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.
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.
On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Richard Hachel wrote:on to
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
onlythe 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
intellectuallybe 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,
spacefalse, physically false, for the enormous majority of points in his
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.
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.
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.
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 02/29/2024 09:07 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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.
I need a little time to figure out this "nature _is_ a clock" business...
in the meantime Ross, you mentioned you 'write software programs'...
could you give me the name of one of them so that I can download it and
see if I can crack it, get the serial number or extend the trial to forever? It would be fun for me, (of course i will ask ChatGPT to help me with it, we are hacking and cracking friends now).
Can't help you there.
In the old days what you'd do is put a bit of tape
over the write-protect tab then write "yes" instead
of "no" at the right spot and then it would go, ....
It's like, there was this engineer, and he was an
electrical engineer, and he was a dwarf, which is
secondary but it really adds to the human interest,
so he was a great electrical engineer, and Henry Ford
said "hey I just installed a huge generator at my plant
and it's not working so come fix it". So they guy was
like alright and he trundled over there. He spent a
few days looking it over and peeking around, he was
an electrical engineer so he knew how not to electrocute
himself, so one day he takes a piece of chalk and marks
one of the panels with the piece of chalk and says
"Ford, under that panel is your problem". So, some
guys opened that panel and fixed it there and it fixed it.
So, Ford says "send me the bill" so the guy sends him a
bill for $10,000. Now Ford is curious, so he says
"itemize the bill", so the guy itemizes the bill:
chalk mark: 5 cents
knowing where: 9,999.95.
Been looking at "how does this WebRTC work",
"how simple is writing an operating system these days",
still though sort of "implement a Usenet".
If you want to know about relativity, consult my podcasts,
https youtube @rossfinlayson, under the "Reading from Einstein",
is a reading of "Out of My Later Years", the good parts in
the middle.
I like the idea of this, "nature _is_ a clock",
it's usually called "clock hypothesis", and
what it means is there's a "universal time".
Einstein has one in his theory called "the time",
in quotes, it's called ''the time'', ..., one
has to mime the quotes at the same time.
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/29/2024 09:07 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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.
I need a little time to figure out this "nature _is_ a clock" business...
in the meantime Ross, you mentioned you 'write software programs'...
could you give me the name of one of them so that I can download it and see if I can crack it, get the serial number or extend the trial to forever? It would be fun for me, (of course i will ask ChatGPT to help me with it, we are hacking and cracking friends now).
Can't help you there.
In the old days what you'd do is put a bit of tape
over the write-protect tab then write "yes" instead
of "no" at the right spot and then it would go, ....
It's like, there was this engineer, and he was an
electrical engineer, and he was a dwarf, which is
secondary but it really adds to the human interest,
so he was a great electrical engineer, and Henry Ford
said "hey I just installed a huge generator at my plant
and it's not working so come fix it". So they guy was
like alright and he trundled over there. He spent a
few days looking it over and peeking around, he was
an electrical engineer so he knew how not to electrocute
himself, so one day he takes a piece of chalk and marks
one of the panels with the piece of chalk and says
"Ford, under that panel is your problem". So, some
guys opened that panel and fixed it there and it fixed it.
So, Ford says "send me the bill" so the guy sends him a
bill for $10,000. Now Ford is curious, so he says
"itemize the bill", so the guy itemizes the bill:
chalk mark: 5 cents
knowing where: 9,999.95.
Been looking at "how does this WebRTC work",
"how simple is writing an operating system these days",
still though sort of "implement a Usenet".
If you want to know about relativity, consult my podcasts,
https youtube @rossfinlayson, under the "Reading from Einstein",
is a reading of "Out of My Later Years", the good parts in
the middle.
I like the idea of this, "nature _is_ a clock",
it's usually called "clock hypothesis", and
what it means is there's a "universal time".
Einstein has one in his theory called "the time",
in quotes, it's called ''the time'', ..., one
has to mime the quotes at the same time.
Okay, I looked at your 'nature clock'..
i see a lot of rocks and fire out there..
and what 'appears' to be different time zones
on different planets...
but where is the machinery behind the clock?
you do know what i mean by machinery? ...the
machinery behind a woman's warm smile.
Can you get past the strong illusion of her warm smile and
show me the machinery behind your nature's clock?
Any kid looking at the face of a clock can tear the clock apart
to see the machinery behind it that makes it run.
Where is the machine behind nature's clock?
I don't see it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 384 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:24:00 |
| Calls: | 8,173 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,113 |
| Messages: | 5,864,568 |