Time is what clocks indicate, and we need clocks
to be synchronized (i.e. indicating t'=t).
Yes, that's that simple.

What you're "refuting" is not some of your
delusional "law of nature", it's a practical
directive for the clock makers. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru.

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

Le 08/12/2024 à 04:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

Time is what clocks indicate, and we need clocks
to be synchronized (i.e. indicating t'=t).
Yes, that's that simple.

What you're "refuting" is not some of your
delusional "law of nature", it's a practical
directive for the clock makers. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru.

I am writing a pdf on the principles of special relativity.
I am, in fact, currently on the chapter dealing with the relativity of
time.
Writing a book is a very long process, and my book will not be published
before at least January 2036.
But rest assured, you may be able to have a few pages in pdf before then. Otherwise: I do not understand your Islamic positions concerning the
relative nature of time which seems to be well accepted now.
You look like an Arab fanatic shouting "Allahu Akbar and Muhammad the bloodthirsty pedophile is his prophet" and throwing himself on little
girls to slit their throats (and don't worry, this is only the beginning
of what awaits Western science).
You keep repeating "t'=t" like a fanatic who repeats "Allah Akbar", but
that is not true, that is not reality.
It is a pity that you waste your time on such outlandish allegations that
no serious person can read, much less accept.

R.H.

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

W dniu 08.12.2024 o 10:49, Richard Hachel pisze:

Le 08/12/2024 à 04:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

Time is what clocks indicate, and we need clocks
to be synchronized (i.e. indicating t'=t).
Yes, that's that simple.

What you're "refuting" is not some of your
delusional "law of nature", it's a practical
directive for the clock makers. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru.

I am writing a pdf on the principles of special relativity.
I am, in fact, currently on the chapter dealing with the relativity of
time.
Writing a book is a very long process, and my book will not be published before at least January 2036.
But rest assured, you may be able to have a few pages in pdf before then. Otherwise: I do not understand your Islamic positions concerning the
relative nature of time which seems to be well accepted now.

It may be well accepted by you and your fellow
idiots. Nobody cares.

You look like an Arab fanatic shouting

So you do. But the reality doesn't give a damn
to your absurd chanting, time remains galilean.
Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

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

W dniu 08.12.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:

Le 08/12/2024 à 04:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

Time is what clocks indicate, and we need clocks
to be synchronized (i.e. indicating t'=t).
Yes, that's that simple.

No it is not that simple.

Yes, it is. A fanatic idiot screaming "NOOOO!!"
and stamping his feet is not changing anything.

Let two separated clocks A and B, as identical as possible,

Go fuck yourself, trash, the clocks are not
going to be identical just because some religious
maniacs have imagined somehow that's how things
should be.
We need the clocks to be synchronized, i.e .
indicating t'=t. And we don't need them at all
to be identical, symmetrical etc. Nobody really
cares that your bunch of idiots has announced
such clocks "improper". Face it, poor stinker.

How to *practically* check if they are synchronized or not?

A relativistic idiot considering his moronic
gedanken delusions doesn't have to know,
GPS professionals dealing with the reality
have somehow managed.

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

W dniu 08.12.2024 o 21:07, Python pisze:

[snip demented rant]

So, Woz, given two clocks how do you practically check if they are synchronized

Practical checking, poor stinker, means: not
sticking to some Holy Procedures invented by an
idiot guru in some medieval ages.

Practical solutions are made by local observers
considering their best knowledge AND the details
of their specific situation.

You're not going to predict them from a nice
armchair in your nice office. Or, at least,
you're not going to predict them correctly.
Face it, poor stinker.





and how do you ensure they are ?

The same way your bunch of idiots use: just by
ensuring they are.

This should be easy-peasy for an "information engineer", is it?

And it is. I send one or some THINKING individual/s
to the place and he/she/they solve the problem.
Or maybe die trying... but if it happens - I
send another team. That's how it works, poor
stinker.






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

W dniu 09.12.2024 o 07:37, Python pisze:

Le 09/12/2024 à 05:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 08.12.2024 o 21:07, Python pisze:

[snip demented rant]

So, Woz, given two clocks how do you practically check if they are
synchronized

Practical checking, poor stinker, means: not
sticking to some Holy Procedures invented by an
idiot guru in some medieval ages.

Practical solutions are made by local observers
considering their best knowledge AND the details
of their specific situation.

You're not going to predict them from a nice
armchair in your nice office. Or, at least,
you're not going to predict them correctly.
Face it, poor stinker.

A lot of rants and insults, but still no practical procedure.

In oppolsition to The Holiest Procedure provided by
your idiot guru; which doesn't work - but provides
a magnificient symmetry instead.

Changes nothing. The time of the real world remains
galilean and the mumble of your idiot guru remains
not even consistent.

