Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #656020 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-08-15 19:38 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-08-20 16:17 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 178 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-15 19:38 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Akaike Takashita <ab@abbe.jp> - 2024-08-15 20:09 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-16 12:47 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-16 12:56 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-16 13:05 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-16 13:29 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-16 14:05 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-16 14:08 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-16 14:15 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-16 14:24 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-16 14:32 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-16 12:35 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-16 12:31 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-16 14:37 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-16 12:51 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-16 12:27 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-16 12:24 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-17 11:26 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-17 08:56 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-17 13:19 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-17 15:35 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-18 15:05 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Schepkin Baiguloff <flnen@efd.ru> - 2024-08-17 11:10 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-19 22:33 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-19 23:13 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-19 23:15 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-19 23:33 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-19 23:39 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-19 23:41 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-20 00:01 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-20 00:35 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-20 02:26 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-20 02:56 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-20 11:31 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-20 13:10 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-20 03:12 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-20 14:13 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-20 11:27 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-20 14:01 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-20 12:43 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-20 14:56 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-20 15:59 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-20 13:02 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-22 11:07 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-08-22 11:02 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-22 12:11 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-22 10:57 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-22 11:09 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-22 20:20 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-22 20:26 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-22 19:12 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-23 13:23 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-23 11:45 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-23 15:21 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-23 08:03 -0700
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-23 17:05 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-23 18:16 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-23 20:39 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-23 11:54 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-23 21:03 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-23 11:57 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-23 16:04 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-23 16:52 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-23 22:42 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-24 13:57 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-23 21:45 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-23 21:08 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-23 21:21 -0700
Re: Sync two clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-25 09:36 -0700
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-25 19:41 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-26 09:41 -0700
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-23 12:09 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-23 21:15 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-23 14:28 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-20 14:45 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-20 17:02 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-20 15:28 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-20 17:32 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-20 16:18 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-20 18:22 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-20 18:38 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-20 18:42 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-20 19:46 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-21 09:51 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-21 11:07 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Damon