• "Time" vs "physical time"

    From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 6 10:02:54 2024
    When a real person in the real world
    says "time" - he/she doesn't refer
    to your mystical crap at all. The
    word usually means one of zone times
    or UTC; TAI is referred rarely, but it
    is still important. NONE of them is
    observer dependent.

    That's why The Shit is opposed so
    fiercely by "laymen". Whet they
    refer as "time" simply doesn't
    have those absurd properties invented
    by your idiot guru for pseudotime he
    liked.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 6 09:15:14 2024
    Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    When a real person in the real world
    says "time" - he/she doesn't refer
    to your mystical crap at all. The
    word usually means one of zone times
    or UTC; TAI is referred rarely, but it
    is still important. NONE of them is
    observer dependent.

    That's why The Shit is opposed so
    fiercely by "laymen". Whet they
    refer as "time" simply doesn't
    have those absurd properties invented
    by your idiot guru for pseudotime he
    liked.

    I don't understand what you're saying.
    Of course, solar time depends on the person's location
    on the globe, and on a solar clock, it's not the same time in Paris and in Amsterdam.
    But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we can
    adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and which
    would give a universal time.
    This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.
    If I take even Romeo and Juliet, sitting on two different benches, in the
    same schoolyard. They look at each other, they make little signs to each
    other. Suddenly Romeo sends a little beep on Juliet's cell phone.
    Human thought is formatted in such a way that the moment when Romeo beeps
    is the same for both speakers, that is to say that this moment is in a
    sort of "universal present", a "plan of universal present time".
    This vision of the world is completely false.
    But the prejudice is so ingrained that anyone who says otherwise will be massacred by the tribe of monkeys that constitute humanity, and who are incapable of peeing without disgorging the toilet bowl.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 6 12:04:12 2024
    Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    [usual boring nonsense]

    That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".

    Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 6 12:25:19 2024
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:04, Python pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    [usual boring nonsense]

    That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".

    Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?

    Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
    not laymen.
    Yes, I can.
    And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
    would be, and he has written it clearly
    enough for anyone able to read (even if not
    clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 6 12:28:06 2024
    Le 06/08/2024 à 12:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:04, Python pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    [usual boring nonsense]

    That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".

    Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?

    Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
    not laymen.

    What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?

    Yes, I can.

    So do it.

    [snip boring bullshit]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 6 12:21:45 2024
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 11:15, Richard Hachel pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    When a real person in the real world
    says "time" - he/she doesn't refer
    to your mystical crap at all. The
    word usually means one of zone times
    or UTC; TAI is referred rarely, but it
    is still important. NONE of them is
    observer dependent.

    That's why The Shit is opposed so
    fiercely by "laymen". Whet they
    refer as "time" simply doesn't
    have those absurd properties invented
    by your idiot guru for pseudotime he
    liked.

    I don't understand what you're saying.
    Of course, solar time depends on the person's location
    None of the mentioned above is "solar time".


    But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we can adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and which
    would give a universal time.
    This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.

    B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
    Time was never local and it's not
    going to become local just because some
    idiots want it to. We can set clocks to
    whatever we want. And we don't want to set
    them to your local idiocy. Face it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 6 12:49:48 2024
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:28, Python pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 12:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:04, Python pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    [usual boring nonsense]

    That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".

    Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?

    Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
    not laymen.

    What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?

    Quotation marks, poor stinker.


    Yes, I can.

    So do it.

    Command some glowing worms instead me, poor
    stinker.


    And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
    would be, and he has written it clearly
    enough for anyone able to read (even if not
    clearly enough for you, poor stinker).



    [snip boring bullshit]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 6 12:52:38 2024
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:28, Python pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 12:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ... We can set clocks to whatever we want.

    Oh. This is a "everything does" day

    No it's not, I've specified directly that
    the local idiocy of your moronic church doesn't,
    poor stinker.

    And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
    would be, and he has written it clearly
    enough for anyone able to read (even if not
    clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 6 12:53:57 2024
    Le 06/08/2024 à 12:49, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:28, Python pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 12:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:04, Python pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    [usual boring nonsense]

    That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".

    Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?

    Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
    not laymen.

    What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?

    Quotation marks, poor stinker.


    Yes, I can.

    So do it.

    Command some glowing worms instead me

    How surprising :-D !

    poor stinker.

    Nice signature Wozniak.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 6 17:05:43 2024
    Le 06/08/2024 à 12:49, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:28, Python pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 12:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:04, Python pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    [usual boring nonsense]

    That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".

    Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?

    Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
    not laymen.

    What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?

    Quotation marks,

    So are you one of the best logicians Humanity ever had or "one
    of the best logicians Humanity ever had"?

    :-D :-D :-D :-P

    poor stinker.

    Nice signature Wozniak.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 6 17:48:57 2024
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:
    On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 15:05:43 +0000, Python wrote:

    Le 06/08/2024 à 12:49, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:28, Python pisze:

    What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?

    Quotation marks,

    So are you one of the best logicians Humanity ever had or "one
    of the best logicians Humanity ever had"?

    :-D :-D :-D :-P

    poor stinker.