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

W dniu 10.12.2024 o 07:51, Python pisze:

Le 09/12/2024 à 22:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 09.12.2024 o 07:37, Python pisze:

Le 09/12/2024 à 05:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 08.12.2024 o 21:07, Python pisze:

[snip demented rant]

So, Woz, given two clocks how do you practically check if they are
synchronized

Practical checking, poor stinker, means: not
sticking to some Holy Procedures invented by an
idiot guru in some medieval ages.

Practical solutions are made by local observers
considering their best knowledge AND the details
of their specific situation.

You're not going to predict them from a nice
armchair in your nice office. Or, at least,
you're not going to predict them correctly.
Face it, poor stinker.

A lot of rants and insults, but still no practical procedure.

In oppolsition to [SR] [snip rant]

SR provides a practical procedure.

Really? Are you able to apply it on Earth surface?
How about GPS?

Quite the opposite: your rant remains inconsistent rumbling

I've provided a direct proof and your rants
are changing nothing, poor stinker.

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

Le 10/12/2024 à 19:04, Python a écrit :

How do you practically check your "t = t'" equations for clocks standing next to
each other? Then for distant mutually at rest clocks with no gravity involved?

There are things that can be solved with simple common sense, and others
that require minimal Cartesian thinking.
First a priori: the earth is flat, because it is MANIFEST that there is
water in the seas. If it were round, the water would fall on the sides,
and there was no water in the seas when God created the sky and the earth.
Now, QED, there is water in the seas, THEREFORE the earth is flat.
Second a priori (Ole Römer): "the speed of light is a limiting speed
because when we approach Jupiter we observe moons that rotate faster and faster, and the opposite when we move away from it (which is true so far), THEREFORE (and here comes a huge bias) the speed of light is a limiting
speed, and Mr. Hachel, as the Nostradamic prophecies specify, should not
be believed when he contradicts me". Now, we must introduce here
Descartes' methodical doubt. There is certainly a longitudinal Doppler
effect, you would have to be really stupid not to notice it. But one can
doubt its origin: "Is it a classic Doppler effect, photons being small
things that go at a certain speed from here to there crossing a rigid and absolute hyperplane of "present time"? which is the universal belief, or
on the contrary "small instantaneous transfers of energy in the hyperplane specific to the receiver?". Who is lying? Who is telling the truth?
Römer or Hachel?
As for the equality t'=t, that does not mean much.
However, one should not doubt for long the fact that two clocks placed in
the same place and stationary between them mark the same time, and have
the same chronotropy, because apart from the fact that the watchmaker did
his job badly, it is difficult to see why one watch would differ from the
other and why.
It is also not necessary to doubt that two watches far apart
but placed in the same inertial frame of reference will have different chronotropies.
By on the other hand, one can doubt, without given proof, that two watches placed in different places of the same stationary system RECIPROCALLY mark
the same time for the same event, and one can also doubt that two watches
even close to each other, beat at the same speed if they evolve in
significant relativistic displacement.

R.H.

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

W dniu 10.12.2024 o 19:04, Python pisze:

Le 10/12/2024 à 09:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 10.12.2024 o 07:51, Python pisze:

Le 09/12/2024 à 22:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 09.12.2024 o 07:37, Python pisze:

Le 09/12/2024 à 05:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 08.12.2024 o 21:07, Python pisze:

[snip demented rant]

So, Woz, given two clocks how do you practically check if they
are synchronized

Practical checking, poor stinker, means: not
sticking to some Holy Procedures invented by an
idiot guru in some medieval ages.

Practical solutions are made by local observers
considering their best knowledge AND the details
of their specific situation.

You're not going to predict them from a nice
armchair in your nice office. Or, at least,
you're not going to predict them correctly.
Face it, poor stinker.

A lot of rants and insults, but still no practical procedure.

In oppolsition to [SR] [snip rant]

SR provides a practical procedure.

Really? Are you able to apply it on Earth surface?
How about GPS?

Before considering GPS, consider only two clocks.

No answer. Of course, poor stinker.


Before dealing with

complex stuff, let's start with simple stuff.

How do you practically check your "t = t'" equations for clocks standing > next to each other?

I read the numbers they display and I compare them.



Then for distant mutually at rest clocks with no

gravity involved?

I don't. Not interested in some sick
delusions imagined by an insane, mumbling
inconsistently idiot.

Then we could consider more complex setup.

Quite the opposite: your rant remains inconsistent rumbling

I've provided a direct proof and your rants
are changing nothing, poor stinker.

Maciej, you couldn't recognize what a "proof" is

Python, I derived a direct prof and some
poor fanatic idiots ranting, spitting
and slandering are changing nothing.

