaré procedure.
Well, possibly, but I had written about my own interpretation of
Einstein's text.
I tried to make sense out of his method, while maintaining the idea of
time as local phenomenon (opposite to Newton's universal time).
This would be possible, if an additional (hypothetical) observer 'M' (according to RHs proposal) in the middle between A and B is placed,
who decides, whether or not clocks at A and B are in synch.
(The places A and B are permanently equidistant to M by definition,
even if A or B move)
This is overly complicated, but would make some sense.
The disadvantage, however: it works only for two points (A and B), but
not for three (A, B and C), because three points usually do not have an equidistant midpoint.
(Because the midpoint of a triangle is not lying on the edges).
Le 24/02/2024 à 00:11, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 23/02/2024 à 22:52, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't
understand anything at all?
I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard
and simple.
You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics
for a while.
What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science
really works.
Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are
valid methods
of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
--
What is important to understand, before starting to discuss with me,
is that I am a man of great listening (forty years of professionalism
where I have always strived to listen to others with attention and
respect ).
You've never done that a single time in your life, Lengrand. You are
Le 23/02/2024 à 15:02, My great lover, Python (Jean-Pierre Messager pour
les intimes) a écrit :
The "delay" is embedded in the synch procedure so to speak, in quite
an obvious way for any decent reader.
Yes, but I am a particularly indecent reader.
I can afford it with my extremist and powerful ideology
against which we can do nothing except stupid verbiage or threats or
stupid taunts.
I do not approve of two things in Einstein's paper, and on that, I am necessarily stronger than him.
For what?
He completely ignores the notion of anisochrony
It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I demonstrate it.
Which is based on the best principles.
He sets t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c
Well, possibly, but I had written about my own interpretation of
Einstein's text.
I tried to make sense out of his method, while maintaining the idea of
time as local phenomenon (opposite to Newton's universal time).
This would be possible, if an additional (hypothetical) observer 'M' (according to RHs proposal) in the middle between A and B is placed, who decides, whether or not clocks at A and B are in synch.
(The places A and B are permanently equidistant to M by definition, even
if A or B move)
This is overly complicated, but would make some sense.
The disadvantage, however: it works only for two points (A and B), but
not for three (A, B and C), because three points usually do not have an equidistant midpoint.
(Because the midpoint of a triangle is not lying on the edges).
TH
On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 23/02/2024 à 15:02, My great lover, Python (Jean-Pierre Messager pour
les intimes) a écrit :
The "delay" is embedded in the synch procedure so to speak, in quite
an obvious way for any decent reader.
Yes, but I am a particularly indecent reader.
I can afford it with my extremist and powerful ideology
against which we can do nothing except stupid verbiage or threats or
stupid taunts.
What about the ordinary corrections given to you without threats or taunts?
I do not approve of two things in Einstein's paper, and on that, I am
necessarily stronger than him.
Since there aren't errors in the SR paper the two things must be
correct, showing Einstein is stronger than you.
For what?
He completely ignores the notion of anisochrony
What is an anisochrony? Is it a purple alien monster with three eyes and
11 tentacles? I'll agree that Einstein did not consider the existence of space aliens in any of his papers.
It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
demonstrate it.
No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all (inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.
Which is based on the best principles.
He sets t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c
And AB/c is the delay of a signal from B to A (or vice versa). Why do
you claim Einstein didn't consider the signal delay?
Not a signifiacnt disadvantage. But an important question is whether
the syncronicity of A and B and the syncronicity of B and C imply
the syncronicity of A and C. Einstein does not say much about that
in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but elsewhere says "yes".
In Special Relativity any observer who is equidistant from clocks A and
B can determine the synchronization of A and B the same wah as an observer halfway between. For almost every for points A, B, C, and D an observer
can be equidistant from those points.
Le 24/02/2024 à 10:01, Mikko a écrit :
Not a signifiacnt disadvantage. But an important question is whether
the syncronicity of A and B and the syncronicity of B and C imply
the syncronicity of A and C. Einstein does not say much about that
in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but elsewhere says "yes".
In Special Relativity any observer who is equidistant from clocks A and
B can determine the synchronization of A and B the same wah as an observer >> halfway between. For almost every for points A, B, C, and D an observer
can be equidistant from those points.
Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony,
that is to say constantly exist at the same present moment,
does not make sense in special relativity (or at least, it should not).
However, Einstein seems to think so, which surprises me a lot.
Two events can only be simultaneous for a given point.
For example, if I send from M, middle of AB, a beep, it is clear that
the reception of the beep will be simultaneous for M, and that the
response will also be simultaneous for M.
On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 23/02/2024 à 15:02, My great lover, Python (Jean-Pierre Messager
pour les intimes) a écrit :
The "delay" is embedded in the synch procedure so to speak, in quite
an obvious way for any decent reader.
Yes, but I am a particularly indecent reader.
I can afford it with my extremist and powerful ideology
against which we can do nothing except stupid verbiage or threats or
stupid taunts.
What about the ordinary corrections given to you without threats or taunts?
I do not approve of two things in Einstein's paper, and on that, I am
necessarily stronger than him.
Since there aren't errors in the SR paper the two things must be
correct, showing Einstein is stronger than you.