    Nice signature Wozniak.

    Hey, Py, why waste your "time" on Wozzie?  He's a clueless zero.
    And he's wrong about everything, including time.  After all, he's
    a disinformation engineer who copies his irrelevant disinformation
    into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the brains
    to be original.


    See, poor trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting and insulting. So you are spitting and
    insulting, together with your fellow idiots.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 6 17:15:43 2024
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 17:05, Python pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 12:49, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:28, Python pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 12:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:04, Python pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    [usual boring nonsense]

    That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".

    Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?

    Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
    not laymen.

    What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?

    Quotation marks,

    So are you one of the best logicians Humanity ever had or "one
    of the best logicians Humanity ever had"?

    Can be both if you wish, poor stinker.
    And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
    would be, and he has written it clearly
    enough for anyone able to read (even if not
    clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Python on Tue Aug 6 15:30:17 2024
    On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 15:05:43 +0000, Python wrote:

    Le 06/08/2024 à 12:49, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:28, Python pisze:

    What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?

    Quotation marks,

    So are you one of the best logicians Humanity ever had or "one
    of the best logicians Humanity ever had"?

    :-D :-D :-D :-P

    poor stinker.

    Nice signature Wozniak.

    Hey, Py, why waste your "time" on Wozzie? He's a clueless zero.
    And he's wrong about everything, including time. After all, he's
    a disinformation engineer who copies his irrelevant disinformation
    into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the brains
    to be original.

    People say, "I'll see you in 15 minutes" or "my trip took an hour"
    which has nothing to do with time zones or time of day.

    Why don't we talk about more interesting stuff. What stikes your
    fancy?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 6 18:06:52 2024
    Le 06/08/2024 à 17:48, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    Nice signature Wozniak.

    Hey, Py, why waste your "time" on Wozzie?  He's a clueless zero.
    And he's wrong about everything, including time.  After all, he's
    a disinformation engineer who copies his irrelevant disinformation
    into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the brains
    to be original.


    See, poor trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting and insulting. So you are spitting and
    insulting, together with your fellow idiots.

    Please, no insults.
    It's ridiculous.
    It's even more so when you have Richard Hachel on the same forum.
    Instead of insulting each other, take into account the Chinese proverb.

    表現得愚蠢五分鐘,比一輩子保持愚蠢好。

    Which means "It's better to look stupid for five minutes than to stay
    stupid for the rest of your life."
    Which also means: "If you don't know something, don't hesitate to ask,
    even if it means looking stupid."
    If you don't know something, or if you haven't understood something (and
    this is true for the big stars of atheory as well as for those who are
    starting out), don't hesitate to ask Richard Hachel.
    The doctor will answer you in an extraordinary way and with notions that surpass everything you've ever read.
    But don't insult each other.
    Don't forget that the smartest among you is like dust compared to the
    beauty of the Hachel system. So, it's not worth killing each other.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Tue Aug 6 19:54:32 2024
    On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 15:48:57 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:

    Hey, Py, why waste your "time" on Wozzie?  He's a clueless zero.
    And he's wrong about everything, including time.  After all, he's
    a disinformation engineer who copies his irrelevant disinformation
    into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the brains
    to be original.

    See, poor trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting and insulting. So you are spitting and
    insulting, together with your fellow idiots.

    See? Wozzie proves what I said: he copies his irrelevant (and false)
    nonsense into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the
    brains to be original.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 6 22:58:28 2024
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 21:54, gharnagel pisze:
    On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 15:48:57 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:

    Hey, Py, why waste your "time" on Wozzie?  He's a clueless zero.
    And he's wrong about everything, including time.  After all, he's
    a disinformation engineer who copies his irrelevant disinformation
    into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the brains
    to be original.

    See, poor trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting and insulting. So you are spitting and
    insulting, together with your fellow idiots.

    See? Wozzie proves what I said: he copies his irrelevant (and false)
    nonsense into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the
    brains to be original.

    See, poor trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting and insulting. So you are spitting and
    insulting, together with your fellow idiots.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 8 08:46:20 2024
    Am Dienstag000006, 06.08.2024 um 12:21 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 11:15, Richard Hachel pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    When a real person in the real world
    says "time" - he/she doesn't refer
    to your mystical crap at all. The
    word usually means one of zone times
    or UTC; TAI is referred rarely, but it
    is still important. NONE of them is
    observer dependent.

    That's why The Shit is opposed so
    fiercely by "laymen". Whet they
    refer as "time" simply doesn't
    have those absurd properties invented
    by your idiot guru for pseudotime he
    liked.

    I don't understand what you're saying.
    Of course, solar time depends on the person's location
    None of the mentioned above is "solar time".


    But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we
    can adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and
    which would give a universal time.
    This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.

    B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
    Time was never local and it's not
    going to become local just because some
    idiots want it to.  We can set clocks to
    whatever we want. And we don't want to set
    them to your local idiocy. Face it.


    Time is a local phenomenon, but for other reason than location on planet
    Earth.

    Earth' surface is what I call 'a time-domaine' which uses the same time
    all around the globe (at the same hight).