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

Le 10/12/2024 à 20:50, Python a écrit :

Le 10/12/2024 à 20:01, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 10/12/2024 à 19:04, Python a écrit :

How do you practically check your "t = t'" equations for clocks standing next to
each other? Then for distant mutually at rest clocks with no gravity involved?

There are things that can be solved with simple common sense, and others that
require minimal Cartesian thinking.
First a priori: the earth is flat, because it is MANIFEST that there is water in
the seas. If it were round, the water would fall on the sides, and there was no
water in the seas when God created the sky and the earth. Now, QED, there is water
in the seas, THEREFORE the earth is flat.
Second a priori (Ole Römer): "the speed of light is a limiting speed because
when we approach Jupiter we observe moons that rotate faster and faster, and the
opposite when we move away from it (which is true so far), THEREFORE (and here
comes a huge bias) the speed of light is a limiting speed, and Mr. Hachel, as the
Nostradamic prophecies specify, should not be believed when he contradicts me".
Now, we must introduce here Descartes' methodical doubt. There is certainly a
longitudinal Doppler effect, you would have to be really stupid not to notice it.
But one can doubt its origin: "Is it a classic Doppler effect, photons being small
things that go at a certain speed from here to there crossing a rigid and absolute
hyperplane of "present time"? which is the universal belief, or on the contrary
"small instantaneous transfers of energy in the hyperplane specific to the >> receiver?". Who is lying? Who is telling the truth?
Römer or Hachel?
As for the equality t'=t, that does not mean much.
However, one should not doubt for long the fact that two clocks placed in the
same place and stationary between them mark the same time, and have the same >> chronotropy, because apart from the fact that the watchmaker did his job badly, it
is difficult to see why one watch would differ from the other and why.
It is also not necessary to doubt that two watches far apart
but placed in the same inertial frame of reference will have different
chronotropies.
By on the other hand, one can doubt, without given proof, that two watches >> placed in different places of the same stationary system RECIPROCALLY mark the same
time for the same event, and one can also doubt that two watches even close to each
other, beat at the same speed if they evolve in significant relativistic
displacement.

R.H.

Irrelevant, and idiotic, bunch of nonsense.

Two clocks placed in the same place and in the same inertial frame of reference, therefore stationary, necessarily have the same notion of simultaneity (they are isochronous, that is to say that they mark the same
time in a reciprocal way), and they have the same chronotropy (that is to
say that the internal mechanism of their watch beats in the same way).
But saying this, we say nothing, or rather that a swallow is a swallow.
It is perfectly obvious that two watches placed in the same place, at the
same time, and in the same frame of reference are nothing but the same
watch, and it is perfectly stupid to think that there can exist
differences with itself in a single watch.

R.H.

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

W dniu 10.12.2024 o 20:45, Python pisze:

Le 10/12/2024 à 20:20, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...

How do you practically check your "t = t'" equations for clocks
standing next to each other?

I read the numbers they display and I compare them.

Good.

Then for distant mutually at rest clocks with no

gravity involved?

I don't.

Sad. You don't. You can't. We can.

No you can't either. Sorry, poor stinker.
There is a small technical detail: those
"distant clocks" are not moving wrt each
other.
How do you ensure that? By assuming the
condition a priori; and you can do it because
you're only applying your moronic procedure
in your moronic gedanken delusions. Am I
incorrect, poor stinker?
You're only believing your idiocy is a great
practical procedure - because your mad
religion is pumping you with gedanken fairy
tales where it works fine.

Putting two clocks aside is not quite a delusion.

It was not about "putting two clocks aside".
it was about putting them aside in some space
lacking any gravity and after ensuring (by some
untold magic) that they're not moving wrt each
other. Practically - both these requirements
are some utter absurd.

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

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 20:17, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 08:17, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 10.12.2024 o 20:45, Python pisze:

Le 10/12/2024 à 20:20, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...

How do you practically check your "t = t'" equations for clocks
standing next to each other?

I read the numbers they display and I compare them.

Good.

Then for distant mutually at rest clocks with no

gravity involved?

I don't.

Sad. You don't. You can't. We can.

No you can't either. Sorry, There is a small technical detail: those
"distant clocks" are not moving wrt each
other.
How do you ensure that? By assuming the
condition a priori;and you can do it because
you're only applying your procedure
in your gedanken. Am I incorrect ?

You are. I put two clocks at the extremity of a rod.

Yeah, sure - "distant" clocks at the
extremity of the rod - very practical
indeed, isn't it, poor stinker?


This is quite

reasonable to assume they are at rest wrt to each other, isn't it?

No. Take 2 bodies - one orbitting the other.
Join them with a rod, do you secure their relative
immobility, poor stinker? Yeah, you imagined and insisted
Gdańsk and Warsaw aren't moving wrt each other. You're
such an idiot.