For what?
He completely ignores the notion of anisochrony
What is an anisochrony? Is it a purple alien monster with three eyes and
11 tentacles? I'll agree that Einstein did not consider the existence of space aliens in any of his papers.
It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
demonstrate it.
No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all (inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.
Which is based on the best principles.
He sets t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c
And AB/c is the delay of a signal from B to A (or vice versa). Why do
you claim Einstein didn't consider the signal delay?
He sets t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c
Richard is claiming that, considering
that light speed is infinite).
On 02/23/2024 01:52 PM, JanPB wrote:
Richard Hachel wrote:
Eisntein said:
------------------
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at
the point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is
possible for
an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the
immediate neigh-
bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare,
in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined
only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
by definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the
“time” it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A
time” tA from
A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
..
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = tA − tB.
---------------------
I don't understand anything this man is saying.
He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't
understand anything at all?
I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard
and simple.
You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for a
while.
What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really
works.
Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are
valid methods
of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
--
Jan
Depending on the relative motion of the A and B
[snip rest of dementia]
Le 24/02/2024 à 10:01, Mikko a écrit :
Not a signifiacnt disadvantage. But an important question is whether
the syncronicity of A and B and the syncronicity of B and C imply
the syncronicity of A and C. Einstein does not say much about that
in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but elsewhere says "yes".
In Special Relativity any observer who is equidistant from clocks A and
B can determine the synchronization of A and B the same wah as an
observer
halfway between. For almost every for points A, B, C, and D an observer
can be equidistant from those points.
Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony, that is to
say constantly exist at the same present moment, does not make sense in special relativity (or at least, it should not).
However, Einstein seems to think so, which surprises me a lot.
Two events can only be simultaneous for a given point.
In Special Relativity it is possible to define a reasonable
meaning for simultaneity at different points.
Am 24.02.2024 um 14:06 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 24/02/2024 à 10:01, Mikko a écrit :
Not a signifiacnt disadvantage. But an important question is whether
the syncronicity of A and B and the syncronicity of B and C imply
the syncronicity of A and C. Einstein does not say much about that
in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but elsewhere says "yes".
In Special Relativity any observer who is equidistant from clocks A and
B can determine the synchronization of A and B the same wah as an
observer
halfway between. For almost every for points A, B, C, and D an observer
can be equidistant from those points.
Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony, that is to
say constantly exist at the same present moment, does not make sense in
special relativity (or at least, it should not).
Points are actually timeless (in euclidean space), because 'point'
denotes a location. And locations do not move (by definition of 'location').
But you apparently mean 'local time' (or 'A-time' at point A).
Here SRT influences and changes local time in remote locations, hence
A-time and B-time are not in synch per se.
Now it's getting tricky to synchronize clocks in A and B, because not
only the time values (and dates) must be sent to the remote place, but
also the length of the second.
The time and date values from, say, A can be sent to B, if A reduces the timme encoded into the signal by the expected delay.
Or it could be synched by B, if B adds the delay value to the encoded
time value in the timing signal.
Now we get a similar clock at the remote position, say B, which is in
synch with the remote time (A-time), but not with the local time (B-time).
It is actually not possible to bring that clock (showing A-time at place
B) in synch with B-time, if the second in B is e.g. twice as long as in A.
However, Einstein seems to think so, which surprises me a lot.
Two events can only be simultaneous for a given point.
No.
Events have only a single time value and no duration, hence can be synchronized, if the delay is taken into consideration.
To do this, the delay should be measured (by cutting the time for a round-trip in half) and added to the timing information.
This is equivalent to a hypothetical timing signal with infinite velocity.
To use light instead would require to compensate the delay for the
transit of the light signal. That can be done with a measurement of the
delay (and not so without knowing the delay).
...
I repeat these simple things again:
The notion of time, that is to say instant in Hashelian language, is
relative to POSITION in defined space. We can therefore NEVER
"absolutely" synchronize two watches placed in different places, we can
only do it FOR a third watch placed equidistant from two others, and
BETWEEN these two others. This third watch (observer) can then say.
Events A and B occurred simultaneously, FOR ME, and they were
simultaneous for all the other watches in the universe placed on the
bisector M of AB.
But between A and B, there will NEVER be absolute simultaneity.
We can synchronize A on B, or B on A (FOR A), but the reciprocal will
then no longer be true. B will look at things with even more
astonishment and say: "It's worse, the gap is now double what it was
before).
You talk about time passing faster in A than in B, but I never talked
about that. It goes without saying that time is perfectly
isochronotropic. A watch in A, in B, in C, in Y, and Z, in the same
inertial frame of reference, will always beat, this is a tautology, at
the same speed as the others; and the opposite would be absurd.
It is only by change of reference that chronotropy varies.
In short, time, that is to say the moment, is RELATIVE to the position; chronotropy, i.e. duration, is RELATIVE to speed.
It is childishly simple, but sad to cry because this beauty, this
simplicity, is refused by men for the simple fact that it hurts their eyes.
