Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #655860 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-08-12 17:35 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-09-03 17:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 105 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-12 17:35 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-12 19:39 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-12 21:06 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-12 20:25 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-12 23:16 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-13 12:45 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-13 12:46 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-13 16:15 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-13 16:37 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-13 16:50 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-13 19:54 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-13 21:20 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-13 21:25 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-13 22:01 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-13 22:12 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-13 22:42 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-13 23:07 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-13 21:48 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-14 09:40 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-14 17:15 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-14 11:06 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-14 16:00 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-14 22:49 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-15 09:43 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 18:45 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-15 10:29 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 19:34 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 11:42 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 10:45 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 10:55 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 22:20 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-15 10:25 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-15 17:34 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 11:47 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 22:10 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-17 10:50 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-17 13:08 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-18 11:11 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-18 12:06 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-19 10:27 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-19 10:52 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-19 11:51 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-20 17:22 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-22 00:32 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 22:16 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-14 21:53 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-14 22:04 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-14 20:27 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-15 11:42 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-14 06:25 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Mubarak Schitov <uaka@acikt.ru> - 2024-08-14 05:47 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-14 12:25 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-14 14:36 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-14 12:54 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-14 14:59 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-15 13:18 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-14 15:08 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-14 13:24 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-14 14:39 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-14 17:37 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-14 18:11 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-14 20:29 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-14 19:20 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-14 12:24 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-14 21:50 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-14 22:36 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-15 06:50 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Belgov Turpaev <eesssu@unuvpat.ru> - 2024-08-15 10:58 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-14 20:44 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-15 12:46 +0300
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-15 12:10 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 14:29 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-15 14:52 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 16:58 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 17:16 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-15 13:02 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 15:15 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-15 13:44 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-15 17:31 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 17:37 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-15 18:04 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 18:26 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-15 19:46 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-15 18:05 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-15 20:27 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-16 15:10 +0300
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-16 12:38 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-17 11:14 +0300
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-15 21:12 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-15 21:22 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-15 21:31 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-14 19:54 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-14 20:47 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-14 19:34 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-14 17:43 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-15 12:22 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-15 17:29 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-15 08:13 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-15 12:33 +0300
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-15 11:24 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 13:49 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-17 11:18 +0300
Re: Space-time interval (2) guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2024-08-14 21:01 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) - 2024-09-02 17:02 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-09-03 17:13 -0700