Del bosque <qleb@ddqqled.es> - 2024-08-21 10:11 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Fehmi Bezrukov <efbh@eror.ru> - 2024-08-20 18:58 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-21 00:59 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-21 09:58 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-21 10:11 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks László Buzás <iz@stssb.hu> - 2024-08-21 08:33 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-22 14:24 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Harrison Leontarakis <niore@rol.gr> - 2024-08-22 14:00 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-23 16:10 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Darien Rorris <rrdoe@dio.gr> - 2024-08-23 23:08 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-24 07:52 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Hershel Fournier <nero@fs.refr> - 2024-08-24 20:04 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-24 11:06 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Badyaev Pavlinov <eviyip@ipl.ru> - 2024-08-20 16:41 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-22 11:08 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-22 10:59 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-20 15:08 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-20 16:01 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-20 16:03 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-20 16:39 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-20 16:42 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-19 23:25 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-20 15:34 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-20 15:39 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-20 15:12 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-20 17:17 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-21 20:42 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-21 20:20 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-22 11:18 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-22 12:28 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-22 10:52 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-22 13:49 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-22 14:19 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-22 14:49 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-22 14:21 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-22 14:23 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-22 14:28 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-22 14:45 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-22 20:30 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-22 09:02 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-22 13:11 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Yonny Bukowski <skyo@yobnwkyy.pl> - 2024-08-22 22:02 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-23 08:37 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Rodobaldo Koustoubos <oob@doko.gr> - 2024-08-23 23:16 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-23 08:32 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-23 15:49 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-23 21:52 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-23 11:51 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-24 08:50 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-24 11:02 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-24 12:23 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-25 08:55 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-08-25 10:35 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-25 13:06 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-25 12:49 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-25 09:24 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-26 08:13 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-26 12:46 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-26 11:10 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-26 13:15 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-23 07:41 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-23 07:59 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-23 15:41 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-23 15:57 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-23 15:59 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-23 16:27 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-23 16:29 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-23 18:15 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-23 18:19 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-23 19:06 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-24 08:25 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-24 08:46 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-23 11:55 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-23 11:30 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-23 15:16 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-24 12:09 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-24 11:47 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-25 09:44 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-25 09:07 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-25 13:15 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-25 12:51 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-08-23 10:58 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-23 15:18 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-24 09:03 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-24 11:04 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-22 11:13 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-22 11:10 +0300