You're only believing [into] a great
practical procedure - because your is pumping you with gedanken fairy
tales where it works fine.

Nope. If such a procedure would fail it could be checked.

How could it fail if you have never used it.

No magic, and if gravity could not be ignored in a given practical setup

So, where, precisely, was your idiocy
applied. In practice.

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

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 21:56, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 21:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 20:17, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 08:17, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 10.12.2024 o 20:45, Python pisze:

Le 10/12/2024 à 20:20, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...

How do you practically check your "t = t'" equations for clocks
standing next to each other?

I read the numbers they display and I compare them.

Good.

Then for distant mutually at rest clocks with no

gravity involved?

I don't.

Sad. You don't. You can't. We can.

No you can't either. Sorry, There is a small technical detail: those
"distant clocks" are not moving wrt each
other.
How do you ensure that? By assuming the
condition a priori;and you can do it because
you're only applying your procedure
in your gedanken. Am I incorrect ?

You are. I put two clocks at the extremity of a rod.

Yeah, sure - "distant" clocks  at the
extremity of the rod - very practical
indeed, isn't it?


  This is quite

reasonable to assume they are at rest wrt to each other, isn't it?

No. Take 2 bodies - one orbitting the other.
Join them with a rod, do you secure their relative
immobility ? Yeah, you imagined and insisted
Gdańsk and Warsaw aren't moving wrt each other. You're
such an idiot.

What is the relative speed between Gdansk and Warsaw then?

Would have to calculate.
Another example. Let's take a rod, 2 clocks at each
end, it is rotating around its center. Is synchronizing
the clocks with the Holiest Procedure valid here? Does
the rod secure the clocks to be in rest wrt each
other, poor stinker?

You're only believing [into] a great
practical procedure - because your is pumping you with gedanken fairy
tales where it works fine.

Nope. If such a procedure would fail it could be checked.

How could it fail if you  have never used it.

No magic, and if gravity could not be ignored in a given practical setup

So, where, precisely, was your [method]
applied. In practice.

I asked for yours

And I asked where, precisely, was your idiocy
applied. In practice.
No answer? Of course, poor stinker.

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

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 22:51, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 22:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 21:56, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 21:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 20:17, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 08:17, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 10.12.2024 o 20:45, Python pisze:

Le 10/12/2024 à 20:20, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...

How do you practically check your "t = t'" equations for clocks >>>>>>>>> standing next to each other?

I read the numbers they display and I compare them.

Good.

Then for distant mutually at rest clocks with no

gravity involved?

I don't.

Sad. You don't. You can't. We can.

No you can't either. Sorry, There is a small technical detail: those >>>>>> "distant clocks" are not moving wrt each
other.
How do you ensure that? By assuming the
condition a priori;and you can do it because
you're only applying your procedure
in your gedanken. Am I incorrect ?

You are. I put two clocks at the extremity of a rod.

Yeah, sure - "distant" clocks  at the
extremity of the rod - very practical
indeed, isn't it?


  This is quite

reasonable to assume they are at rest wrt to each other, isn't it?

No. Take 2 bodies - one orbitting the other.
Join them with a rod, do you secure their relative
immobility ? Yeah, you imagined and insisted
Gdańsk and Warsaw aren't moving wrt each other. You're
such an idiot.

What is the relative speed between Gdansk and Warsaw then?

Would have to calculate.

LOL!!!

OK, if you ask.
From wiki - Gdańsk is 54°20′51″N 18°38′43″E,
Warsaw is 52°13′56″N 21°00′30″E.
Assuming the average Earth radius 6368km, Gdańsk
is 3713.3km distant from Earth axis, Warsaw is
3901.5km. That gives 972.1km/h and 1021.4km/h
of linear speed. The difference is 49.3km/h.
Good enough for you as the first estimation,
poor stinker?
Sure, the velocities are not quite parallel;
the final result will be slightly bigger.

You're only believing [into] a great
practical procedure - because your is pumping you with gedanken fairy >>>>>> tales where it works fine.

Nope. If such a procedure would fail it could be checked.

How could it fail if you  have never used it.

No magic, and if gravity could not be ignored in a given practical
setup

So, where, precisely, was your [method]
applied. In practice.

I asked for yours

And I asked where, precisely, was your idiocy
applied. In practice.
No answer? Of course,

Many labs where distant events are involved and high time resolution is > needed, inside CERN detectors for instance.

The source?

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

W dniu 15.12.2024 o 10:53, Python pisze:

Le 12/12/2024 à 04:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 22:51, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 22:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 21:56, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 21:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 20:17, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 08:17, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 10.12.2024 o 20:45, Python pisze:

Le 10/12/2024 à 20:20, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...

How do you practically check your "t = t'" equations for >>>>>>>>>>> clocks standing next to each other?