    The particular time of sunrise is not really something, which makes a difference, as 'reading of clocks' is time neither.

    You should understand time a kind of rhythm of nature, which we can
    count and which gives us means to determine, how long something takes.

    This is based on some initial event and certain means of synchronisation.

    As the Earth rotates in space, we can take just one meridian, to say,
    that the passing of the sun in zenith at this meridian is 'universal
    noon', while that isn't universal at all.

    That doesn't matter too much.

    But it would matter, for instance, if time would run backwards very far
    away in some remote corners of the universe (from our perspective),
    because that would require, that we treat time as local.

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 8 09:39:33 2024
    W dniu 08.08.2024 o 08:46, Thomas Heger pisze:
    Am Dienstag000006, 06.08.2024 um 12:21 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 11:15, Richard Hachel pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    When a real person in the real world
    says "time" - he/she doesn't refer
    to your mystical crap at all. The
    word usually means one of zone times
    or UTC; TAI is referred rarely, but it
    is still important. NONE of them is
    observer dependent.

    That's why The Shit is opposed so
    fiercely by "laymen". Whet they
    refer as "time" simply doesn't
    have those absurd properties invented
    by your idiot guru for pseudotime he
    liked.

    I don't understand what you're saying.
    Of course, solar time depends on the person's location
    None of the mentioned above is "solar time".


    But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we
    can adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and
    which would give a universal time.
    This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.

    B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
    Time was never local and it's not
    going to become local just because some
    idiots want it to.  We can set clocks to
    whatever we want. And we don't want to set
    them to your local idiocy. Face it.


    Time is a local phenomenon,

    It is neither local, nor a phenomenon.
    "Time in the meaning of a physicist/wannabe physicist"
    may be both in their precious mystical gedankenwelts, but
    the entities referred as "time" by sane people in the real
    world - UTC, TAI, zone times - are coordinates: abstract,
    human made, purely virtual. And, last but not least -
    observer independent.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 8 17:55:04 2024
    Le 08/08/2024 à 19:16, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    R.H.

    You claim that clocks in Norway and France are not synchronous
    even if both show the time UTC + 2h because of the universal
    anisochrony.

    The question is about your anisochrony, so please read this and
    answer the questions.

    I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
    shows 12.00.00
    I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
    on the airport shows 13.30.32.

    The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
    Is this a real time, or is it impossible to know the real time
    because of the universal anisochrony?

    The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
    Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
    or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
    of the universal anisochrony?


    The question is simple:
    Is it possible to calculate the real duration of the journey
    by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo at the departure
    and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?

    Yes or no, please.

    I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
    questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
    in the real world, and not from your fantasy world.

    Paul

    No, it is not difficult to answer your question, it is simply not very practical.
    Discussing relativistic times with planes whose speeds are very Newtonian
    is quite difficult.
    Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel between
    Paris and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high speed from
    Paris to Oslo and vice versa?

    We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.
    L= 13.2.10^5m
    c=3.10^8m/s
    (1/c)=3.333ns/m
    There exists, between Paris and Oslo (the notion of universal present time being finally understood as ridiculous and abstract in any inertial frame
    of reference) a reciprocal delay of information, of real present of
    universe, of ΔTo=4.44ms during a synchronization that nevertheless
    appears perfectly established.

    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 Thu Aug 8 19:16:40 2024
    Den 06.08.2024 11:15, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Of course, solar time depends on the person's location
    on the globe, and on a solar clock, it's not the same time in Paris and
    in Amsterdam.
    But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we can adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and which
    would give a universal time.
    This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.
    If I take even Romeo and Juliet, sitting on two different benches, in
    the same schoolyard. They look at each other, they make little signs to
    each other. Suddenly Romeo sends a little beep on Juliet's cell phone.
    Human thought is formatted in such a way that the moment when Romeo
    beeps is the same for both speakers, that is to say that this moment is
    in a sort of "universal present", a "plan of universal present time".
    This vision of the world is completely false.
    But the prejudice is so ingrained that anyone who says otherwise will be massacred by the tribe of monkeys that constitute humanity, and who are incapable of peeing without disgorging the toilet bowl.

    R.H.

    You claim that clocks in Norway and France are not synchronous
    even if both show the time UTC + 2h because of the universal
    anisochrony.

    The question is about your anisochrony, so please read this and
    answer the questions.

    I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
    shows 12.00.00
    I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
    on the airport shows 13.30.32.

    The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
    Is this a real time, or is it impossible to know the real time
    because of the universal anisochrony?

    The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
    Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
    or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
    of the universal anisochrony?


    The question is simple:
    Is it possible to calculate the real duration of the journey
    by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo at the departure
    and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?

    Yes or no, please.

    I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
    questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
    in the real world, and not from your fantasy world.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 8 20:10:01 2024
    W dniu 08.08.2024 o 19:16, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:

    I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
    questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
    in the real world

    Your fellow idiot Mikko would tell you, poor halfbrain:
    selling fantasy as reality is wqrong. And it is.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 8 20:59:28 2024
    W dniu 08.08.2024 o 20:29, Richard Hachel pisze:
    Le 08/08/2024 à 20:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 08.08.2024 o 19:16, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:

    I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
    questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
    in the real world

    Your fellow idiot Mikko would tell you, poor halfbrain:
    selling fantasy as reality is wqrong. And it is.