Re: Sync two clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-20 08:43 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-20 08:45 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-20 09:55 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Hanoi Bagdasaroff <faa@fgs.ru> - 2024-08-20 15:33 +0000
Re: Sync two clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-20 17:58 +0200
Re: Sync two clocks Guadalupe Hankoev <ogpa@uauvv.ru> - 2024-08-20 16:17 +0000
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-23 11:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pc3yEo6g72i9zStWJkdV6utrM90@jntp> |
| In reply to | #656267 |
Le 23/08/2024 à 13:23, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > It is remarkable that a person who pride himself of having studied > relativity issues for 40 years is ignorant of the most basic concepts > in the Special Theory of Relativity. > > I am not going to teach you SR (or GR). > If you really want to learn, read a book. Please, a little more seriousness and dignity in your answers. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-23 16:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vaa4tl$sicr$17@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #656271 |
Le 23/08/2024 à 13:57, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : > Le 23/08/2024 à 13:23, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > >> It is remarkable that a person who pride himself of having studied >> relativity issues for 40 years is ignorant of the most basic concepts >> in the Special Theory of Relativity. >> >> I am not going to teach you SR (or GR). >> If you really want to learn, read a book. > > Please, a little more seriousness and dignity in your answers. He is perfectly right. You've stuffed your own mind with idiotic nonsense for 40 years, intoxicating your brain with silly unsound idiocies. If you want to understand SR you HAVE TO empty all this sh*t out from your mind and start from scratch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-23 16:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <yt-CXJ28a9s9ek6LdmmMhwv9m4w@jntp> |
| In reply to | #656289 |
Le 23/08/2024 à 16:04, Python a écrit : > Le 23/08/2024 à 13:57, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : >> Le 23/08/2024 à 13:23, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> >>> It is remarkable that a person who pride himself of having studied >>> relativity issues for 40 years is ignorant of the most basic concepts >>> in the Special Theory of Relativity. >>> >>> I am not going to teach you SR (or GR). >>> If you really want to learn, read a book. >> >> Please, a little more seriousness and dignity in your answers. > > He is perfectly right. You've stuffed your own mind with idiotic > nonsense for 40 years, intoxicating your brain with silly unsound > idiocies. If you want to understand SR you HAVE TO empty all this > sh*t out from your mind and start from scratch. Non, ce n'est pas "perfecty right". Ce n'est pas à moi de prendre un bouquin et lire ce que les relativistes ont dit et écrit (je l'ai fait il y a quarante ans). C'est aux relativistes de lire ce que moins j'ai écrit, et de voir si c'est cohérent ou pas. J'ai dit qua c'était beaucoup plus cohérent. Dans un monde normalement constitué, une telle réponse devrait être étudiée, et on devrait vérifier si ce que je dis est vrai. On ne le fais pas : on insulte, on rit, on plaisante. C'est bien sûr la voie naturelle des choses. Mais ce n'est pas scientifique. J'ai signalé à Paul où se trouvaient les erreurs, et même si la barrière de la langue peut jouer, il est impossible qu'il ne comprenne pas ce que je dis s'il faut l'effort de comprendre. Il ne fait aucun effort et répète inlassablement "Albert est Dieu, et je suis son prophète ; Hachel est le suppositoire de Satan". Ce n'est pas un comportement scientifique. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-23 22:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vaas5s$11p1g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #656300 |
Den 23.08.2024 18:52, skrev Richard Hachel: > Le 23/08/2024 à 16:04, Python a écrit : >> Le 23/08/2024 à 13:57, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : >>> Le 23/08/2024 à 13:23, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>> >>>> Den 22.08.2024 21:12, skrev Doctor Richard Hachel: >>>> >>>>> Can you explain to me, in the greatest clarity, as Python recommends, what you mean, what you understand by the following words: "In special relativity, the notion of simultaneity is relative"? >>>> It is remarkable that a person who pride himself of having studied >>>> relativity issues for 40 years is ignorant of the most basic concepts >>>> in the Special Theory of Relativity. >>>> >>>> I am not going to teach you SR (or GR). >>>> If you really want to learn, read a book. >>> >>> Please, a little more seriousness and dignity in your answers. >> >> He is perfectly right. You've stuffed your own mind with idiotic >> nonsense for 40 years, intoxicating your brain with silly unsound >> idiocies. If you want to understand SR you HAVE TO empty all this >> sh*t out from your mind and start from scratch. > > No, it's not "perfectly right". > > It's not up to me to pick up a book and read what relativists > have said and written (I did forty years ago). You ask what "the notion of simultaneity" is in SR, despite the fact(?) that read about it 40 years ago? So maybe to ask you to read a book now was not a bad advice? > > It is up to the relativists to read what I have written, > and to see if it is coherent or not. Would that answer your question: "What do you understand by the following words: 'In special