I read the numbers they display and I compare them.

Good.

Then for distant mutually at rest clocks with no

gravity involved?

I don't.

Sad. You don't. You can't. We can.

No you can't either. Sorry, There is a small technical detail: >>>>>>>> those
"distant clocks" are not moving wrt each
other.
How do you ensure that? By assuming the
condition a priori;and you can do it because
you're only applying your procedure
in your gedanken. Am I incorrect ?

You are. I put two clocks at the extremity of a rod.

Yeah, sure - "distant" clocks  at the
extremity of the rod - very practical
indeed, isn't it?


  This is quite

reasonable to assume they are at rest wrt to each other, isn't it? >>>>>>

No. Take 2 bodies - one orbitting the other.
Join them with a rod, do you secure their relative
immobility ? Yeah, you imagined and insisted
Gdańsk and Warsaw aren't moving wrt each other. You're
such an idiot.

What is the relative speed between Gdansk and Warsaw then?

Would have to calculate.

LOL!!!

OK, if you ask.
 From wiki - Gdańsk is 54°20′51″N 18°38′43″E,
Warsaw is 52°13′56″N 21°00′30″E.
Assuming the average Earth radius  6368km, Gdańsk
is 3713.3km distant from Earth axis, Warsaw is
3901.5km. That gives 972.1km/h and 1021.4km/h
of linear speed. The difference is 49.3km/h.
Good enough for you as the first estimation,
poor stinker?
Sure, the velocities are not quite parallel;
the final result will be slightly bigger.

You're only believing [into] a great
practical procedure - because your is pumping you with gedanken >>>>>>>> fairy
tales where it works fine.

Nope. If such a procedure would fail it could be checked.

How could it fail if you  have never used it.

No magic, and if gravity could not be ignored in a given
practical setup

So, where, precisely, was your [method]
applied. In practice.

I asked for yours

And I asked where, precisely, was your idiocy
applied. In practice.
No answer? Of course,

Many labs where distant events are involved and high time resolution
is > needed, inside CERN detectors for instance.

The source?

http://ttc.web.cern.ch/LEB00Sync.pdf

But the document is signed "Varela, J", not
"Einstein, A", poor stinker. And it's definitely
far, far, far more elaborate than the "masterpiece"
of your idiot guru.

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

W dniu 15.12.2024 o 13:05, Python pisze:

Le 15/12/2024 à 12:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 15.12.2024 o 10:53, Python pisze:

Le 12/12/2024 à 04:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 22:51, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 22:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 21:56, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 21:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 20:17, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 08:17, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 10.12.2024 o 20:45, Python pisze:

Le 10/12/2024 à 20:20, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...

How do you practically check your "t = t'" equations for >>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks standing next to each other?

I read the numbers they display and I compare them.

Good.

Then for distant mutually at rest clocks with no

gravity involved?

I don't.

Sad. You don't. You can't. We can.

No you can't either. Sorry, There is a small technical detail: >>>>>>>>>> those
"distant clocks" are not moving wrt each
other.
How do you ensure that? By assuming the
condition a priori;and you can do it because
you're only applying your procedure
in your gedanken. Am I incorrect ?

You are. I put two clocks at the extremity of a rod.

Yeah, sure - "distant" clocks  at the
extremity of the rod - very practical
indeed, isn't it?


  This is quite

reasonable to assume they are at rest wrt to each other, isn't it? >>>>>>>>

No. Take 2 bodies - one orbitting the other.
Join them with a rod, do you secure their relative
immobility ? Yeah, you imagined and insisted
Gdańsk and Warsaw aren't moving wrt each other. You're
such an idiot.

What is the relative speed between Gdansk and Warsaw then?

Would have to calculate.

LOL!!!

OK, if you ask.
 From wiki - Gdańsk is 54°20′51″N 18°38′43″E,
Warsaw is 52°13′56″N 21°00′30″E.
Assuming the average Earth radius  6368km, Gdańsk
is 3713.3km distant from Earth axis, Warsaw is
3901.5km. That gives 972.1km/h and 1021.4km/h
of linear speed. The difference is 49.3km/h.
Good enough for you as the first estimation,
poor stinker?
Sure, the velocities are not quite parallel;
the final result will be slightly bigger.

You're only believing [into] a great
practical procedure - because your is pumping you with
gedanken fairy
tales where it works fine.

Nope. If such a procedure would fail it could be checked.

How could it fail if you  have never used it.

No magic, and if gravity could not be ignored in a given
practical setup

So, where, precisely, was your [method]
applied. In practice.

I asked for yours

And I asked where, precisely, was your idiocy
applied. In practice.
No answer? Of course,

Many labs where distant events are involved and high time
resolution is > needed, inside CERN detectors for instance.