    Maciej, you are right, selling fantasy or abstraction for reality is not good.
    But insulting for free is not good either.
    Paul B Andersen is a very good poster

    I have a different opinion. He's a
    fanatic, lying piece of shit, just like
    his fellow idiots, samely casting
    insults and slanders when cornered - you
    just didn't see that because you can't
    corner him.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 8 18:29:50 2024
    Le 08/08/2024 à 20:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 08.08.2024 o 19:16, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:

    I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
    questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
    in the real world

    Your fellow idiot Mikko would tell you, poor halfbrain:
    selling fantasy as reality is wqrong. And it is.

    Maciej, you are right, selling fantasy or abstraction for reality is not
    good.
    But insulting for free is not good either.
    Paul B Andersen is a very good poster, and he has made many web pages
    dealing with relativity. He has made some mistakes, but it is not
    impossible to make him know the real nature of things, and not the many mistakes of relativistic physicists dictated by Einstein, Minkowski or
    others.
    We should not insult him, but only show him where he makes mistakes, as
    for example when he integrates all the segments of an abstract curve, when
    he calculates the proper times of accelerated objects, and observable velocities of these same objects, or when he thinks he can draw a rotating relativistic disk on a simple piece of paper without understanding what
    the Lorentz transformations imply (i.e. an associated contraction of the radius).
    For your part, I invite you to read and understand everything I say about
    RR and why I say it.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Aug 8 21:18:17 2024
    Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote:

    Le 08/08/2024 19:16, "Paul.B.Andersen" a crit :
    R.H.

    You claim that clocks in Norway and France are not synchronous
    even if both show the time UTC + 2h because of the universal
    anisochrony.

    The question is about your anisochrony, so please read this and
    answer the questions.

    I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport shows 12.00.00
    I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
    on the airport shows 13.30.32.

    The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
    Is this a real time, or is it impossible to know the real time
    because of the universal anisochrony?

    The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
    Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
    or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
    of the universal anisochrony?


    The question is simple:
    Is it possible to calculate the real duration of the journey
    by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo at the departure
    and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?

    Yes or no, please.

    I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
    questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
    in the real world, and not from your fantasy world.

    Paul

    No, it is not difficult to answer your question, it is simply not very practical.
    Discussing relativistic times with planes whose speeds are very Newtonian
    is quite difficult.
    Paris to Oslo and vice versa?

    So it is evasions, rather than yes or no.
    FYI, you failed the test.

    Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel between Paris and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high speed from
    We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.
    L= 13.2.10^5m
    c=3.10^8m/s
    (1/c)=3.333ns/m
    There exists, between Paris and Oslo (the notion of universal present time being finally understood as ridiculous and abstract in any inertial frame
    of reference) a reciprocal delay of information, of real present of
    universe, of ?To=4.44ms during a synchronization that nevertheless
    appears perfectly established.

    Your lack of physics knowledge is showing again.
    Precisely this experiment has already been done,
    between CERN and Gan Sasso, middle Italy, with high energy neutrinos.
    (so no tunnel needed)
    The atomic clocks at CERN and Gran Sasso were synchronised
    by refering to the GPS sats that were visible simultaneously
    from both places.

    Does your peculiar physics predict a measured speed of c
    for the highly relativistic neutrinos,
    and if not, what else?

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to than what I have already on Thu Aug 8 19:29:07 2024
    Le 08/08/2024 à 21:18, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :

    Does your peculiar physics predict a measured speed of c
    for the highly relativistic neutrinos,
    and if not, what else?

    Your lack of knowledge in Hachelian physics is once again apparent.
    Do you honestly believe that I am going to answer you with anything other
    than what I have already said?

    Jan

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Aug 8 22:36:48 2024
    Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote:

    Le 08/08/2024 21:18, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a crit :

    Does your peculiar physics predict a measured speed of c
    for the highly relativistic neutrinos,
    and if not, what else?

    Your lack of knowledge in Hachelian physics is once again apparent.

    Indeed, quite. Only Hachel knows about Hachelian physics.

    Do you honestly believe that I am going to answer you with anything other than what I have already said?