Den 25.02.2024 16:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
I repeat these simple things again:
The notion of time, that is to say instant in Hashelian language, is
relative to POSITION in defined space. We can therefore NEVER
"absolutely" synchronize two watches placed in different places, we
can only do it FOR a third watch placed equidistant from two others,
and BETWEEN these two others. This third watch (observer) can then
say. Events A and B occurred simultaneously, FOR ME, and they were
simultaneous for all the other watches in the universe placed on the
bisector M of AB.
But between A and B, there will NEVER be absolute simultaneity.
We can synchronize A on B, or B on A (FOR A), but the reciprocal will
then no longer be true. B will look at things with even more
astonishment and say: "It's worse, the gap is now double what it was
before).
You talk about time passing faster in A than in B, but I never talked
about that. It goes without saying that time is perfectly
isochronotropic. A watch in A, in B, in C, in Y, and Z, in the same
inertial frame of reference, will always beat, this is a tautology, at
the same speed as the others; and the opposite would be absurd.
It is only by change of reference that chronotropy varies.
In short, time, that is to say the moment, is RELATIVE to the
position; chronotropy, i.e. duration, is RELATIVE to speed.
It is childishly simple, but sad to cry because this beauty, this
simplicity, is refused by men for the simple fact that it hurts their
eyes.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
But I will present an example of synchronism from the real world.
Given two clocks on the geoid at the equator.
Both clocks are showing UTC.
The clocks are 10 km apart as measured in the ground frame.
All physicists will agree on the following:
In the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (aka ECI-frame),
where the clocks are moving easwards with the speed 465.1 m/s,
the clocks are synchronous according to Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
But in the ground frame, where the clocks are stationary, will the
eastern clock always lag ≈ 0.051 ns behind the western clock.
Am 25.02.2024 um 21:36 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Given two clocks on the geoid at the equator.
Both clocks are showing UTC.
The clocks are 10 km apart as measured in the ground frame.
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.
This is not true, because the frame of reference can be chosen in SRT,
hence the velocity v is also arbitrary.
You mean actually, that a point on the equator rotates with that angular velocity, if we would regard the solar system as stationary.
But we know with certainty, that the solar system isn't, since it
rotates around the centre of our home galaxy, which also moves around in
the local cluster.
Since the latter movements are far faster than the rotation of the
Earth' equator, we could actually ignore that rotation and concentrate
on the movement of the local cluster.
But in the ground frame, where the clocks are stationary, will the
eastern clock always lag ≈ 0.051 ns behind the western clock.
I do not understand this sentence:
what is an 'eastern clock' and why should it lack behind a 'western clock'? ...
TH
The GPS woulnd't work if the SV clocks weren't synchronous with UTC,
so Einstein's definition of simultaneity seems to work in the real
world.
It seems that you don't quite understand what I'm saying, and it's very annoying for me, for forty years having to repeat things that are very
simple but that no one WANTS to understand.
But between A and B, there will NEVER be absolute simultaneity.
It goes without saying that time is perfectly
isochronotropic.
A watch in A, in B, in C, in Y, and Z, in the same
inertial frame of reference, will always beat, this is a tautology, at
the same speed as the others; and the opposite would be absurd.
It is only by change of reference that chronotropy varies.
In short, time, that is to say the moment, is RELATIVE to the position; chronotropy, i.e. duration, is RELATIVE to speed.
It is childishly simple, but sad to cry because this beauty, this
simplicity, is refused by men for the simple fact that it hurts their eyes.
We prefer to spit on Doctor Hachel,
'The tank “was knocked out in one shot by the crew of a T-72 B3,”'
notice that a 1972 Russian tank (that's the meaning of "72") worth more
than a brand new American tank.
And the answer will be, most likely, wrong. Just checked
with postgres database. It doesn't know that the first date
is gregorian and the other is julian - and it doesn't know
the difference. I bet you don't know the difference too.
Welcome to the real world?
Le 20/03/2024 à 15:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
And the answer will be, most likely, wrong. Just checked
with postgres database. It doesn't know that the first date
is gregorian and the other is julian - and it doesn't know
the difference. I bet you don't know the difference too.
Welcome to the real world?
$ cal 9 1752
September 1752
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datetime-units-history.html
(for those interested by the subject btw, there is no point
to reply to asinine Wozniak's post)
W dniu 20.03.2024 o 16:10, Python pisze:
Le 20/03/2024 à 15:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
And the answer will be, most likely, wrong. Just checked
with postgres database. It doesn't know that the first date
is gregorian and the other is julian - and it doesn't know
the difference. I bet you don't know the difference too.
Welcome to the real world?
$ cal 9 1752
September 1752
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datetime-units-history.html
(for those interested by the subject btw, there is no point
to reply to asinine Wozniak's post)
Just read the link you provided, poor stinker.
"But, of course, this calendar is only valid for Great Britain and
dominions, not other places. Since it would be difficult and confusing
to try to track the actual calendars that were in use in various places
at various times, PostgreSQL does not try, but rather follows the
Gregorian calendar rules for all dates, even though this method is not historically accurate."
Am 21.03.2024 um 10:08 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 20.03.2024 o 16:10, Python pisze:
Le 20/03/2024 à 15:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
And the answer will be, most likely, wrong. Just checked
with postgres database. It doesn't know that the first date
is gregorian and the other is julian - and it doesn't know
the difference. I bet you don't know the difference too.
Welcome to the real world?