relativity, the notion of simultaneity is relative'?" > > I pointed out to Paul where the errors were, > and although the language barrier may play a role, > it is impossible for him not to understand what I am > saying if it takes the effort to understand. When did you point out an error of mine? I have several times challenged you to respond to what I write, but so far you have never pointed out an error in what I have written, because you have never addressed it at all. You have always fled the challenge. But if I have missed a post where you have pointed out an error of mine, please resend it as a response to this post. ------------ Richard's idea of scientific behaviour: "He" is Paul B. Andersen > He makes no effort and tirelessly repeats "Albert is God, > and I am his prophet; Hachel is the suppository of Satan". > > This is not scientific behavior. When you know that, why did you write it? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-24 13:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vachpl$1cj9u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #656300 |
Den 23.08.2024 18:52, skrev His Holiness Richard Hachel: > > J'ai signalé à Paul où se trouvaient les erreurs, et même si la barrière > de la langue peut jouer, il est impossible qu'il ne comprenne pas ce que > je dis s'il faut l'effort de comprendre. Translated by Google: > I pointed out to Paul where the errors were, > and although the language barrier may play a role, > it is impossible for him not to understand what I am > saying if it takes the effort to understand. Since I have missed the posts where Richard Hachel has pointed out my errors, I would like to know which posts he has responded to, and found errors. Was it this? | Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second. UTC clocks are synchronous in the ECI-frame, but since the longitude of Oslo is ca. 8⁰ east of Paris, the clocks will be ca. 3 ns out of sync in the ground frame. So the clocks are synchronous within a second in the ground frame. | | I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on | the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s | I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when | the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s. | The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s | The distance in the ground frame between the airports is | L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km | v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h | | Question #1: | ------------ | Is the time T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s | the correct time (temporal interval) measured in | the ground frame, between the events "Departure from Oslo" | and "Arrival in Paris"? | | Question #2: | ------------ | Is the speed v = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h | the correct speed of the aeroplane, measured in the ground frame? | | | The point is that if the clocks in Oslo and Paris are not | synchronous within a second, you have to answer "no" to both | questions. | | So what are your answers to the simple questions? | | I bet you will keep fleeing. Chicken! 😂 But since you didn't flee, but pointed out the errors in the post I missed, which errors did you point out? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-23 21:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vaaork$10p78$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #656271 |
Den 23.08.2024 13:57, skrev Doctor Richard Hachel: > Le 23/08/2024 à 13:23, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > >> Den 22.08.2024 21:12, skrev Doctor Richard Hachel: >> >>> Can you explain to me, in the greatest clarity, as Python recommends, >>> what you mean, what you understand by the following words: >>> "In special relativity, the notion of simultaneity is relative"? "The notion of simultaneity" is a very basic concept in SR. So I seriously think that: >> It is remarkable that a person who pride himself of having studied >> relativity issues for 40 years is ignorant of the most basic concepts >> in the Special Theory of Relativity. You can't expect me to teach you the basic concepts of SR in this forum. So: >> I am not going to teach you SR (or GR). >> If you really want to learn, read a book. This is my serious advice, I am not joking. > > Please, a little more seriousness and dignity in your answers. > More dignity? Should I address you with "Doctor" or "Sir"? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-23 21:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <JemkChA4dAKm4LLaulC2xMWatPg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #656310 |
Le 23/08/2024 à 21:44, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 23.08.2024 13:57, skrev Doctor Richard Hachel: >> >> Please, a little more seriousness and dignity in your answers. >> > > More dignity? Should I address you with "Doctor" or "Sir"? No, no, I'm not asking that, and you must not use those words, which are a bit excessive, but you can say "His Holiness Richard Hachel" or "Great Celestial Luminary"... R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-23 21:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66C95FBC.4DB4@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #656310 |
Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > > Den 23.08.2024 13:57, skrev Doctor Richard Hachel: > > Le 23/08/2024 à 13:23, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > > > >> Den 22.08.2024 21:12, skrev Doctor Richard Hachel: > >> > >>> Can you explain to me, in the greatest clarity, as Python recommends, > >>> what you mean, what you understand by the following words: > >>> "In special relativity, the notion of simultaneity is relative"? > > "The notion of simultaneity" is a very basic concept in SR. > > So I seriously think that: > >> It is remarkable that a person who pride himself of having studied > >> relativity issues for 40 years is ignorant of the most basic concepts > >> in the Special Theory of Relativity. > > You can't expect me to teach you the basic concepts of SR in this forum. > > So: > >> I am not going to teach you SR (or GR). > >> If you really want to learn, read a book. > > This is my serious advice, I am not joking. > > > > > Please, a little more seriousness and dignity in your answers. > > > > More dignity? Should I address you with "Doctor" or "Sir"? "Monsieur" "Monsieur Hachelllll" Cher Monsieur ooh la la Sacre le blu! Monsieur Hachelllll Mec Hachel Je me casse.... -- 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 | 2024-08-25 09:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66CB5D82.6162@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #656322 |
Now, common sense would tell you that it is not possible to Sync two clocks... in order to sync 2 clocks both clocks would have to occupy the same space...in time. but a clock over here and the other clock over there are in two different points in space and time. There are too many forces affecting each clock in different direction in space and time. common sense would tell you that it is not possible to Sync two clocks... How about one clock that runs slow and fast in sync???? (it works with einstein's theory of relativity) The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > > > > Den 23.08.2024 13:57, skrev Doctor Richard Hachel: > > > Le 23/08/2024 à 13:23, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > > > > > >> Den 22.08.2024 21:12, skrev Doctor Richard Hachel: > > >> > > >>> Can you explain to me, in the greatest clarity, as Python recommends, > > >>> what you mean, what you understand by the following words: > > >>> "In special relativity, the notion of simultaneity is relative"? > > > > "The notion of simultaneity" is a very basic concept in SR. > > > > So I seriously think that: > > >> It is remarkable that a person who pride himself of having studied > > >> relativity issues for 40 years is ignorant of the most basic concepts > > >> in the Special Theory of Relativity. > > > > You can't expect me to teach you the basic concepts of SR in this forum. > > > > So: > > >> I am not going to teach you SR (or GR). > > >> If you really want to learn, read a book. > > > > This is my serious advice, I am not joking. > > > > > > > > Please, a little more seriousness and dignity in your answers. > > > > > > > More dignity? Should I address you with "Doctor" or "Sir"? > > "Monsieur" > > "Monsieur Hachelllll" > > Cher Monsieur > > ooh la la > > Sacre le blu! > > Monsieur Hachelllll > > Mec Hachel > > Je me casse.... > > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge the unchallengeable. -- 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 | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-25 19:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17ef0994bc6c3c11$550789$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #656383 |
W dniu 25.08.2024 o 18:36, The Starmaker pisze: > Now, common sense would tell you > that it is not possible to Sync two clocks... It's not common sense, it is some brainwashed madness of some moronic church.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-26 09:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66CCB02C.6972@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #656383 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Now, common sense would tell you > that it is not possible to Sync two clocks... > > in order to sync 2 clocks > both clocks would have to > occupy the same space...in time. > > but a clock over here and > the other clock over there are > in two different points in > space and time. > > There are too many forces > affecting each clock in > different direction > in space and time. > > common sense would tell you > that it is not possible to Sync two clocks... > > How about one clock that runs > slow and fast in sync???? > > (it works with einstein's theory of relativity) Now, I'll explain einstein's 'one-clock' theory of relativity where one clock runs slow and fast at the same time... Einstein is sitting on a hot stove... at the same moment A girl is also siting on Einstein's lap. So, time (his clock, his frame of reference) is going slow and fast for him at the same time. Relativity speaking. am i wrong? -- 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 | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-23 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q3-ZCteHCs6W7ft2DLjvVG7z20c@jntp> |
| In reply to | #656267 |
Le 23/08/2024 à 13:23, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > >> I would be very happy to understand you and for you to be able to define >> your words. > > All the "words" used in SR are defined in any book about relativity, > but you have to read it yourself. > > I will remind you: > > In the world there are millions of clocks which are synchronous > in the ECI frame, and the world would be even more chaotic than > it is without them. Think if it was no way to tell you when your > train or aeroplane would go, and there was no way to tell you > when you would arrive at the destination. > The world is _very_ dependent on synchronous clocks. > The civilisation as we know it couldn't exist without them. > > And you say it is impossible to synchronise clocks? :-D > > Paul That's not really what I said. I said that in the common world, we could use a synchronization in hours, minutes and seconds, to qualify various events. But that a synchronization in nanoseconds was only possible under certain conditions, and in particular the creation of a universal time capable of governing all of this. However, it is impossible for such a universal time to exist, since according to Hachel (too bad if I contradict Einstein on that) the notion of a plane of universal present time does not exist, it is a powerful thought (like the flat earth) but abstract from reality. We will therefore never be able to agree even two watches placed in the same frame of reference. Of course, they will beat at the same speed, that is to say they will have the same internal chronotropy, but each will have its own notion of the surrounding simultaneity, that is to say its own hyperplane of present time. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-23 21:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vaan2t$10p78$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #656274 |