    So say it again. Does Hachelian physics predict an observed speed of c
    for relativistic neutrinos traveling the 732 km from CERN to Gran Sasso?
    (with the clocks at CERN and Gran Sasso synchronised by GPS)

    Yes or no will do,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 8 20:43:26 2024
    Le 08/08/2024 à 22:36, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :

    So say it again. Does Hachelian physics predict an observed speed of c
    for relativistic neutrinos traveling the 732 km from CERN to Gran Sasso? (with the clocks at CERN and Gran Sasso synchronised by GPS)

    Yes or no will do,

    Jan

    All good relativistic physics must predict an OBSERVABLE speed of the
    neutrino perfectly equal to c.
    If a physics does not do it, it is not good.
    On the other hand, all physicists must experimentally note that the
    neutrino has this speed, and that no other particle or law of nature can
    exceed it.
    The cause is the universal anisochrony against which we cannot, because we
    are in a concrete physics where we cannot do everything we want, resist or contradict.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Aug 8 23:25:16 2024
    Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote:

    Le 08/08/2024 22:36, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a crit :

    So say it again. Does Hachelian physics predict an observed speed of c
    for relativistic neutrinos traveling the 732 km from CERN to Gran Sasso? (with the clocks at CERN and Gran Sasso synchronised by GPS)

    Yes or no will do,

    Jan

    All good relativistic physics must predict an OBSERVABLE speed of the neutrino perfectly equal to c.
    If a physics does not do it, it is not good.
    On the other hand, all physicists must experimentally note that the
    neutrino has this speed, and that no other particle or law of nature can exceed it.
    The cause is the universal anisochrony against which we cannot, because we are in a concrete physics where we cannot do everything we want, resist or contradict.

    OK, thats clear.
    So Hachelian physics has nothing to add to special relativity,
    in the way of observable fact.
    All it adds are words,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 8 22:45:46 2024
    Le 08/08/2024 à 23:25, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
    All good relativistic physics must predict an OBSERVABLE speed of the
    neutrino perfectly equal to c.
    If a physics does not do it, it is not good.
    On the other hand, all physicists must experimentally note that the
    neutrino has this speed, and that no other particle or law of nature can
    exceed it.
    The cause is the universal anisochrony against which we cannot, because we >> are in a concrete physics where we cannot do everything we want, resist or >> contradict.

    OK, thats clear.
    So Hachelian physics has nothing to add to special relativity,
    in the way of observable fact.
    All it adds are words,

    Jan

    I like this answer for several reasons.
    First because it is sincere, and you believe what you say,
    and I will never prevent someone from expressing their ideas.
    Second because you do not insult for nothing (as others do when they think
    they are intelligent).
    But there are things to correct in what you say.
    You say that I do not bring anything new, that is obviously false.
    You say that one cannot bring new facts, that is doubly false.
    First, all of my concepts and equations form a whole (from simple
    Galilean, accelerated frames of reference to rotating frames of
    reference), and this whole is extraordinarily coherent and logical.
    From a theoretical point of view, I do not have what I called "the
    transfer of the Langevin paradox into apparent relativistic speeds", while
    no physicist in the world has ever been able to stand up to me on that.
    They can't explain why Stella, who will live nine years during her return,
    can see the Earth come back to her at an apparent speed of 4c. It's beyond
    them all. ALL. None of them have ever been able to answer me for even one second. NONE.
    Secondly, there is no experimental contradiction to anything I say. Worse,
    the current RR specifies like me that we cannot exceed c, but is
    completely silent on the possibilities of instantaneous interactions
    (quantum entanglements). I explained why there was no inconsistency
    between the observable speed limit for any particle and any law of the universe, and the instantaneous transfer of information and why the contradiction was only apparent, and purely geometric.
    I am absolutely certain that in a very short time, we will be able to
    prove that everything I said was correct.
    Physicists are making great progress in various techniques, and
    experimental evidence will inevitably come out like fireworks in the years
    to come.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 9 07:30:21 2024
    Am Donnerstag000008, 08.08.2024 um 09:39 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
    W dniu 08.08.2024 o 08:46, Thomas Heger pisze:
    Am Dienstag000006, 06.08.2024 um 12:21 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
    W dniu 06.08.2024 o 11:15, Richard Hachel pisze:
    Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    When a real person in the real world
    says "time" - he/she doesn't refer
    to your mystical crap at all. The
    word usually means one of zone times
    or UTC; TAI is referred rarely, but it
    is still important. NONE of them is
    observer dependent.

    That's why The Shit is opposed so
    fiercely by "laymen". Whet they
    refer as "time" simply doesn't
    have those absurd properties invented
    by your idiot guru for pseudotime he
    liked.

    I don't understand what you're saying.
    Of course, solar time depends on the person's location
    None of the mentioned above is "solar time".


    But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we
    can adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and
    which would give a universal time.
    This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.

    B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
    Time was never local and it's not
    going to become local just because some
    idiots want it to.  We can set clocks to
    whatever we want. And we don't want to set
    them to your local idiocy. Face it.


    Time is a local phenomenon,

    It is neither local, nor a phenomenon.
    "Time in the meaning of a physicist/wannabe physicist"
    may be both in their precious mystical gedankenwelts, but
    the entities referred as "time" by sane people in the real
    world - UTC, TAI, zone times - are coordinates: abstract,
    human made, purely virtual. And, last but not least -
    observer independent.

    Anything observable is a phenomenon.

    Since time is observable, I call it a (locally observable) phenomenon.

    And time is not a coordinate!

    The idea of time is based on counting repeated events, which occur at a (seemingly) constant frequency.

    You may eventually 'serialise' such a process of counting and draw
    something on a chart.

    In this case time would be a coordinate.