$ cal 9 1752
September 1752
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datetime-units-history.html
(for those interested by the subject btw, there is no point
to reply to asinine Wozniak's post)
Just read the link you provided, poor stinker.
"But, of course, this calendar is only valid for Great Britain and
dominions, not other places. Since it would be difficult and confusing
to try to track the actual calendars that were in use in various places
at various times, PostgreSQL does not try, but rather follows the
Gregorian calendar rules for all dates, even though this method is not
historically accurate."
Well, yes, but that is not very important (whether or not the calander
is historical correct).
Let's simply assume, that the birth of Christ was the event, from where
all calenders today start.
So, there was an event, and that defined the beginning of current time MEASURES !
W dniu 23.03.2024 o 08:08, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 21.03.2024 um 10:08 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 20.03.2024 o 16:10, Python pisze:
Le 20/03/2024 à 15:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
And the answer will be, most likely, wrong. Just checked
with postgres database. It doesn't know that the first date
is gregorian and the other is julian - and it doesn't know
the difference. I bet you don't know the difference too.
Welcome to the real world?
$ cal 9 1752
September 1752
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datetime-units-history.html
(for those interested by the subject btw, there is no point
to reply to asinine Wozniak's post)
Just read the link you provided, poor stinker.
"But, of course, this calendar is only valid for Great Britain and
dominions, not other places. Since it would be difficult and confusing
to try to track the actual calendars that were in use in various places
at various times, PostgreSQL does not try, but rather follows the
Gregorian calendar rules for all dates, even though this method is not
historically accurate."
Well, yes, but that is not very important (whether or not the calander
is historical correct).
It's not very important that it is incorrect,
because nobody really cares for intervals.
Let's simply assume, that the birth of Christ was the event, from
where all calenders today start.
Why not? Why to bother about any reality
when we're about building some magnificient
explainations and formulas?
So, there was an event, and that defined the beginning of current time
MEASURES !
So we assumed there was. Well, the assumption is
not true, however.
Am 23.03.2024 um 10:29 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 23.03.2024 o 08:08, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 21.03.2024 um 10:08 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 20.03.2024 o 16:10, Python pisze:
Le 20/03/2024 à 15:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
And the answer will be, most likely, wrong. Just checked
with postgres database. It doesn't know that the first date
is gregorian and the other is julian - and it doesn't know
the difference. I bet you don't know the difference too.
Welcome to the real world?
$ cal 9 1752
September 1752
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datetime-units-history.html
(for those interested by the subject btw, there is no point
to reply to asinine Wozniak's post)
Just read the link you provided, poor stinker.
"But, of course, this calendar is only valid for Great Britain and
dominions, not other places. Since it would be difficult and confusing >>>> to try to track the actual calendars that were in use in various places >>>> at various times, PostgreSQL does not try, but rather follows the
Gregorian calendar rules for all dates, even though this method is not >>>> historically accurate."
Well, yes, but that is not very important (whether or not the calander
is historical correct).
It's not very important that it is incorrect,
because nobody really cares for intervals.
A L L (!!!) time measures are actually time-intervals.
Let's simply assume, that the birth of Christ was the event, from
where all calenders today start.
Why not? Why to bother about any reality
when we're about building some magnificient
explainations and formulas?
???
(cannot understand)
So, there was an event, and that defined the beginning of current time
MEASURES !
So we assumed there was. Well, the assumption is
not true, however.
Possibly you are correct and Christ was not born at that day at all.
But here this is insignificant, because we're discussing the beginning
of our current calender and not the birth of Christ.
Let's simply assume, that the birth of Christ was the event, from
where all calenders today start.
Le 26/03/2024 à 23:05, Thean Nogushi Hatoyama a écrit :
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
I personally think, that CMBR has nothing to do with the big-bang, but >>>>> is caused by the gravitational field of the Earth.
How does that work?
first the earth emits faster than light tachions out in space,
How is that known?
signaling a
complex process of CMBR radiation back to earth. I heard before this
theory of "gravity", but looks fake, like Einstine.
It is not fake. It is not an attempt to fake, but an expression of pure rubbish. Politely, unscientific.
However my "𝙊𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚
𝘿𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙈𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙆𝙤𝙚𝙧𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨
𝙈𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡" makes sense, since its about supper_positioning the
amplitude of the involved mater probability distribution. So much
indeed.
How is that scientific?
as for instance, the amplitude probability distribution of the bridge
is minimal, compared to that of the Earth. Of course the bridge will
collapse.
𝗨𝗦_𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗽𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗵𝗶𝘁_𝗯𝘆_𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽_(𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗢)
Authorities have warned of a ‘developing mass casualty event’
https://www.r%74.com/news/594914-bridge-collapse-baltimore-maryland/
Them Jews ate our lunch and them bridges just rusting.
Collapsing, aging infrastructure in a country preoccupied with spending
billions of dollars on wars and apartheid genocide all over the world
Let's help Ukraine bomb the Crimea Bridge, but the US-Maryland Bridge
collapsed instead. I'm laughing in French.
Sometimes karma is a beautiful thing.
Like it or not, it is there.