The source?

http://ttc.web.cern.ch/LEB00Sync.pdf

But the document is signed "Varela, J", not
"Einstein, A".

If you expected a paper on synchonization at LHC to be written by Albert Einstein

I didn't, but for sure I was expecting stinker
Python to lie that the synchronization for LHC
has been provided by his idiot guru.

The practical implementation of a theoretical procedure

It is not, of course. It's fibre, the speed of a
signal in fibre is much lesser than c and - well
- obviously depending on the speed of the fibre.
Just one of the differences, poor stinker.


Still convinced that Gdańsk and Warsaw
are not in relative move? Well, subtracting
their velocities doesn't give 0 in either
your galilean nonsense or in your einsteinian
idiocy. Do you have your own Python's
tranformations for subtracting them a way
giving 0?

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

Le 15/12/2024 à 14:53, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 15.12.2024 o 13:05, Python pisze:

Python's tranformations

C'est quoi?

R.H.

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

W dniu 15.12.2024 o 19:50, Python pisze:

Le 15/12/2024 à 14:53, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..

The source?

http://ttc.web.cern.ch/LEB00Sync.pdf

But the document is signed "Varela, J", not
"Einstein, A".

If you expected a paper on synchonization at LHC to be written by
Albert Einstein

I didn't, but for sure I was expecting stinker
Python to lie that the synchronization for LHC
has been provided by his [A.E.]

I didn't lie.

Of course you did, like always.

The synchronization procedure that A.E. provided is actually used in
practice at LHC. Face it.

Nope. Repeating a lie won't make it true.

It is not, of course. It's fibre, the speed of a
signal in fibre is much lesser than c and - well
- obviously depending on the speed   of the fibre.
Just one of the differences.

The procedure only requires a signal with a constant speed

No. Procedure directly specifies - light in
vacuum. It's related with that "constant light
speed in vacuum" idiocy.

Still convinced that Gdańsk and Warsaw
are not in relative move? Well, subtracting
their velocities doesn't give 0 in either
your galilean nonsense

I sometime forgot that you depise Galileo as much as Einstein.

Far, far less much.
So, still convinced they're in relative
rest? Simply ignoring the calculation of
velocities?
As expected from a fanatic idiot.

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

W dniu 15.12.2024 o 20:40, Python pisze:

Le 15/12/2024 à 20:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..

It is not, of course. It's fibre, the speed of a
signal in fibre is much lesser than c and - well
- obviously depending on the speed   of the fibre.
Just one of the differences.

The procedure only requires a signal with a constant speed

No. Procedure directly specifies - light in
vacuum. It's related with that "constant light
speed in vacuum" idiocy.

His point was to prove that such a procedure exists.

Don't give a damn to his point.
His procedure is about that "constant light
speed in vacuum" idiocy.


So, So, still convinced Gdańsk and warsaw are
in relative rest? Simply ignoring the calculation
of velocities?
As expected from a fanatic idiot.

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

W dniu 15.12.2024 o 22:14, Python pisze:

Le 15/12/2024 à 22:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 15.12.2024 o 20:40, Python pisze:

Le 15/12/2024 à 20:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..

It is not, of course. It's fibre, the speed of a
signal in fibre is much lesser than c and - well
- obviously depending on the speed   of the fibre.
Just one of the differences.

The procedure only requires a signal with a constant speed

No. Procedure directly specifies - light in
vacuum. It's related with that "constant light
speed in vacuum" idiocy.

His point was to prove that such a procedure exists.

Don't give a damn to his point.

Evading, snipping, whining again?

Just not giving a damn to the alleged point of an
insane, mumbling idiot.

His procedure is about that "constant light
speed in vacuum" idiocy.

It is an experimental fact.

It's not and only such an idiot can believe
and repeat such an absurd lie.
Anyway, the Holiest Procedure is specifying
the signal it's using very clearly and your
moronic lies are changing nothing.

So, So, still convinced Gdańsk and warsaw are
in relative rest? Simply ignoring the calculation
of velocities?

I tend to ignore "calculations" made by raving imbeciles.

Why not provide your own then, poor stinker?

Oh, but you have no... You only have your
"but everyone sees Earth is immobile"
logic.
The Shit is brainwashing hard, and can provide
a variety of amusing effects in the brains
of its victims - denying the knowledge of
Copernicus is just one of the possibilities.

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

Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> wrote:

Le 15/12/2024 � 20:29, Maciej Wozniak a �crit :

W dniu 15.12.2024 o 19:50, Python pisze:

Le 15/12/2024 � 14:53, Maciej Wozniak a �crit :
..

The source?

http://ttc.web.cern.ch/LEB00Sync.pdf

But the document is signed "Varela, J", not
"Einstein, A".