    But such a chart ins't a natural phenomenon, but a manmade artifact.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Aug 9 10:42:02 2024
    On 2024-08-08 20:36:48 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote:

    Le 08/08/2024 21:18, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a crit :

    Does your peculiar physics predict a measured speed of c
    for the highly relativistic neutrinos,
    and if not, what else?

    Your lack of knowledge in Hachelian physics is once again apparent.

    Indeed, quite. Only Hachel knows about Hachelian physics.

    True. Only "Dr" Hachel knows about Hachelian fantasies.

    Do you honestly believe that I am going to answer you with anything other
    than what I have already said?

    So say it again. Does Hachelian physics predict an observed speed of c
    for relativistic neutrinos traveling the 732 km from CERN to Gran Sasso? (with the clocks at CERN and Gran Sasso synchronised by GPS)

    Yes or no will do,

    Jan


    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Baldomero Catalano on Fri Aug 9 10:45:42 2024
    On 2024-08-08 23:08:37 +0000, "Baldomero Catalano" said:

    [ … ]

    𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹𝗶_𝗛𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗽_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀
    𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗔𝘀𝗸𝘀_𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻_𝘁𝗼_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀
    https://old.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/ug8XgTmLtsS3

    I had wondered if all these off-topic messages came from the same
    nutter. Now it is clear.

    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots and trolls

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 9 10:50:01 2024
    Le 09/08/2024 à 10:47, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
    On 2024-08-08 21:25:26 +0000, "Roscoe Baklykov" said:


    𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝘀𝗻𝘂𝗯𝗯𝗲𝗱_𝗩𝗣_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗵𝗲’𝘀_𝗝𝗲𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗵_–_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽
    The Republican US presidential candidate has commented on Kamala Harris
    not choosing Josh Shapiro
    https://www.r%74.com/news/602334-trump-democrats-shapiro-jewish/


    [ … ]

    Yet another. When will it stop?

    https://www.ovh.com/abuse/#!/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Roscoe Baklykov on Fri Aug 9 10:47:52 2024
    On 2024-08-08 21:25:26 +0000, "Roscoe Baklykov" said:


    𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝘀𝗻𝘂𝗯𝗯𝗲𝗱_𝗩𝗣_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗵𝗲’𝘀_𝗝𝗲𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗵_–_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽

    The Republican US presidential candidate has commented on Kamala Harris
    not choosing Josh Shapiro https://www.r%74.com/news/602334-trump-democrats-shapiro-jewish/


    [ … ]

    Yet another. When will it stop?


    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots and trolls

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 10 21:49:11 2024
    Den 08.08.2024 19:55, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 08/08/2024 à 19:16, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    R.H.

    You claim that clocks in Norway and France are not synchronous
    even if both show the time UTC + 2h because of the universal
    anisochrony.

    The question is about your anisochrony, so please read this and
    answer the questions.


    Richard, this is the main point!

    If the clocks at the Oslo Airport and Paris Airport are not
    synchronous, what are the consequences?


    I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
    shows 12.00.00
    I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
    on the airport shows 13.30.32.

    The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
    Is this a real time, or is it impossible to know the real time
    because of the universal anisochrony?

    Is T = 1h 30m 32s the real duration of the journey?

    Yes or no please.


    The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
    Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
    or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
    of the universal anisochrony?

    Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame 900 km/s?


    The question is simple:
    Is it possible to calculate the real duration of the journey
    by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo at the departure
    and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?

    Yes or no, please.

    I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
    questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
    in the real world, and not from your fantasy world.

    Paul

    No, it is not difficult to answer your question, it is simply not very practical.

    It is indeed a very practical questions from the real world.

    If it according to your theory is impossible to calculate
    the speed of a plane relative to the ground, measured with one
    clock in Oslo and One clock in Paris, both clocks showing
    UTC+2h, how would you measure the speed of anything at any speed?

    Discussing relativistic times with planes whose speeds are very
    Newtonian is quite difficult.


    We are not discussing "Newtonian speed" or "relativistic speeds",
    whatever they are supposed to mean.

    we are discussing if it is possible to measure speed (dx/dt)
    with two synchronised clocks.

    So please, answer the questions above.

    -------------------------


    Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel
    between Paris and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high speed
    from Paris to Oslo and vice versa?

    As always you will never answer question from the real world,
    but insist on making impossible scenarios.
    (It is the tunnel that is impossible. The middle of the tunnel
    would be 34.9 km below the surface, which is in the magma)

    We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.

    OK, let's assume that the length of the tunnel is exactly 1320 km.
    We are using two clocks showing UTC+2h. But they have to be
    more precisely synchronised than the clocks on the airports
    which can not be expected to be synchronous to much better than
    within a second.

    So we will us two atomic clocks which are synchronised
    by GPS to show UTC+2h to within 1 ns.

    The particle we will use is a photon.

    A photon is sent from Oslo at the time 12.00.000000000 ± 1ns
    and is detected in Paris at the time 12.00.004403046 ± 1ns
    The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s

    A photon is sent from Paris at the time 13.00.000000000 ± 1ns
    and is detected in Oslo at the time 13.00.004403046 ± 1ns
    The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s

    Any problem with this?

