Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Einstein synchronisation Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2024 12:33:02 -0800 Organization: To protect and to server Message-ID: <65E38CFE.5EF6@ix.netcom.com> References: <65DD6F4F.1644@ix.netcom.com> <65E0B9E3.1CFB@ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="865309"; posting-host="nLYg9UBeoMWa070gP9wQcw.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A"; Cancel-Lock: sha256:jMYWsHr2LtiQdy0G/GgQkfuKsZDWEpNBWbS6VxHAJEM= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3 X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240302-6, 03/02/2024), Outbound message Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:651873 Ross Finlayson wrote: > > On 02/29/2024 09:07 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> > >> On 02/26/2024 09:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Richard Hachel wrote: > >>>> > >>>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf > >>>> > >>>> The problem with Einstein's synchronization is that it is defined in a > >>>> Galilean way. > >>>> Einstein presupposes in his frame of reference, a flat and absolute > >>>> present time, and therefore goes very quickly to definition, to move on to > >>>> the next paragraph. > >>>> What is he really saying new? Nothing. > >>>> The great thing is to say: > >>>> tA'-tA=2AB/c > >>>> I can also add, in the same sense, that a swallow is a swallow. > >>>> Then Einstein will commit the enormous relativistic error of immediately > >>>> and without paying attention to t(AB)=t(BA), a proposition which can only > >>>> be true for a neutral observer placed at an equal distance from A and B, > >>>> and having to take into account only identical anisochrony, and perfect > >>>> simultaneity of the two watches. > >>>> The equality that he posits is therefore completely false, intellectually > >>>> false, physically false, for the enormous majority of points in his space > >>>> that he will take as reference. > >>>> > >>>> His synchronization method, but he does not say it, is ONLY valid for a > >>>> given point P, and the simultaneity of various events occurring in the > >>>> frame of reference is ONLY valid for this point and not the integrity of > >>>> the frame of reference. > >>>> > >>>> He doesn't explain this. > >>>> > >>>> Or worse, he doesn't know it. > >>>> > >>>> R.H. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Nature forgot to synchronize. > >>> > >>> > >>> Nature does not display any...clocks. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> The old story is that man, or a woman, > >> invented time-keeping, humming a tune, > >> tossing a pile of rocks. > >> > >> The sun-dial, is the traditional apparatus. > >> > >> Foucault's pendulum, and the Allais pendulum, > >> both measure not only time, also cosmic alignment. > >> > >> An atomic clock lattice detects hand-waving. > >> > >> Time symmetry's never been falsified. > >> > >> There are no closed time-like curves. > >> > >> Einstein's total field theory includes > >> a clock hypothesis, that nature _is_ a clock. > > > > > > I need a little time to figure out this "nature _is_ a clock" business... > > > > in the meantime Ross, you mentioned you 'write software programs'... > > > > could you give me the name of one of them so that I can download it and > > see if I can crack it, get the serial number or extend the trial to > > forever? It would be fun for me, (of course i will ask ChatGPT to help me > > with it, we are hacking and cracking friends now). > > > > > > > > > > Can't help you there. > > In the old days what you'd do is put a bit of tape > over the write-protect tab then write "yes" instead > of "no" at the right spot and then it would go, .... > > It's like, there was this engineer, and he was an > electrical engineer, and he was a dwarf, which is > secondary but it really adds to the human interest, > so he was a great electrical engineer, and Henry Ford > said "hey I just installed a huge generator at my plant > and it's not working so come fix it". So they guy was > like alright and he trundled over there. He spent a > few days looking it over and peeking around, he was > an electrical engineer so he knew how not to electrocute > himself, so one day he takes a piece of chalk and marks > one of the panels with the piece of chalk and says > "Ford, under that panel is your problem". So, some > guys opened that panel and fixed it there and it fixed it. > So, Ford says "send me the bill" so the guy sends him a > bill for $10,000. Now Ford is curious, so he says > "itemize the bill", so the guy itemizes the bill: > > chalk mark: 5 cents > knowing where: 9,999.95. > > Been looking at "how does this WebRTC work", > "how simple is writing an operating system these days", > still though sort of "implement a Usenet". > > If you want to know about relativity, consult my podcasts, > https youtube @rossfinlayson, under the "Reading from Einstein", > is a reading of "Out of My Later Years", the good parts in > the middle. > > I like the idea of this, "nature _is_ a clock", > it's usually called "clock hypothesis", and > what it means is there's a "universal time". > > Einstein has one in his theory called "the time", > in quotes, it's called ''the time'', ..., one > has to mime the quotes at the same time. Okay, I looked at your 'nature clock'.. i see a lot of rocks and fire out there.. and what 'appears' to be different time zones on different planets... but where is the machinery behind the clock? you do know what i mean by machinery? ...the machinery behind a woman's warm smile. Can you get past the strong illusion of her warm smile and show me the machinery behind your nature's clock? Any kid looking at the face of a clock can tear the clock apart to see the machinery behind it that makes it run. Where is the machine behind nature's clock? I don't see it. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.