• #### Einstein synchronisation

From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 26 17:23:19 2024
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 26 20:17:21 2024
Den 26.02.2024 18:23, skrev Richard Hachel:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After this correction, we have:

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

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

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

He doesn't explain this.

Or worse, he doesn't know it.

R.H.

Please consider this example of synchronism from the real world.

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

All physicists will agree on the following:

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

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

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

Do you agree?

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

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 27 01:46:23 2024
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

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 27 00:29:33 2024
Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

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

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 27 01:11:26 2024
Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :

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

Yes, absolutely.

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

t=L/c

t=1µs (for a transversal observer).

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 27 01:02:36 2024
Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 26.02.2024 18:23, skrev Richard Hachel:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is called the relativity of chronotropy.

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

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

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

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 27 01:41:44 2024
Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 26.02.2024 18:23, skrev Richard Hachel:

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

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

Noooo !!!!

Absolutely not !!!

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

Noooooo !!!

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

tA=t₁ mesuré par A !!!

tA'=(t₁+2µs) mesuré par A !!!

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

Vous savez juste que tB=t₁+1µs

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

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

Non.

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

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

Mais dans le temps présent de C.

Pas de A, pas de B.

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

After this correction, we have:

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

The clocks are now synchronised.

Absolutely not !!!

Only for C. Not for A, or B.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 27 01:23:13 2024
Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 26.02.2024 18:23, skrev Richard Hachel:

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

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

Now we let the flash-light at point A flash.

Well...

At this instant, C_A is showing tA = t₁

Absolutely.

At this instant, C_A is showing tA = t₁

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

tA is measured by C_A at A.

By A.

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

Absolutely.

tB is measured by C_B at B.

BY B !!!

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

BY A !!!

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

Absolutely not...

Einstein dit n'importe quoi.

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

Leur chronotropie est la même, je le veux bien.

Mais elles bâtissent des système de simultanéité différents.

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

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Mon Feb 26 21:12:47 2024
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.

--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Tue Feb 27 12:02:11 2024
On 2024-02-27 01:02:36 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Tue Feb 27 11:58:07 2024
On 2024-02-26 17:23:19 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

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

There is nothing Galilean in the definition.

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

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

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 27 10:47:11 2024
Le 27/02/2024 à 10:58, Mikko a écrit :
There is nothing Galilean in the definition.

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

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

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

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 27 10:56:03 2024
Le 27/02/2024 à 11:02, Mikko a écrit :
It is not possible to absolutely synchronize two watches placed in
different locations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the watches are therefore centered on him.

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

They never will be.

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

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

Ce n'est pas suffisant.

R.H.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 27 11:42:40 2024
Den 27.02.2024 01:46, skrev Python:
Le 27/02/2024 à 01:29, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 26/02/2024 à 22:49, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
On 02/26/2024 11:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

For several weeks now, we have no longer received posts from Paul
B.Andersen in France.
The usenet network no longer works very well and the withdrawal of

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

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

https://www.thunderbird.net

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 27 12:16:59 2024
W dniu 27.02.2024 o 11:02, Mikko pisze:
On 2024-02-27 01:02:36 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Tue Feb 27 09:11:14 2024
On 2/27/2024 5:47 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 27/02/2024 à 10:58, Mikko a écrit :
There is nothing Galilean in the definition.

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

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

The vision of a universal present time, including in the same stationary system, in the same inertial frame of reference, is a Galilean vision of
the world.

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

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

Typical sign of a crank.

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

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

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

That just creates one specific definition of simultaneous.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 27 16:27:21 2024
W dniu 27.02.2024 o 15:11, Volney pisze:
On 2/27/2024 5:47 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 27/02/2024 à 10:58, Mikko a écrit :
There is nothing Galilean in the definition.

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

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

The vision of a universal present time, including in the same
stationary system, in the same inertial frame of reference, is a
Galilean vision of the world.

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

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From trolidous@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Tue Feb 27 08:35:22 2024
On 2/26/24 21:12, The Starmaker wrote:
Richard Hachel wrote:

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

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

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

He doesn't explain this.

Or worse, he doesn't know it.

R.H.

Nature forgot to synchronize.

Nature does not display any...clocks.

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

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

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

I guess if you are looking toward the south it is going
clockwise. I guess you are supposed to point it at due
north. I guess they were invented in the northern hemisphere?
Then when the 'Germans' came up with 'Daylight Saving's
Time' during WWI then everybody copied it? But maybe
that was before then?

Who can really know, who can understand?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 27 19:09:16 2024
Le 27/02/2024 à 15:11, Volney a écrit :

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

But I don't pretend to do that.

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

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

On the contrary: I say that I will never convince you.

Typical sign of a crank.

"My opponent is a crank".

LOL.

My opponent is a crank.
I know the song.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Feb 29 12:40:57 2024
On 2024-02-27 10:47:11 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

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.

Where did Galileo say anything about that?

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Thu Feb 29 09:07:47 2024
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).

--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Mar 2 12:33:02 2024
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).

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, ....

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,
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.

--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Tue Mar 5 10:23:52 2024
The Starmaker wrote:

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).

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, ....

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,
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.

I understand this question might be difficult for you to come up with..

but can you point to one aspect in "nature's clock" that resembles to you
the workings of a clock?

To be clear, maybe I misunderstood you, but "nature _is_ a clock", do you mean

beyond Earth, or just on Earth?

I thought you meant 'out there' is a clock, not your pulse.

Where out there resembles to you
the workings of a clock????

Point to something...

--