If you expected a paper on synchonization at LHC to be written by
Albert Einstein

I didn't, but for sure I was expecting stinker
Python to lie that the synchronization for LHC
has been provided by his [A.E.]

I didn't lie.

Of course you did, like always.

The synchronization procedure that A.E. provided is actually used in
practice at LHC. Face it.

Nope. Repeating a lie won't make it true.

It is not, of course. It's fibre, the speed of a
signal in fibre is much lesser than c and - well
- obviously depending on the speed of the fibre.
Just one of the differences.

The procedure only requires a signal with a constant speed

No. Procedure directly specifies - light in
vacuum.

If the procedure mentioned that light emitter/received should be on a
piece of wook would make the math wrong if wood is not used? You are such
a kook, Maciej...

BTW, if you insists on vacum, call this Generalized Einstein's procedure.
It doesn't matter: the math are EXACTLY the same for all sort of signals. Neither the signal's speed (nor the distance between clocks) appear in the offsets you can compute from the procedure. See https://noedge.net/e/

The procedure only requires a signal with a constant speed with respect to the source. Light in vaccum is ok, light in a fiber too. Even a gun
shooting peas could be ok if you don't need much precision. As a matter of fact (you don't like such a word, right?) when you apply the procedure to derive offsets to apply to clocks you'll end with formulas that does not
even involve the speed of the signal or the distance between them. See : https://noedge.net/e/

The genial insight that Einstein started to have in 1905
is the idea of is that all kinds of physics are irrelevant to this.
It is an inherent property of the space-time we find ourselves in,
so it is kinematical, not physical.
Conversely any theory of physics must conform with it,
or be wrong,

Jan

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

W dniu 16.12.2024 o 11:49, J. J. Lodder pisze:

The genial insight that Einstein started to have in 1905

The mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.

It is an inherent property of the space-time we find ourselves in,

It may be an inherent property of the space-time your
bunch of idiots find yourselves in; it is no way an
inherent property of the space-time sane people
find themselves in.

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

Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

W dniu 16.12.2024 o 11:49, J. J. Lodder pisze:

The genial insight that Einstein started to have in 1905

The mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.

It is an inherent property of the space-time we find ourselves in,

It may be an inherent property of the space-time your
bunch of idiots find yourselves in; it is no way an
inherent property of the space-time sane people
find themselves in.

You should rejoice instead. Since the whole framework of the world
and all physical theories must conform to the relativity postulate
it should be real easy to find falsifications of it.

Easy, isn't it?

Jan
(not holding my breath)

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

Le 16/12/2024 à 13:19, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :

You should rejoice instead. Since the whole framework of the world
and all physical theories must conform to the relativity postulate
it should be real easy to find falsifications of it.

Easy, isn't it?

Jan

No, no, precisely, it is not easy.

All the experimental proof that we have, we have it on fairly limited experiments. Because, in fact, we cannot go up in accelerated rockets to
show that it is Dr. Hachel who is right, and not Albert Einstein.

But that will come, with the progress of science, we arrive at certain
results consistent with Hachel's thinking, and not that of Einstein.

Einstein cannot explain instantaneous transfers of information (that is
what Alain Aspect says), where Hachel does not even need to explain it, so obvious is the theoretical fact.

No, no, it is not easy.

The same for rotating frames of reference.

Dr. Hachel explains that there is a radial contraction of the rotating
disk and gives the correct transformations. But how can we prove here
again that it is Hachel who masters the entirety of the theory? Do you
think that we can spin a disk with a relativistic tangential speed easily?

So no, it is not easy to show that Einstein was wrong about part of his thinking, which does not take into account all the concepts.

Somewhat strange concepts, but whose mathematical needs do not exceed
those of high school (16-18 years old).

R.H.

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

W dniu 16.12.2024 o 13:19, J. J. Lodder pisze:

Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

W dniu 16.12.2024 o 11:49, J. J. Lodder pisze:

The genial insight that Einstein started to have in 1905

The mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.

It is an inherent property of the space-time we find ourselves in,

It may be an inherent property of the space-time your
bunch of idiots find yourselves in; it is no way an
inherent property of the space-time sane people
find themselves in.

You should rejoice instead. Since the whole framework of the world
and all physical theories must conform to the relativity postulate
it should be real easy to find falsifications of it.

If only your moronic falsification ever
worked outside the world of your moronic
delusions.

Easy, isn't it?

Isn't it indeed.

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

Den 16.12.2024 14:18, skrev Richard Hachel:

All the experimental proof that we have, we have it on fairly limited experiments. Because, in fact, we cannot go up in accelerated rockets to
show that it is Dr. Hachel who is right, and not Albert Einstein.