Den 23.08.2024 14:09, skrev Richard Hachel: > Le 23/08/2024 à 13:23, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> >> In the world there are millions of clocks which are synchronous >> in the ECI frame, and the world would be even more chaotic than >> it is without them. Think if it was no way to tell you when your >> train or aeroplane would go, and there was no way to tell you >> when you would arrive at the destination. >> The world is _very_ dependent on synchronous clocks. >> The civilisation as we know it couldn't exist without them. >> >> And you say it is impossible to synchronise clocks? :-D >> >> Paul > > That's not really what I said. > I said that in the common world, we could use a synchronization in > hours, minutes and seconds, to qualify various events. > But that a synchronization in nanoseconds was only possible under > certain conditions, and in particular the creation of a universal time > capable of governing all of this. > However, it is impossible for such a universal time to exist, since > according to Hachel (too bad if I contradict Einstein on that) the > notion of a plane of universal present time does not exist, it is a > powerful thought (like the flat earth) but abstract from reality. > We will therefore never be able to agree even two watches placed in the > same frame of reference. Of course, they will beat at the same speed, > that is to say they will have the same internal chronotropy, but each > will have its own notion of the surrounding simultaneity, that is to say > its own hyperplane of present time. > > R.H. So you say it is impossible to sync clocks in the ECI frame. So how can it be millions of clocks which are synchronous in the ECI frame, many of them with ns precision? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-23 14:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17ee5b51c61e1e43$481522$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #656267 |
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 13:23, Paul.B.Andersen pisze: > Den 22.08.2024 21:12, skrev Richard Hachel: >> Le 22/08/2024 à 20:19, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>> >>> It is no absolute and universal simultaneity. >>> >>> Since you still seem to think that it was Richard Hachel >>> who discovered this, it is obvious that you do not read >>> what I and others write to you. >>> >>> Den 22.08.2024 Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> | >>> | And you believe it is YOU that have discovered that? 😂 >>> | >>> | Before 1905 everybody believed it was a "universal, present now", >>> | that simultaneity was absolute, and that clocks could be >>> | absolutely synchronised. Newton took it for granted! >>> | >>> | But Einstein showed that there is no absolute simultaneity, >>> | and clocks can't be absolutely synchronised. >>> | >>> | https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf >>> | See: § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >>> | >>> | Did you really not know that it was Einstein who discovered this? 😂 >>> > >> >> Let's admit it, Paul. >> You're wrong, Einstein didn't say anything at all, and always just >> repeated what Poincaré said, but hey, it doesn't matter, we'll admit >> that you're right. > > https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf > Quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity: > ------------------------------------------- > "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at > A can determine the time values of events in the immediate > proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which > are simultaneous with these events. > If there is at the point B of space another clock in all > respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer > at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate > neighbourhood of B. > But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, > in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. > We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” > We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for > the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish > by definition that the “time” required by light to travel > from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A. > " As you said not so long: > Of course "simultaneity" and "synchronism" are man made, > theoretical notions, but they are very practical, and > the world would be even more chaotic than it is without it. Well, the gedankenwelt of your idiot guru, thanks to his incredible stupidity, is even more chaotic than the reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-20 14:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lvwOM_tj8NJtPtaduqcmSRprOtk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #656154 |