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-19 10:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66C38662.3B72@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #656118 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and another thing Hachel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (i have nothing against...French Science) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but, I have looked, and looked, and looked... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all i see out there is...rocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have looked, and looked, and looked... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything > > > > > > > > > where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your hallucinations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rocks don't have laws. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yous seeing things > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or reading into rocks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yous might have laws, but > > > > > > > > > rocks don't have laws. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and if yous believe that the 'laws of physics' exist...'out there', > > > > > > > where is this...'out there'??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is this...'out there'? > > > > > > > > > > > > of course everybody knows if you ask richard feynman how you come up > > > > > > with the 'laws of physics'...he'll say.. > > > > > > > > > > > > you just..."Guess." > > > > > > > > > > and for those who don't know 'where' the laws of physics come from... > > > > > > > > > > https://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY > > > > > > > > > > the stupid audience...laughs. > > > > > > Where do you suppose the stupid audience thinks 'laws of nature' come > > > from? God?? > > > > > > Don't tell them they are just "Gusses", they are made up, they are > > > inventions, > > > > > > and do not or ever came from nature. > > > > > > Illusions. > > > > > > Science in fact is...fake. > > > > > > You know what Nature has to say about this...."I DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE > > > PEOPLE GET THESE LAWS FROM, NOT FROM ME!" > > > > > > THEY JUST FUCKING MADE IT UP! > > > > > > https://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY > > > > > > Go ahead, laugh. > > > > Is there a 'Laws of Physics' school where one can learn How To make up > > these Laws???? > > or take a fashion design class on...patterns. I mean, come on..let's be real here... yous don't actually believe Albert Einstein got his theory of relativity from...'out there' do yous???? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-19 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66C39417.68E2@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #656119 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and another thing Hachel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (i have nothing against...French Science) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but, I have looked, and looked, and looked... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all i see out there is...rocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have looked, and looked, and looked... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything > > > > > > > > > > where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your hallucinations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rocks don't have laws. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yous seeing things > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or reading into rocks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yous might have laws, but > > > > > > > > > > rocks don't have laws. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and if yous believe that the 'laws of physics' exist...'out there', > > > > > > > > where is this...'out there'??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is this...'out there'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of course everybody knows if you ask richard feynman how you come up > > > > > > > with the 'laws of physics'...he'll say.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you just..."Guess." > > > > > > > > > > > > and for those who don't know 'where' the laws of physics come from... > > > > > > > > > > > > https://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY > > > > > > > > > > > > the stupid audience...laughs. > > > > > > > > Where do you suppose the stupid audience thinks 'laws of nature' come > > > > from? God?? > > > > > > > > Don't tell them they are just "Gusses", they are made up, they are > > > > inventions, > > > > > > > > and do not or ever came from nature. > > > > > > > > Illusions. > > > > > > > > Science in fact is...fake. > > > > > > > > You know what Nature has to say about this...."I DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE > > > > PEOPLE GET THESE LAWS FROM, NOT FROM ME!" > > > > > > > > THEY JUST FUCKING MADE IT UP! > > > > > > > > https://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY > > > > > > > > Go ahead, laugh. > > > > > > Is there a 'Laws of Physics' school where one can learn How To make up > > > these Laws???? > > > > or take a fashion design class on...patterns. > > I mean, come on..let's be real here... > > yous don't actually believe Albert Einstein got his theory of relativity from...'out there' do yous???? I can tell you where he got it from...it wasn't from ...'out-there'. Let me give you an example... Einstein said: "I want to know the mind of God, The rest are details." So, where exactly is this...mind of God? I would say the operative word is..."know". The secret to Albert Einsten (that he doesn't want you to know) is...'in the' "know". -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-20 17:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66C53350.7299@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #656120 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and another thing Hachel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (i have nothing against...French Science) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but, I have looked, and looked, and looked... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all i see out there is...rocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have looked, and looked, and looked... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything > > > > > > > > > > > where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your hallucinations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rocks don't have laws. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yous seeing things > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or reading into rocks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yous might have laws, but > > > > > > > > > > > rocks don't have laws. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and if yous believe that the 'laws of physics' exist...'out there', > > > > > > > > > where is this...'out there'??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is this...'out there'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of course everybody knows if you ask richard feynman how you come up > > > > > > > > with the 'laws of physics'...he'll say.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you just..."Guess." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and for those who don't know 'where' the laws of physics come from... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the stupid audience...laughs. > > > > > > > > > > Where do you suppose the stupid audience thinks 'laws of nature' come > > > > > from? God?? > > > > > > > > > > Don't tell them they are just "Gusses", they are made up, they are > > > > > inventions, > > > > > > > > > > and do not or ever came from nature. > > > > > > > > > > Illusions. > > > > > > > > > > Science in fact is...fake. > > > > > > > > > > You know what Nature has to say about this...."I DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE > > > > > PEOPLE GET THESE LAWS FROM, NOT FROM ME!" > > > > > > > > > > THEY JUST FUCKING MADE IT UP! > > > > > > > > > > https://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY > > > > > > > > > > Go ahead, laugh. > > > > > > > > Is there a 'Laws of Physics' school where one can learn How To make up > > > > these Laws???? > > > > > > or take a fashion design class on...patterns. > > > > I mean, come on..let's be real here... > > > > yous don't actually believe Albert Einstein got his theory of relativity from...'out there' do yous???? > > I can tell you where he got it from...it wasn't from ...'out-there'. > > Let me give you an example... > > Einstein said: "I want to know the mind of God, The rest are details." > > So, where exactly is this...mind of God? > > I would say the operative word is..."know". > > The secret to Albert Einsten (that he doesn't want you to know) is...'in > the' "know". It's obvious that Einstein's 'theory of everything' was an attempt to...know the mind of God. But his mistake was...using Math. Math is as you know...an invention of Man. It is 'structured' only for minds of Men, not The Mind of God. The structure of God's mind is structured differently. Einstein probably wants to tell God..."WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING!!!!" -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-22 00:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66C6E97D.5EF1@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #656187 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and another thing Hachel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (i have nothing against...French Science) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but, I have looked, and looked, and looked... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all i see out there is...rocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have looked, and looked, and looked... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything > > > > > > > > > > > > where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your hallucinations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rocks don't have laws. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yous seeing things > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or reading into rocks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yous might have laws, but > > > > > > > > > > > > rocks don't have laws. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and if yous believe that the 'laws of physics' exist...'out there', > > > > > > > > > > where is this...'out there'??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is this...'out there'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of course everybody knows if you ask richard feynman how you come up > > > > > > > > > with the 'laws of physics'...he'll say.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you just..."Guess." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and for those who don't know 'where' the laws of physics come from... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the stupid audience...laughs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Where do you suppose the stupid audience thinks 'laws of nature' come > > > > > > from? God?? > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't tell them they are just "Gusses", they are made up, they are > > > > > > inventions, > > > > > > > > > > > > and do not or ever came from nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > Illusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Science in fact is...fake. > > > > > > > > > > > > You know what Nature has to say about this...."I DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE > > > > > > PEOPLE GET THESE LAWS FROM, NOT FROM ME!" > > > > > > > > > > > > THEY JUST FUCKING MADE IT UP! > > > > > > > > > > > > https://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY > > > > > > > > > > > > Go ahead, laugh. > > > > > > > > > > Is there a 'Laws of Physics' school where one can learn How To make up > > > > > these Laws???? > > > > > > > > or take a fashion design class on...patterns. > > > > > > I mean, come on..let's be real here... > > > > > > yous don't actually believe Albert Einstein got his theory of relativity from...'out there' do yous???? > > > > I can tell you where he got it from...it wasn't from ...'out-there'. > > > > Let me give you an example... > > > > Einstein said: "I want to know the mind of God, The rest are details." > > > > So, where exactly is this...mind of God? > > > > I would say the operative word is..."know". > > > > The secret to Albert Einsten (that he doesn't want you to know) is...'in > > the' "know". > > It's obvious that Einstein's 'theory of everything' was an attempt > to...know the mind of God. But his mistake was...using Math. > > Math is as you know...an invention of Man. It is 'structured' only for > minds of Men, not The Mind of God. The structure of God's mind is > structured differently. So, that means Einstein had to throw out the Math book out the window and try something else... (in Einstein past life he threw out the math book out a lot) -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-16 22:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66C03218.C84@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #656047 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > and another thing Hachel > > > > > > (i have nothing against...French Science) > > > > > > but, I have looked, and looked, and looked... > > > > > > all i see out there is...rocks. > > > > > > Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science? > > > > > > I have looked, and looked, and looked... > > > > > > all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything > > > where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except.. > > > > > > your hallucinations. > > > > > > Rocks don't have laws. > > > > > > yous seeing things > > > > > > or reading into rocks > > > > > > yous might have laws, but > > > rocks don't have laws. > > > > In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws. > > and if yous believe that the 'laws of physics' exist...'out there', > where is this...'out there'??? > > Where is this...'out there'? > Do you want to know what is 'out there'?...rocks. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 21:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v9j1v6$j43n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655917 |
Den 14.08.2024 00:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
>
> I just explained to you the synchronization used by GPS.
You have no idea of how the GPS SV-clocks are kept synchronous.
> Abstract
> synchronization, but interesting to be able to use a universal present
> time plan (which does not exist in nature).
Quite.
The "universal present time plan", namely
the "Coordinated Universal Time" or "Temps Universel Coordonné",
short UTC (not CUT or TUC - a compromise)
is indeed a theoretical time defined by humans.
("It does not exist in nature", Good grief! :-D)
That it is coordinated simply means that UTC is the same at any point
in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame).
UTC's rate is defined by stationary clocks (as defined by SI) on
the geoid. UTC is 12.00 when the mean sun is in the meridian
at Greenwich.
You seem to think that what you call "a universal present time plan"
has something to do with GPS. But UTC was created January 1, 1960,
before the GPS.
The UTC was nothing new, before that was Greenwich Mean Time, GMT.
GMT was the time shown by the pendulum clock at Greenwich,
which was kept in sync with the mean solar day, and the second
was defined by the mean solar day.
The GMT was used from the 19th century. The word "coordinated"
was not used, but at the time of Newton's absolute time, everyone
thought it obvious that GMT was the same everywhere.