Sure we can. It's even done!

https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf

Who was right?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Le 17/12/2024 à 15:03, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 16.12.2024 14:18, skrev Richard Hachel:

Sure we can.

Absolutely not.

R.H.

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> wrote:

Le 16/12/2024 � 13:19, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a �crit :

You should rejoice instead. Since the whole framework of the world
and all physical theories must conform to the relativity postulate
it should be real easy to find falsifications of it.

Easy, isn't it?

Jan

No, no, precisely, it is not easy.

All the experimental proof that we have, we have it on fairly limited experiments. Because, in fact, we cannot go up in accelerated rockets to
show that it is Dr. Hachel who is right, and not Albert Einstein.

We await a doable (in principle) decisive experiment
that will prove Dr. Hachel right, and Prof. Einstein wrong.
(so not a relativistic centrifuge,
or a forever accelerating spaceship at 1 g, or...)
FYI, what we see so far on relativistic motion around black holes
favour Einstein.

But that will come, with the progress of science, we arrive at certain results consistent with Hachel's thinking, and not that of Einstein.

Godot may be the first to arrive, I guess.

Einstein cannot explain instantaneous transfers of information (that is
what Alain Aspect says), where Hachel does not even need to explain it, so obvious is the theoretical fact.

Aspect said no such thing. And 'theoretical facts' don't exist.

No, no, it is not easy.

Indeed, indeed.

The same for rotating frames of reference.

Dr. Hachel explains that there is a radial contraction of the rotating
disk and gives the correct transformations. But how can we prove here
again that it is Hachel who masters the entirety of the theory? Do you
think that we can spin a disk with a relativistic tangential speed easily?

So no, it is not easy to show that Einstein was wrong about part of his thinking, which does not take into account all the concepts.

Somewhat strange concepts, but whose mathematical needs do not exceed
those of high school (16-18 years old).

So we await not your concepts,
but your verifiable experimental proposal based on them,

Jan

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

Le 19/12/2024 à 20:39, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :

We await a doable (in principle) decisive experiment
that will prove Dr. Hachel right, and Prof. Einstein wrong.
(so not a relativistic centrifuge,
or a forever accelerating spaceship at 1 g, or...)
FYI, what we see so far on relativistic motion around black holes
favour Einstein.

When two theories clash, it is necessary to decide by experimentation.
However, for the moment, both theories seem valid and give the same experimental results (half-life of particles, aberration of the position
of stars, energy of corpuscle collisions, etc.).
But that is only the basics.
Dr. Hachel's predictions are totally different on a lot of things as soon
as we leave these basics.
Now, refuting Hachel poses three problems.
1. A problem of logical design (his theory is not based on a conglomerate
of theory that has been put together but something compact, but resulting
from a single logical thought based on universal anisochrony, the
reciprocity of relativistic effects, and the dilation of chronotropies).
2. Hachel is the only one who explains both the impossibility of observing
a transverse velocity faster than c, and at the same time the
instantaneous transfers of information as long as we use the appropriate spatio-temporal geometry. Einstein cannot do it. This is what Professor
Alain Aspect will say. It would therefore be strange if it were Hachel who
is wrong.
3. Thirdly, Hachel is a theorist who uses mathematics and theories in a
logical way. However, it is totally illogical to explain the Langevin
paradox by sweeping the dust under the carpet and forgetting that, by
doing so, we include in the reasoning a considerable absurdity. The
apparent speeds are no longer reciprocal, which is absurd and
contradictory with the basic postulate which is an absence of absolute reference and a necessity of perfect reciprocity of all relativistic
effects (including visual ones).
4. Finally, we must respect the principle of Ockham's razor. If a theory
is simple and beautiful, it has a much better chance of being true than an
ugly and complex theory, full of paradoxes (Langevin, Andromeda,
Erhenfest). It is not normal that we keep something that has at least
three theoretical paradoxes by nature. I do not have that at all in my developments.

R.H.

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

W dniu 19.12.2024 o 20:39, J. J. Lodder pisze:

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> wrote:

Le 16/12/2024 à 13:19, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit : >>> You should rejoice instead. Since the whole framework of the world

and all physical theories must conform to the relativity postulate
it should be real easy to find falsifications of it.

Easy, isn't it?

Jan

No, no, precisely, it is not easy.

All the experimental proof that we have, we have it on fairly limited
experiments. Because, in fact, we cannot go up in accelerated rockets to
show that it is Dr. Hachel who is right, and not Albert Einstein.

We await a doable (in principle) decisive experiment
that will prove Dr. Hachel right, and Prof. Einstein wrong.
(so not a relativistic centrifuge,
or a forever accelerating spaceship at 1 g, or...)
FYI, what we see so far on relativistic motion around black holes
favour Einstein.

And in the meantime in the real world -
forbidden by the idiot improper clocks keep
measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.

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