Le 20/08/2024 à 13:13, Mikko a écrit : > On 2024-08-19 23:15:28 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > >> Le 19/08/2024 à 22:32, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>> Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be >>> synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method. >>> >>> We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any way, >>> but they are using the same time unit, let's call it second. >>> The clocks run at the same rate. >>> >>> In our very big, inertial lab, we have two points A and B which are >>> separated by some distance. Let's call the transit time for light >>> to go from A to B is x seconds. We will _define_ that the transit time >>> is the same from B to A. (This follows from Einstein's definition >>> of simultaneity). >>> >>> At point A we have: >>> Clock C_A, a light-detector, a flash-light and a computer. >>> The computer can register the time shown by C_A when >>> the flash-light is flashing, and when the light-detector >>> registers a light-flash. >>> >>> At point B we have: >>> Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer. >>> The computer can register the time shown by C_B when >>> the light-detector registers a light-flash. >>> >>> In the following we will synchronise clock C_B to clock C_A. >>> That is, we will adjust clock C_B so it become synchronous >>> with clock C_A. >>> >>> Now we let the flash-light at point A flash. >>> At this instant, C_A is showing tA = n seconds. >>> tA is measured by C_A at A. >>> >>> When the flash hits the light-detector at B, >>> Clock C_B shows tB = m seconds. >>> tB is measured by C_B at B. >>> >>> A short time later the light detector at A registers >>> the light reflected by the mirror at B. >>> At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A = n + 2x seconds. >>> t'A is measured by C_A at A. >>> >>> Einstein: >>> "The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB." >>> >>> Or: tB = (tA + t'A)/2 = (n+n+2x)/2 = (n + x) >>> >>> That is, to be synchronous clock C_B must show a time midway >>> between tA and t'A when the light is reflected by the mirror. >>> So tB should show (n + x) seconds when the light is reflected >>> by the mirror. >>> But at that instant tB is showing m seconds, so to make the two >>> clocks synchronous, we must adjust clock C_B by: >>> δ = (n-m) + x seconds. >>> >>> >>> After this correction, we have: >>> >>> tB − tA = (m - n) seconds + δ = x seconds >>> t'A − tB = (n + 2x - m) seconds - δ = x seconds >>> >>> The clocks are now synchronised. >>> >>> Please explain what in the above you find impossible >>> to do in your lab. >> >> I have explained these things a hundred times. >> It is impossible to synchronize two watches A and B located in >> different places. > > So you agree that Paul B. Andersen's prodedure is doable and achieves > what you call "impssible". It's much more complicated than that. We can accept it for a Galilean frame of reference, for example the Earth frame of reference. But for an accelerated frame of reference, for example, it doesn't work anymore. If we ask a relativistic physicist, for example Paul who is still an educated and intelligent person (compared to Python the clown) to give me the time taken by Bella to reach Tau Ceti (12 ly; a=1.052 ly/y²) he will answer me correctly and set To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)=12.9156 years. The problem is, if I ask him for Bella's proper time, everything will sink into horror, because he will give me an incredibly low proper time, by performing an abstract integration adding abstract times. And there, it is unworthy of a relativistic science, and I think that in the decades to come we will understand the enormous blunder which consists in taking "reflections of reality" as real. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-20 17:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <va2b62$3c12c$15@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #656170 |
Le 20/08/2024 à 16:45, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : > Le 20/08/2024 à 13:13, Mikko a écrit : >> On 2024-08-19 23:15:28 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >> >>> Le 19/08/2024 à 22:32, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>> Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be >>>> synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method. >>>> >>>> We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any way, >>>> but they are using the same time unit, let's call it second. >>>> The clocks run at the same rate. >>>> >>>> In our very big, inertial lab, we have two points A and B which are >>>> separated by some distance. Let's call the transit time for light >>>> to go from A to B is x seconds. We will _define_ that the transit time >>>> is the same from B to A. (This follows from Einstein's definition >>>> of simultaneity). >>>> >>>> At point A we have: >>>> Clock C_A, a light-detector, a flash-light and a computer. >>>> The computer can register the time shown by C_A when >>>> the flash-light is flashing, and when the light-detector >>>> registers a light-flash. >>>> >>>> At point B we have: >>>> Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer. >>>> The computer can register the time shown by C_B when >>>> the light-detector registers a light-flash. >>>> >>>> In the following we will synchronise clock C_B to clock C_A. >>>> That is, we will adjust clock C_B so it become synchronous >>>> with clock C_A. >>>> >>>> Now we let the flash-light at point A flash. >>>> At this instant, C_A is showing tA = n seconds. >>>> tA is measured by C_A at A. >>>> >>>> When the flash hits the light-detector at B, >>>> Clock C_B shows tB = m seconds. >>>> tB is measured by C_B at B. >>>> >>>> A short time later the light detector at A registers >>>> the light reflected by the mirror at