The only way to navigate across the oceans at that time (and until
recently) was by celestial navigation. That is, by measuring the angular
height of a celestial body, usually the sun, with a sextant, and
via tables (made by the British Admiralty) and the time determine
the position. And the time in the tables is GMT. So the navigator
had to have a clock synchronous with GMT. Since the sun moves
1 minute of arc in 15 seconds, an error of 15 seconds from GMT
will give an error of 1 minute of arc on the Earth, which is one
nautical mile. If the clock was 1 minute off GMT, the error would
be 4 nautical miles, which would be acceptable in most cases.
To be in the middle of the Pacific at the 19th century and have
a clock synchronous with GMT within few minutes was no simple task,
but that's another (and long) story.
The point is:
Universal time and synchronous clocks have been used for centuries!
And you claim that clock's in Oslo and Paris can't be synchronous!
In 2024!
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 22:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17ebb0fa82902697$331356$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #655962 |
W dniu 14.08.2024 o 21:53, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
> Den 14.08.2024 00:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>
>> I just explained to you the synchronization used by GPS.
>
> You have no idea of how the GPS SV-clocks are kept synchronous.
>
>> Abstract synchronization, but interesting to be able to use a
>> universal present time plan (which does not exist in nature).
>
> Quite.
> The "universal present time plan", namely
> the "Coordinated Universal Time" or "Temps Universel Coordonné",
> short UTC (not CUT or TUC - a compromise)
> is indeed a theoretical time defined by humans.
> ("It does not exist in nature", Good grief! :-D)
>
> That it is coordinated simply means that UTC is the same at any point
> in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame).
> UTC's rate is defined by stationary clocks (as defined by SI) on
> the geoid. UTC is 12.00 when the mean sun is in the meridian
> at Greenwich.
>
> You seem to think that what you call "a universal present time plan"
> has something to do with GPS. But UTC was created January 1, 1960,
> before the GPS.
>
> The UTC was nothing new, before that was Greenwich Mean Time, GMT.
> GMT was the time shown by the pendulum clock at Greenwich,
> which was kept in sync with the mean solar day, and the second
> was defined by the mean solar day.
> The GMT was used from the 19th century. The word "coordinated"
> was not used, but at the time of Newton's absolute time, everyone
> thought it obvious that GMT was the same everywhere.
>
> The only way to navigate across the oceans at that time (and until
> recently) was by celestial navigation. That is, by measuring the angular
> height of a celestial body, usually the sun, with a sextant, and
> via tables (made by the British Admiralty) and the time determine
> the position. And the time in the tables is GMT. So the navigator
> had to have a clock synchronous with GMT. Since the sun moves
> 1 minute of arc in 15 seconds, an error of 15 seconds from GMT
> will give an error of 1 minute of arc on the Earth, which is one
> nautical mile. If the clock was 1 minute off GMT, the error would
> be 4 nautical miles, which would be acceptable in most cases.
>
> To be in the middle of the Pacific at the 19th century and have
> a clock synchronous with GMT within few minutes was no simple task,
> but that's another (and long) story.
>
> The point is:
> Universal time and synchronous clocks have been used for centuries!
>
> And you claim that clock's in Oslo and Paris can't be synchronous!
> In 2024!
Well, your idiot guru has invented this
absurd in 1905, quite a long time ago,
but idiots like you are making it
lasting.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 20:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fiviHpp7rdD7izFLGocOvYqUnV8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #655962 |
Le 14/08/2024 à 21:53, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 14.08.2024 00:42, skrev Richard Hachel: > The point is: > Universal time and synchronous clocks have been used for centuries! > > And you claim that clock's in Oslo and Paris can't be synchronous! > In 2024! But that's not what I'm talking about!!! Oh, my God, my God!!! THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!! R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 11:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v9kigc$tomj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655964 |
Den 14.08.2024 22:27, skrev Richard Hachel: > Le 14/08/2024 à 21:53, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 14.08.2024 00:42, skrev Richard Hachel: > >> The point is: >> Universal time and synchronous clocks have been used for centuries! The FACT is that synchronous clocks have been used for centuries. >> And you claim that clock's in Oslo and Paris can't be synchronous! >> In 2024! |> 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. |>> Since you claim that clocks can't be synchronous, and synchronous clocks are used for centuries YOU ARE WRONG WHEN YOU CLAIM THAT CLOCKS CAN'T BE SYNCHRONISED. > > But that's not what I'm talking about!!! > > Oh, my God, my God!!! > > THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!! > So what are you talking about? That clocks can be synchronised? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 06:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17eb7db913381cc9$330199$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #655915 |