Right after Us allowed passing resolution in UN against Israel! Just wonder! >>
Zelebuttinsky was on board, frustrated at not being able to tear down
the bridge in Crimea, he took out his anger on this cardboard bridge
Zelensky is taking notes
It's been a while since I read any of Arindam Banerjee's gibbering.
Still a crackpot, I see. When is he going to patent his working
perpetual motion machine?
But this notion of simultaneity, that is to say of a common present
moment, does not exist for all of the points between them.
This universal belief is false.
To put it better, it is an abstract idea.
We will never be able to "absolutely" agree two points separated by a distance, even fixed between them, it is impossible, they do not have
the same notion of the universal present.
We can only synchronize virtually, and abstractly, and only on another
point.
This is what happens with GPS. We synchronize, in fact, on a point
placed in a fourth dimension, and equidistant from all the points of the
3D reference frame considered.
I am surprised that few people understand this obvious fact.
Le 24/02/2024 à 23:36, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
On 02/23/2024 01:52 PM, JanPB wrote:
Richard Hachel wrote:
Eisntein said:
------------------
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at
the point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is
possible for
an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the
immediate neigh-
bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare,
in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined
only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time”
for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
by definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the >>>> “time” it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A
time” tA from
A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
..
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = tA − tB.
---------------------
I don't understand anything this man is saying.
He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't
understand anything at all?
I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard
and simple.
You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for a >>> while.
What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really
works.
Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are
valid methods
of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
--
Jan
Depending on the relative motion of the A and B
In the context at stake here, i.e. part I.1 of A.E. paper,
clocks at A and B are in mutual rest.
[snip rest of dementia]
You need medical help Ross, your posts make less and less
sense.
In the context at stake here, i.e. part I.1 of A.E. paper,
clocks at A and B are in mutual rest.
Actually Einstein didn't say so, but didn't mention relative velocity neither.
So, let's assume, that A and B are points in space and mutually at rest towards each other.
So A and B are points at rest in respect to each other. Because point a
is assumed to be at rest, too, the point B is also at rest.
Now 'motion' or 'velocity' do not make sense, because everything
mentionend is at rest in a stationary system.
This is actually ok.
But why then didn't Einstein calculate the delay of the light signals
for the transit from A to B and back?
It should technically easy to send a signal from A to B, get it
reflected there and measure the dealy, cut that in half and add this
one-way delay to the time value imbedded in the time-coded signal, which
A receives from B.
This would eliminate the influence of the speed of light and would allow mutally equal synchronization between clocks at A and B.
But this was not, what Einstein had done.
Instead he had the strange idea, that the time value seen on the rmeote
clock would be the time at the remote location.
W dniu 26.04.2024 o 09:11, Thomas Heger pisze:
Now 'motion' or 'velocity' do not make sense, because everything
mentionend is at rest in a stationary system.
This is actually ok.
It's not. Theadness of physics
didn't start with Giant Guru.
Now 'motion' or 'velocity' do not make sense, because everything
mentionend is at rest in a stationary system.
This is actually ok.
W dniu 26.04.2024 o 09:11, Thomas Heger pisze:
Now 'motion' or 'velocity' do not make sense, because everything
mentionend is at rest in a stationary system.
This is actually ok.
It's not. Theadness of physics didn't start with Giant Guru.
Le 26/04/2024 à 09:11, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...
In the context at stake here, i.e. part I.1 of A.E. paper,
clocks at A and B are in mutual rest.
Actually Einstein didn't say so, but didn't mention relative velocity
neither.
He said so quite clearly:
"Let us take a system of co-ordinates ..." => a SINGLE system
"If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-
ordinates ..." all "points" mentioned later are at relatively
to this system, this obviously implies that they are mutually
at rest.
So, let's assume, that A and B are points in space and mutually at rest
towards each other.
So A and B are points at rest in respect to each other. Because point a
is assumed to be at rest, too, the point B is also at rest.
Now 'motion' or 'velocity' do not make sense, because everything
mentionend is at rest in a stationary system.
This is actually ok.
Good to hear. Why did it take you YEARS to understand this Thomas ?
But why then didn't Einstein calculate the delay of the light signals
for the transit from A to B and back?
It should technically easy to send a signal from A to B, get it
reflected there and measure the dealy, cut that in half and add this
one-way delay to the time value imbedded in the time-coded signal, which
A receives from B.
This would eliminate the influence of the speed of light and would allow
mutally equal synchronization between clocks at A and B.
But this was not, what Einstein had done.
Instead he had the strange idea, that the time value seen on the rmeote
clock would be the time at the remote location.
Absolutely NOT, there is nothing of that kind in Einstein paper !
from t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
and (2AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c
[i.e. t'A - t_A = (2AB)/c ! What is (2AB)/c if not - obviously -
such a delay (twice the delay actually) you stupidly complain that
it wouldn't have been taken into account ? ? ?]
From these two simple equations you can deduce immediately :
t'_A = t_B + (AB)/c
i.e. time shown on clock A when receiving a signal sent by clock B when
clock B was showing t_B is t'_A = t_B + (AB)/c
(AB)/c is the delay : the time taken by light to travel from B to A.
If you cannot spot this at first read it means that your are not a
member of the expected audience of this article i.e. non-morons.
Which makes your attempt to "evaluate" it as a teacher quite pathetic.
Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
A denial is not a refutation.
Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
A denial is not a refutation.
Definitely.
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:04, Python pisze:
Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
A denial is not a refutation.
Definitely.
Neither insults are
poor trash
The Shit
idiot guru
Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
A denial is not a refutation.
A genial denial is a refutation.
Je vous rappelle que j'ai réfuté l'explication du paradoxe de Langevin pour la
première fois dans l'histoire de l'humanité, et que personne n'a jamais expliqué les choses mieux que moi.
Ici, j'explique le problème de l'anisochronie spatiale (constante par changement de référentiel).
Hier j'expliquais l'égalité de deux temps propre entre un objet accéléré et
un objet en mouvement
galiléen
si le temps impropre était égal,
pour peu que l'objet accéléré parte au repos, et je disais que si le temps impropre variait (ce qui est évident)
les temps propres restaient invariants entre eux (tautologie).
Je faisais remarquer qu'alors, si l'on se plaçait dans le référentiel galiléen d'un objet,
on avait forcément toujours le même temps impropre pour les deux. Or, le temps
impropre d'un référentiel
pour ce référentiel, c'est son propre temps propre (tautologie encore).
Si les temps impropres sont égaux,
alors les temps propres le sont aussi pour lui. Donc il le sont pour tous, un temps propre ne pouvant avoir qu'une seule mesure (sinon c'est absurde).
On me dit que je fais du déni, que je suis extravagant, que je suis fou, que je
suis mythomane, que je suis arrogant.
Même les choses les plus claires et les plus évidentes passent pour des mensonges ou des hallucinations.
Il y a donc, dans le cas Hachel, un immense problème psychiatrique.
On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
A denial is not a refutation.
Le 26/04/2024 à 12:27, Python a écrit :[...]
Le 26/04/2024 à 09:11, Thomas Heger a écrit :
This would eliminate the influence of the speed of light and would allow >>> mutally equal synchronization between clocks at A and B.
But this was not, what Einstein had done.
Instead he had the strange idea, that the time value seen on the rmeote
clock would be the time at the remote location.
Absolutely NOT, there is nothing of that kind in Einstein paper !
from t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
and (2AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c
[i.e. t'A - t_A = (2AB)/c ! What is (2AB)/c if not - obviously -
such a delay (twice the delay actually) you stupidly complain that
it wouldn't have been taken into account ? ? ?]
From these two simple equations you can deduce immediately :
t'_A = t_B + (AB)/c
i.e. time shown on clock A when receiving a signal sent by clock B when
clock B was showing t_B is t'_A = t_B + (AB)/c
(AB)/c is the delay : the time taken by light to travel from B to A.
If you cannot spot this at first read it means that your are not a
member of the expected audience of this article i.e. non-morons.
Which makes your attempt to "evaluate" it as a teacher quite pathetic.
Je crois qu'il confond le docteur Hachel et le docteur Einstein.
La notion d'anisochronie spatiale, c'est Hachel.
Einstein et Hachel posent (2AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c
Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
ce qui d'ailleurs ne veut rien dire (à la limite c'est vrai pour tous les points situé du le plan médiateur (oh un néologisme), mais à l'exclusion de
tous les autres points de l'univers.
Le 27/04/2024 13:28, Richard Hachel a crit :
Le 27/04/2024 10:14, Mikko a crit :
On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Mais Hachel dans son immense gnie rfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
A denial is not a refutation.
A genial denial is a refutation.
Even a genius can be wrong, nevertheless you're not a genius: quite the opposite actually.
Je vous rappelle que j'ai rfut l'explication du paradoxe de Langevin
pour la premire fois dans l'histoire de l'humanit, et que personne
n'a jamais expliqu les choses mieux que moi.
This is a stupid delusion.
Ici, j'explique le problme de l'anisochronie spatiale (constante par
changement de rfrentiel).
Hier j'expliquais l'galit de deux temps propre entre un objet
acclr et un objet en mouvement
galilen
This is wrong.
si le temps impropre tait gal,
This is an irrelevant tautology.
pour peu que l'objet acclr parte au repos, et je disais que si le
temps impropre variait (ce qui est vident)
Between frames, sure. Irrelevant again.
les temps propres restaient invariants entre eux (tautologie).
Silly. So from a = a you deduce a = b. You're not going well these
days, are you?
Je faisais remarquer qu'alors, si l'on se plaait dans le rfrentiel
galilen d'un objet,
on avait forcment toujours le mme temps impropre pour les deux. Or,
le temps impropre d'un rfrentiel pour ce rfrentiel, c'est son
propre temps propre (tautologie encore).
It is not the proper time of the other traveler.
Si les temps impropres sont gaux,
alors les temps propres le sont aussi pour lui. Donc il le sont pour
tous, un temps propre ne pouvant avoir qu'une seule mesure (sinon c'est
absurde).
There is not a single valid logical connection in your paragraph. There
is absolutely no reason for respective proper times to be equal
(except in Galilean Relativity of course).
On me dit que je fais du dni, que je suis extravagant, que je suis
fou, que je suis mythomane, que je suis arrogant.
You are.
Mme les choses les plus claires et les plus videntes passent pour des
mensonges ou des hallucinations.