    L= 13.2.10^5m
    c=3.10^8m/s
    (1/c)=3.333ns/m
    There exists, between Paris and Oslo (the notion of universal present
    time being finally understood as ridiculous and abstract in any inertial frame of reference) a reciprocal delay of information, of real present
    of universe, of ΔTo=4.44ms during a synchronization that nevertheless appears perfectly established.

    Is this an incredible convoluted attempt to say that the transit time
    for light to go through the tunnel from Oslo to Paris or vice versa
    is ≈ 4.44 ms ?

    What is ridiculous about this simple fact?


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 10 21:05:04 2024
    Le 10/08/2024 à 21:48, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

    L= 13.2.10^5m
    c=3.10^8m/s
    (1/c)=3.333ns/m
    There exists, between Paris and Oslo (the notion of universal present
    time being finally understood as ridiculous and abstract in any inertial
    frame of reference) a reciprocal delay of information, of real present
    of universe, of ΔTo=4.44ms during a synchronization that nevertheless
    appears perfectly established.

    Is this an incredible convoluted attempt to say that the transit time
    for light to go through the tunnel from Oslo to Paris or vice versa
    is ≈ 4.44 ms ?

    What is ridiculous about this simple fact?


    Paul

    Yes and no.

    If a professor of Newtonian physics asks Richard Hachel the question: "How
    long will it take for light to cross the tunnel and go from Paris to Oslo,
    or from Oslo to Paris?". He will be answered 4.44ms.
    If a professor of quantum physics asks the same question, Dr. Hachel
    (because he is crazy) will answer: "Both 8.88ms and 0 ms."

    And all three answers will be correct.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 10 21:35:46 2024
    Le 10/08/2024 à 21:48, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 08.08.2024 19:55, skrev Richard Hachel:

    OK, let's assume that the length of the tunnel is exactly 1320 km.
    We are using two clocks showing UTC+2h. But they have to be
    more precisely synchronised than the clocks on the airports
    which can not be expected to be synchronous to much better than
    within a second.

    So we will us two atomic clocks which are synchronised
    by GPS to show UTC+2h to within 1 ns.

    The particle we will use is a photon.

    A photon is sent from Oslo at the time 12.00.000000000 ± 1ns
    and is detected in Paris at the time 12.00.004403046 ± 1ns
    The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s

    A photon is sent from Paris at the time 13.00.000000000 ± 1ns
    and is detected in Oslo at the time 13.00.004403046 ± 1ns
    The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s

    Any problem with this?

    No.

    Absolutely not.

    All you said is correct.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 11 19:33:20 2024
    Den 10.08.2024 23:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 10/08/2024 à 21:48, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 08.08.2024 19:55, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel between Paris and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high speed from Paris to Oslo and vice versa?

    We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.

    OK, let's assume that the length of the tunnel is exactly 1320 km.
    We are using two clocks showing UTC+2h. But they have to be
    more precisely synchronised than the clocks on the airports
    which can not be expected to be synchronous to much better than
    within a second.

    So we will use two atomic clocks which are synchronised
    by GPS to show UTC+2h to within 1 ns.

    The particle we will use is a photon.

    A photon is sent from Oslo at the time 12.00.000000000 ± 1ns
    and is detected in Paris at the time   12.00.004403046 ± 1ns
    The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s

    A photon is sent from Paris at the time 13.00.000000000 ± 1ns
    and is detected in Oslo at the time     13.00.004403046 ± 1ns
    The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s

    Any problem with this?


    No.

    Absolutely not.

    All you said is correct.

    R.H.


    OK. So you have realised that it is possible to synchronise
    a clock in Oslo and a clock in Paris to within 1 ns if
    we use the GPS.

    But have you realised that the clocks on the wall in
    Oslo Airport and Paris Airport are synchronous to within
    few seconds (probably better)?

    Please answer the question below, and don't flee yet again.

    Clocks in Oslo and Paris are showing the time UTC+2h.

    I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
    shows 12.00.00
    I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
    on the airport shows 13.30.32.

    The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s

    Question #1:
    ============
    Is it possible to calculate the duration of the journey (measured
    in the ground frame) by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo
    at the departure and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?

    Yes or no, please.


    The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.

    Question #2:
    ============
    Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
    or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
    of the universal anisochrony?

    Yes or no, please.


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Sun Aug 11 20:05:43 2024
    On 2024-08-11 17:33:20 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen said:

    Den 10.08.2024 23:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 10/08/2024 21:48, "Paul.B.Andersen" a crit :
    Den 08.08.2024 19:55, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel
    between Paris and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high
    speed from Paris to Oslo and vice versa?

    We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.

    OK, let's assume that the length of the tunnel is exactly 1320 km.
    We are using two clocks showing UTC+2h. But they have to be
    more precisely synchronised than the clocks on the airports
    which can not be expected to be synchronous to much better than
    within a second.

    Well, I've been to both airports, but never at the same time, so I
    haven't the chance to compare their clocks.

    So we will use two atomic clocks which are synchronised
    by GPS to show UTC+2h to within 1 ns.

    The particle we will use is a photon.