W dniu 14.08.2024 o 00:12, gharnagel pisze: > On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:01:19 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote: >> >> .... >> But this perfect present time does not exist. >> >> This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in >> general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for >> me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and >> without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on. >> >> R.H. > > Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because Because it suddenly becomes real when it's comfortable for a relativistic idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mubarak Schitov <uaka@acikt.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 05:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v9hgcl$2urme$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #655922 |
Maciej Wozniak wrote: > W dniu 14.08.2024 o 00:12, gharnagel pisze: >>> This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, >>> in general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible >>> for me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, >>> and without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on. R.H. >> >> Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because > > Because it suddenly becomes real when it's comfortable for a > relativistic idiot. are we a gruppenfuehrer or an obergruppenfuehrer?? Richard is only a gruppenfuehrer. He bist in Barlin. 𝗞𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗸_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸:_𝗔_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱,_𝘀𝗼_𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗻𝗼𝘄? All over the world, the old military rules are being broken, this has the potential to become very dangerous https://www.r%74.com/russia/602585-kursk-attack-military-red-line/ It is easy to cross the red lines when the Kremlin is on the side of NATO and Ukrainian terrorists. Nothing ever happens. Putin The bluffer and the traitor. More than SEVEN HUNDRED vehicles (including 400 tanks) of all kinds crossed the Russian border and they have extended over 500 km2 and Russia didn't notice. This is impossible without Moscow cooperation. the fucking putina is more than traitor. He is a 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮 faking a Christian. Sending the nazis on paid vacation in Turkey, now back in the fictitious ukurina to kill children again. Then the putina declared a city as part of russia, leaving it, letting the people there to be slaughtered by the other 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮, the gay actor puppet of Blackrock named Smellensky. these WEF "young global leaders" 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮𝙨 are about to kill Russia. They tried with vaccines, which apparently for them that's too slow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 12:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ZmtVAt4HhKe0jdT-a3px1duKdmw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #655922 |
Le 14/08/2024 à 06:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >> >> Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because > > Because it suddenly becomes real when it's > comfortable for a relativistic idiot. What is very funny in the relationships that I would have had all my life with other men, and which consisted of an immense cock contest: "We do not want this man to reign over us", "My cock is bigger than yours, Hachel", "I prefer that we shut up rather than see your rat's snout", is that I am sometimes opposed to contradictory reproaches. And they say: "GPS contradicts your shitty doctrine". Except that no, GPS proves that I am right. No anisochrony, the speed of light becomes infinite. And GPS ends its life in the dustbins of history. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 14:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v9i8c5$bvnu$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655934 |
Le 14/08/2024 à 14:25, Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : > Le 14/08/2024 à 06:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>> >>> Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because >> >> Because it suddenly becomes real when it's >> comfortable for a relativistic idiot. > > What is very funny in the relationships that I would have had all my > life with other men, and which consisted of an immense cock contest: "We > do not want this man to reign over us", "My cock is bigger than yours, > Hachel", "I prefer that we shut up rather than see your rat's snout", is > that I am sometimes opposed to contradictory reproaches. You should have noticed a common trait here. Whoever you've been talking with there were at least one pompous imbecile involved. (Hint: it's you) > And they say: "GPS contradicts your shitty doctrine". > > Except that no, GPS proves that I am right. > > No anisochrony, the speed of light becomes infinite. > > And GPS ends its life in the dustbins of history. The few times you've written about GPS on fr.sci.physique you've only shown that you do not know at all how it works and pulled out a bunch of idiotic fantasies out of nowhere. Like that receivers contain an atomic clock (!!!) or that synchronization was about a distant 4-d clock, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 12:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <VOohu46_lYfs6YEQG8qZQKYepNw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #655935 |
Le 14/08/2024 à 14:36, Python a écrit : > Le 14/08/2024 à 14:25, Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : >> Le 14/08/2024 à 06:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>> >>>> Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because >>> >>> Because it suddenly becomes real when it's >>> comfortable for a relativistic idiot. >> >> What is very funny in the relationships that I would have had all my >> life with other men, and which consisted of an immense cock contest: "We >> do not want this man to reign over us", "My cock is bigger than yours, >> Hachel", "I prefer that we shut up rather than see your rat's snout", is >> that I am sometimes opposed to contradictory reproaches. > > You should have noticed a common trait here. Whoever you've been > talking with there were at least one pompous imbecile involved. > > (Hint: it's you) > >> And they say: "GPS contradicts your shitty doctrine". >> >> Except that no, GPS proves that I am right. >> >> No