Il y a donc, dans le cas Hachel, un immense problme psychiatrique.
Definitely: you are a fool.
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 13:04, Python pisze:
Le 27/04/2024 à 13:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:04, Python pisze:
Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
A denial is not a refutation.
Definitely.
Neither insults are
poor trash
The Shit
idiot guru
I have a proof
Le 27/04/2024 à 13:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:04, Python pisze:
Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
A denial is not a refutation.
Definitely.
Neither insults are
poor trash
The Shit
idiot guru
When presented the equation t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A your reaction was that this equation meant that both clocks tick at the same rate. Which is utterly ridiculous.
Le 27/04/2024 à 16:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 13:04, Python pisze:
Le 27/04/2024 à 13:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:04, Python pisze:
Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >>>>>>A denial is not a refutation.
Definitely.
Neither insults are
poor trash
The Shit
idiot guru
I have a proof
No you haven't.
Le 27/04/2024 à 14:22, Python a écrit :
When presented the equation t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A your reaction was that
this equation meant that both clocks tick at the same rate. Which is
utterly ridiculous.
You lie.
YBM wrote:
Let a ray of light start at the ``A time'' $t_{\rm A}$from A towards B, let it at the ``B time'' $t_{\rm B}$ be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arr
ive again at A at the ``A time'' $t'_{\rm A}$.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
t_B-t_A=t'_A-t_B.
?????
Attends, je rêve, là...
Cela veut dire qu'Einstein trouve que les montres sont synchronisées si elles battent à la même vitesse???
C'est ça que tu veux dire???
Parce que l'équation dite ici dessus, c'est ça.
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 16:50, Python pisze:
Le 27/04/2024 à 16:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 13:04, Python pisze:
Le 27/04/2024 à 13:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:04, Python pisze:
Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >>>>>>>A denial is not a refutation.
Definitely.
Neither insults are
poor trash
The Shit
idiot guru
I have a proof
No you haven't.
Yes, I have. A brainwashed idiot waving his arms,
insulting and screaming "NO!!!!!" is changing nothing.
Le 27/04/2024 à 18:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 16:50, Python pisze:
Le 27/04/2024 à 16:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 13:04, Python pisze:
Le 27/04/2024 à 13:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:04, Python pisze:
Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >>>>>>>>A denial is not a refutation.
Definitely.
Neither insults are
poor trash
The Shit
idiot guru
I have a proof
No you haven't.
Yes, I have. A brainwashed idiot waving his arms,
insulting and screaming "NO!!!!!" is changing nothing.
You haven't.
You got sensible arguments showing
Translation of what *you* wrote about "t_B-t_A=t'_A-t_B." :
" Am I dreaming here? Einstein said that clocks are synchronized if
they tick at the same rate? ? ? Is it what you mean?
*Because the equation above means that.* "
I'm definitely not lying.
Le 27/04/2024 à 20:09, Python a écrit :
Translation of what *you* wrote about "t_B-t_A=t'_A-t_B." :
" Am I dreaming here? Einstein said that clocks are synchronized if >> they tick at the same rate? ? ? Is it what you mean?
*Because the equation above means that.* "
I'm definitely not lying.
All these dialogues are turning crazy.
We no longer understand anything you are saying.
Are you sure a psychiatric consultation couldn't help you?
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 13:04, Python pisze:
Apart of insults I have a proof. And you have
nothing, poor trash. Samely as your fellow
idiots.
Le 27/04/2024 à 20:09, Python a écrit :
Translation of what *you* wrote about "t_B-t_A=t'_A-t_B." :
" Am I dreaming here? Einstein said that clocks are synchronized if >> they tick at the same rate? ? ? Is it what you mean?
*Because the equation above means that.* "
I'm definitely not lying.
All these dialogues are turning crazy.
We no longer understand anything you are saying.
Are you sure a psychiatric consultation couldn't help you?
What would a psychiatrist say about a person who
claims that all the physicists in the world are idiots
because they claim that the speed of particles in accelerators
never can exceed the speed of light in vacuum,
and who claims that the protons in the Large Hadron Collider
are moving thousands of times faster than the speed of light?
I don't think this person could be helped by a psychiatrist, though.
He is beyond help.
Paul
To understand people well, you have to read them.
It is not necessary to understand people well, especially abnormal
people. If reading a little shows that a person is so disconnected
from reality that nothing they say is useful or so disconnected
from the common language that nothing they say can be understood
then the person is not worth of more attention.
Mikko
Le 28/04/2024 à 11:20, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
What would a psychiatrist say about a person who
claims that all the physicists in the world are idiots
because they claim that the speed of particles in accelerators
never can exceed the speed of light in vacuum,
and who claims that the protons in the Large Hadron Collider
are moving thousands of times faster than the speed of light?
I don't think this person could be helped by a psychiatrist, though.
He is beyond help.
Paul
That's not what I'm saying, Paul.
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?
Absolutely.
That's what I said.
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
CERN physicists are doing their job.
We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,
I don't understand why a person of your quality would say such nonsense
about me .
Den 28.04.2024 14:41, skrev Richard Hachel:
That's not what I'm saying, Paul.
Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?
Absolutely.
That's what I said.