    A photon is sent from Oslo at the time 12.00.000000000 1ns
    and is detected in Paris at the time 12.00.004403046 1ns
    The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 68 m/s

    A photon is sent from Paris at the time 13.00.000000000 1ns
    and is detected in Oslo at the time 13.00.004403046 1ns
    The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 68 m/s

    Any problem with this?


    No.

    Absolutely not.

    All you said is correct.

    R.H.


    OK. So you have realised that it is possible to synchronise
    a clock in Oslo and a clock in Paris to within 1 ns if
    we use the GPS.

    But have you realised that the clocks on the wall in
    Oslo Airport and Paris Airport are synchronous to within
    few seconds (probably better)?

    Please answer the question below, and don't flee yet again.

    Clocks in Oslo and Paris are showing the time UTC+2h.

    I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
    shows 12.00.00
    I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
    on the airport shows 13.30.32.

    The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s

    Question #1:
    ============
    Is it possible to calculate the duration of the journey (measured
    in the ground frame) by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo
    at the departure and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?

    Yes or no, please.


    The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.

    Question #2:
    ============
    Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
    or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
    of the universal anisochrony?

    Yes or no, please.


    --
    Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
    in England until 1987.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 11 19:05:59 2024
    Le 11/08/2024 à 19:32, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 10.08.2024 23:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 10/08/2024 à 21:48, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 08.08.2024 19:55, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel between Paris
    and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high speed from Paris to Oslo and
    vice versa?

    We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.

    OK, let's assume that the length of the tunnel is exactly 1320 km.
    We are using two clocks showing UTC+2h. But they have to be
    more precisely synchronised than the clocks on the airports
    which can not be expected to be synchronous to much better than
    within a second.

    So we will use two atomic clocks which are synchronised
    by GPS to show UTC+2h to within 1 ns.

    The particle we will use is a photon.

    A photon is sent from Oslo at the time 12.00.000000000 ± 1ns
    and is detected in Paris at the time   12.00.004403046 ± 1ns
    The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s

    A photon is sent from Paris at the time 13.00.000000000 ± 1ns
    and is detected in Oslo at the time     13.00.004403046 ± 1ns
    The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s

    Any problem with this?


    No.

    Absolutely not.

    All you said is correct.

    R.H.


    OK. So you have realised that it is possible to synchronise
    a clock in Oslo and a clock in Paris to within 1 ns if
    we use the GPS.

    But have you realised that the clocks on the wall in
    Oslo Airport and Paris Airport are synchronous to within
    few seconds (probably better)?

    Please answer the question below, and don't flee yet again.

    Clocks in Oslo and Paris are showing the time UTC+2h.

    I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
    shows 12.00.00
    I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
    on the airport shows 13.30.32.

    The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s

    Question #1:
    ============
    Is it possible to calculate the duration of the journey (measured
    in the ground frame) by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo
    at the departure and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?

    Yes or no, please.


    The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.

    Question #2:
    ============
    Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
    or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
    of the universal anisochrony?

    Yes or no, please.

    The principles of relativity do not apply to your example because the time measurements you use are of the order of seconds, and the speeds you use
    are far too low (airliners) to have consistent measurements. Can you take
    more classical examples of RR where we go faster or measure smaller
    quantities of time?The principles of relativity do not apply to your
    example because the time measurements you use are of the order of seconds,
    and the speeds you use are far too low (airliners) to have consistent measurements. Can you take more classical examples of RR where we go
    faster or measure smaller quantities of time?


    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 12 21:18:00 2024
    Den 11.08.2024 21:05, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 11/08/2024 à 19:32, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

    I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
    shows 12.00.00
    I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
    on the airport shows 13.30.32.

    The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s

    Question #1:
    ============
    Is it possible to calculate the duration of the journey (measured
    in the ground frame) by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo
    at the departure and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?

    Yes or no, please.


    The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.

    Question #2:
    ============
    Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
    or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
    of the universal anisochrony?

    Yes or no, please.


    The principles of relativity do not apply to your example because the
    time measurements you use are of the order of seconds, and the speeds
    you use are far too low (airliners) to have consistent measurements.

    A very strange (read stupid) statement indeed. :-D

    Let's redo the calculation.
    Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second.

    I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on
    the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s
    I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when
    the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s.
    The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s
    The distance in the ground frame between the airports is
    L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km

    v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h

    Please explain why this is not a consistent measurement. :-D

    But forget this incredible stupidity of yours:
    "the speeds are far too low (airliners) to have
    consistent measurements."

    ------------------------------------------

    This is about synchronisation of clocks! =========================================

    Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:

    You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
    are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
    showing GMT + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
    synchronous.

    Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
    (To within few seconds|
    |

    Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
    But I keep explaining it to you.

    This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.

    This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time” |>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
    logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.


    The point is that if the clocks in Oslo and Paris
    were not synchronous, then it would be impossible
    to measure the speed of the aeroplane in the ground frame
    with the clocks in Oslo and Paris.

    Are you still claiming that the clocks in Oslo and Paris,
    showing UTC + 2h, are NOT synchronous due to "universal anisochrony"?

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)