anisochrony, the speed of light becomes infinite. >> >> And GPS ends its life in the dustbins of history. > > The few times you've written about GPS on fr.sci.physique you've > only shown that you do not know at all how it works and pulled > out a bunch of idiotic fantasies out of nowhere. Like that > receivers contain an atomic clock (!!!) or that synchronization > was about a distant 4-d clock, etc. Yes, that's what I said. We can't synchronize all the watches in our 3D universe. You're old enough to understand an impossibility or a prohibition. Example: "Jean-Pierre, don't pee in the bed". Once the impossibility is understood, and the notion of universal anisochrony accepted, we will then ask ourselves a question: "In the days of sailing ships, it was not important to know the notion of microseconds, but now that we have satellites and want to use GPS, it becomes essential, but how are we going to resolve such a spatio-temporal quagmire where anisochrony reigns over everything?" For this to work, we need flat time. A universal present common to our entire local inertial structure, and as the immense Hachel says: "I do not propose it, because it does not exist, it is only a human fantasy of the same type as the fantasy of the flat earth and the Titanic embracing the icebergs". So how do we do it? Well, this notion of flat time, we will imagine it, and we will consider that there exists a fourth spatial dimension in the universe, and that an observer, placed there, perpendicular and very far away, apprehends our 3D universe in a perfectly synchronous way for him, and it is on this abstract but useful concept that we will synchronize all terrestrial watches. They are all synchronous with him. No, between them. But that is enough to give an interesting impression of global simultaneity. Universal time is therefore an abstract measurement, resulting from an abstract thought, creating an abstract synchronization point. But that is enough to give a coherent set called universal time. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 14:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v9i9ni$bvnu$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655936 |
Le 14/08/2024 à 14:54, M.D. Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : > Le 14/08/2024 à 14:36, Python a écrit : >> Le 14/08/2024 à 14:25, Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : >>> Le 14/08/2024 à 06:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because >>>> >>>> Because it suddenly becomes real when it's >>>> comfortable for a relativistic idiot. >>> >>> What is very funny in the relationships that I would have had all my >>> life with other men, and which consisted of an immense cock contest: >>> "We do not want this man to reign over us", "My cock is bigger than >>> yours, Hachel", "I prefer that we shut up rather than see your rat's >>> snout", is that I am sometimes opposed to contradictory reproaches. >> >> You should have noticed a common trait here. Whoever you've been >> talking with there were at least one pompous imbecile involved. >> >> (Hint: it's you) >> >>> And they say: "GPS contradicts your shitty doctrine". >>> >>> Except that no, GPS proves that I am right. >>> >>> No anisochrony, the speed of light becomes infinite. >>> >>> And GPS ends its life in the dustbins of history. >> >> The few times you've written about GPS on fr.sci.physique you've >> only shown that you do not know at all how it works and pulled >> out a bunch of idiotic fantasies out of nowhere. Like that >> receivers contain an atomic clock (!!!) or that synchronization >> was about a distant 4-d clock, etc. > > Yes, that's what I said. > We can't synchronize all the watches in our 3D universe. This is nevertheless done (in ECI frame of reference when it comes to GPS, or in Earth frame for airports as Paul tried, in vain, to explain to you). If a theory predict as impossible something that is actually done, the theory is dead. > [snip incoherent babbling] Did you find an atomic clock in your GPS receiver yet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 13:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v9ko4r$ue44$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655937 |
Den 14.08.2024 14:59, skrev Python: > Le 14/08/2024 à 14:54, M.D. Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a > écrit : >> >> We can't synchronize all the watches in our 3D universe. > > This is nevertheless done (in ECI frame of reference when it > comes to GPS, or in Earth frame for airports as Paul tried, > in vain, to explain to you). Since Oslo is 8 degrees east of Paris, UTC clocks in Oslo and Paris are not absolute synchronous in the ground frame, because the ground is moving in the ECI-frame. But the difference is so minute that the clocks are synchronous in the ground frame _within 1 second_. I saw no reason to explain this to Richard. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 15:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v9ia7k$bvnu$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655936 |
Le 14/08/2024 à 14:54, M.D. Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : > .... will consider > that there exists a fourth spatial dimension in the universe, and that > an observer, placed there, perpendicular and very far away, apprehends > our 3D universe in a perfectly synchronous way for him, and it is on > this abstract but useful concept that we will synchronize all > terrestrial watches. Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions. They are built in order to have the same rate (inside an acceptable narrow interval) to begin with, then drifted according to what General Relativity predict in order to stay in synch in ECI frame (despite what demented Wozniak pretends). These are engineering tasks, not the stupid mythomaniac fantasies of a histrionic senile country doctor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 13:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <FxxcAtB-BaU4TzfE-6Txlbo_gEA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #655938 |