Le 29/04/2024 à 20:09, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 28.04.2024 14:41, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 28/04/2024 à 11:20, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
What would a psychiatrist say about a person who
claims that the protons in the Large Hadron Collider
are moving thousands of times faster than the speed of light?
That's not what I'm saying, Paul.
| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?
Absolutely.
That's what I said.
Yes, that's what I said.
But I never said that Vo=6927c
OK?
Den 29.04.2024 23:43, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 29/04/2024 à 20:09, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 28.04.2024 14:41, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 28/04/2024 à 11:20, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
What would a psychiatrist say about a person who
claims that the protons in the Large Hadron Collider
are moving thousands of times faster than the speed of light?
That's not what I'm saying, Paul.
| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?
Absolutely.
That's what I said.
Yes, that's what I said.
But I never said that Vo=6927c
OK?
So when you said that the real speed of protons in the LHC
was 6927⋅c, you didn't claim that the protons in the Large
Hadron Collider are moving thousands of times faster than
the speed of light? :-D
So let me rephrase:
What would a psychiatrist say about a person who
claims that all the physicists in the world are idiots
because they claim that the real speed of particles in
accelerators never can exceed the speed of light in vacuum,
and who claims that the real speed of protons in the Large
Hadron Collider are many thousands of times the speed of light?
Could you please tell us what you think the psychiatrist
would say about the person?
In the case of particles with phenomenal speeds like Vr=6927c, this
speed must be transcribed into an observable value,
and we set Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²).
Vo=0.999999990c
On 4/30/2024 7:32 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
In the case of particles with phenomenal speeds like Vr=6927c, thisYou are confusing rapidity with velocity. Rapidity is related to
speed must be transcribed into an observable value,
and we set Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²).
Vo=0.999999990c
velocity but it is not a velocity. It is measured as a hyperbolic angle.
No object can have a velocity greater than c but rapidity can have any
value. The rapidity of light is infinite. The particle with a rapidity
(not velocity) of 6927 will have a velocity of v=0.999999990c.
Le 30/04/2024 à 12:38, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
What would a psychiatrist say about a person who
claims that all the physicists in the world are idiots
because they claim that the real speed of particles in
accelerators never can exceed the speed of light in vacuum,
and who claims that the real speed of protons in the Large
Hadron Collider are many thousands of times the speed of light?
Could you please tell us what you think the psychiatrist
would say about the person?
I would offer him my saddened condolences.
Because it is to be dead to want to argue with the good doctor Hachel on
the theory of relativity without understanding for a single second what
he is saying.
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?
Absolutely.
That's what I said.
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
CERN physicists are doing their job.
We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,
I think you have an intellectual problem.
Listen again: "There will therefore be an observable speed limit that is impassable and will extend to all the particles and all the phenomena of physics".
I bet you won't answer this question!
You claim that the protons in the LHC are movingwith the speed 6927⋅c, and you claim that each proton
Le 01/05/2024 à 13:57, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You claim that the protons in the LHC are moving
with the speed 6927⋅c, and you claim that each proton
is moving around the ring 78 million times per second.
The physicist who designed and run the LHC know that
the machinery (RF-cavites, bending and focusing magnets)
can only work if the speed of the protons is slightly
less than c, which means that each proton is moving around
the ring ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
Do you still insist that you are right, and the physicists
that designed and run the LHC are ignorant of how the LHC
really works?
Absolutly.
I bet you won't answer this question!
And?
If you want to know the observation of things, you must use the notion
of observable speed, using the distance in the laboratory and the time measured by the desynchronized clocks in the laboratory.
If you want to know the reality of things, you have to take the distance traveled in the laboratory, and the correctly measured time which is
that of the proton (he only has a watch). It's very unintuitive, I know.
But things are like that.
It's so counter-intuitive that if I ask the particle to make a complete revolution, it starts from A and returns to A, we'll say to ourselves:
"It's okay, I only have one watch!". And yet we make a mistake, it is
the same physical watch, of course, but it is no different from two
watches placed at A and at B, and whose straight line would have been
curved so that B coincides at A.
R.H.
Le 22/02/2024 à 13:37, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:
We must describe the Langevin as I do it
No, we must understand, first of all, that
*** THERE IS NO PARADOX *** in the Langevin gedanken.
To judge what a man (here me) says, you must first understand this man.
If we give a man who does not know music theory the score of Mozart's
21st, he will only see signs written on paper, and will understand
nothing of the beauty of the work.
If I give you the explanations of Langevin's traveler, it is clear that
you will not be able to appreciate the beauty of the concepts.
For this, you would have to study and understand what I am saying.
There is in Langevin's traveler a paradox that is irresolvable without
going through Hachel. Physicists, not knowing what to do with it, divert
the problem by proposing a very welcome gap time at the time of the
U-turn. ...
SRT is about inertial frames of reference, but 'Langvin's traveller'
cannot travel inertially.
Instead he had to accelerate at an enormous rate, than decelerate with
the same rate but opposite direction, accelerate again and decelerate again.
But from e.g. Hafele-Keating we know, that acceleration has an influence
on clocks.
Therefore acceleration could not be ignored.
TH
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 384 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:21:17 |
| Calls: | 8,173 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,113 |
| Messages: | 5,864,568 |