Le 14/08/2024 à 15:08, Python a écrit : > > Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not > synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions. > > They are built in order to have the same rate (inside an acceptable > narrow interval) to begin with, then drifted according to what > General Relativity predict in order to stay in synch in ECI > frame (despite what demented Wozniak pretends). > > These are engineering tasks, not the stupid mythomaniac fantasies of > a histrionic senile country doctor. But you're mixing everything up. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the initial synchronization. At some point you have to synchronize all the watches in all the capitals with each other. However, this is by nature impossible. The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon that will affect all the watches in the universe. So, to start the watches at t=0, you'll need a point in the universe placed at an equal distance from all the others, and only an abstract point placed in an imaginary, perpendicular dimension, at an equal distance from all the points in the local universe will be able to do this. It's not hard to understand. Now you are talking about something else, that is to say the second particularity which is no longer anisochrony, but the relativity of the internal chronotropy of watches, in the sense that time passes less quickly at the level of the satellite than at the level of a terrestrial clock, and that the chronotropic shift must be regularly reestablished. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 14:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a610865812a2359182345fca40704d24@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #655939 |
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 13:24:17 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote: > > Le 14/08/2024 à 15:08, Python a écrit : > > > > Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not > > synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions. > > > > They are built in order to have the same rate (inside an acceptable > > narrow interval) to begin with, then drifted according to what > > General Relativity predict in order to stay in synch in ECI > > frame (despite what demented Wozniak pretends). > > > > These are engineering tasks, not the stupid mythomaniac fantasies of > > a histrionic senile country doctor. > > But you're mixing everything up. > > That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the initial > synchronization. At some point you have to synchronize all the watches > in all the capitals with each other. > However, this is by nature impossible. “There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something that has clearly happened.” – Douglas Adams > The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag > behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon > that will affect all the watches in the universe. There is no such thing as "universal anisochrony": it is a false notion. You're conflating time dilation (a real phenomenon) with something else. > So, to start the watches at t=0, you'll need a point in the universe > placed at an equal distance from all the others, and only an abstract > point placed in an imaginary, perpendicular dimension, at an equal > distance from all the points in the local universe will be able to do > this. Not necessary, but you're going overboard in complexity. NO ONE wants to synchronize watches over the whole universe! Pick a reasonable goal. Watches remotely located but at rest wrt each other can certainly be synchronized by Einstein synchronization. No need to have a source halfway between the two clocks (although that works, too (if you know that the distance between the source and each clock is exactly the same, but you have to use the elements of ES to determine that). > It's not hard to understand. > Now you are talking about something else, that is to say the second > particularity which is no longer anisochrony, but the relativity of the > internal chronotropy of watches, in the sense that time passes less > quickly at the level of the satellite than at the level of a terrestrial > clock, and that the chronotropic shift must be regularly reestablished. > > R.H. Actually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite. "Chronotropy" is a canard. The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so that it is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth. The reason why the satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not in an exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a uniform density. Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying. “Education isn’t something you can finish.” – Isaac Asimov “A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.” – Mark Twain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rKEMuc92iR5UV2SK1N1T-iZebzM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #655940 |
Le 14/08/2024 à 16:39, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit : >> R.H. > > Actually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite. "Chronotropy" is > a canard. The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so that > it is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth. The reason why > the satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not in an > exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a uniform > density. > > Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying. This is a very interesting post. It asks a question: "How is it that the satellite, which apparently goes faster than the earth, has a time that passes faster, contrary to what SR predicts?" We answer it as we can, today, the answer is that it seems that apparently, gravitation slows down time. Since Richard Hachel is not too interested in GR, he does not believe in it too much. The other two arguments that you have just proposed do not seem any more judicious to me. I have a fourth explanation, and it remains within the framework of RR. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web