B. >>>> At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A = n + 2x seconds. >>>> t'A is measured by C_A at A. >>>> >>>> Einstein: >>>> "The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB." >>>> >>>> Or: tB = (tA + t'A)/2 = (n+n+2x)/2 = (n + x) >>>> >>>> That is, to be synchronous clock C_B must show a time midway >>>> between tA and t'A when the light is reflected by the mirror. >>>> So tB should show (n + x) seconds when the light is reflected >>>> by the mirror. >>>> But at that instant tB is showing m seconds, so to make the two >>>> clocks synchronous, we must adjust clock C_B by: >>>> δ = (n-m) + x seconds. >>>> >>>> >>>> After this correction, we have: >>>> >>>> tB − tA = (m - n) seconds + δ = x seconds >>>> t'A − tB = (n + 2x - m) seconds - δ = x seconds >>>> >>>> The clocks are now synchronised. >>>> >>>> Please explain what in the above you find impossible >>>> to do in your lab. >>> >>> I have explained these things a hundred times. >>> It is impossible to synchronize two watches A and B located in >>> different places. >> >> So you agree that Paul B. Andersen's prodedure is doable and achieves >> what you call "impssible". > > It's much more complicated than that. > We can accept it for a Galilean frame of reference, > for example the Earth frame of reference. > But for an accelerated frame of reference, for example, it doesn't work > anymore. > If we ask a relativistic physicist, for example Paul who is still an > educated and intelligent person (compared to Python the clown) A clown is someone pretending that 3 can be 4 for some obervers. > to give > me the time taken by Bella to reach Tau Ceti (12 ly; a=1.052 ly/y²) he > will answer me correctly and set To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)=12.9156 years. > The problem is, if I ask him for Bella's proper time, everything will > sink into horror, because he will give me an incredibly low proper time, > by performing an abstract integration adding abstract times. 1st. This claim of yours about non-inertial frames is completely unrelated. As a matter of fact in one of the drawings you've made showing the non-inertial traveler trajectory you didn't even realize that this very drawing ASSUMES Einstein-Poicaré synchronization to be correct! There are points there with x-t coordinates! 2nd. Your claims about non-inertial travelers can be shown to be 1) contradictory with other of your claims 2) contradicting the principle of Relativity. This is what can be called "sinking into horrors".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-20 15:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gQSP7T04xKx9wgapoySeijcbJi4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #656171 |
Le 20/08/2024 à 17:02, Python a écrit : > A clown is someone pretending that 3 can be 4 for some obervers. This is not exactly what I am saying. If we take the idea of a proper time, it is a relativistic invariant, and everyone, in all possible and imaginable frames of reference, will admit that the proper time is an invariant. It is this invariant that allows me to write To²=Tr²+Et² to replace the old formulation of the invariance of the space-time interval of little interest in RR. If tB=00'01" is noted on B's clock, it is obvious that what is written will be noted by all observers of all frames of reference, therefore whatever the aposition, and whatever the relative speed. What will vary is the time at which tB=00'01" occurred for any different and distant observer. As a general rule, no observer will find that this happened simultaneously, that is to say at the moment when his own watch will mark tX=00'01". This is not true for A if we understand what I am explaining. For A, when the event Tb takes place, it is already tA'=2. In short, for A, tB and tA' are simultaneous. I repeat, for A, tB and tA' are simultaneous. Have three cups of coffee, and perhaps you will understand why, without budging, I have been talking for 40 years about universal anisochrony. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-20 17:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <va2cu7$3c12c$17@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #656174 |
Le 20/08/2024 à 17:28, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : > Le 20/08/2024 à 17:02, Python a écrit : > >> A clown is someone pretending that 3 can be 4 for some obervers. > > This is not exactly what I am saying. This is exactly what you wrote. > In short, for A, tB and tA' are simultaneous. > I repeat, for A, tB and tA' are simultaneous. Numbers like t_B or t'_A cannot be "simultaneous". Events like e1 = "B sends back a light signal to A" or e2 = "A receives this signal" can be. If this is what you meant, which is likely, then, according to Einstein-Poincaré *definition* of simultaneity: e1 and e2 are NOT simultaneous for A (nor for B) If your definition of simultaneity says so, it is broken. You even noticed that is broken. Switch from your asinine definition of simultaneity, which is broken, to a correct one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-20 16:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <-RLU4Hb-vC0H6CrJfdC09_wtGwc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #656175 |
Le 20/08/2024 à 17:32, Python a écrit : >> In short, for A, tB and tA' are simultaneous. >> I repeat, for A, tB and tA' are simultaneous. > > Numbers like t_B or t'_A cannot be "simultaneous". Events > like e1 = "B sends back a light signal to A" or e2 = "A receives > this signal" can be. > > If this is what you meant, which is likely, then, according > to Einstein-Poincaré *definition* of simultaneity: > > e1 and e2 are NOT simultaneous for A (nor for B) No. YOU, you say that e1 and e2 are not simultaneus for A. That's not what I said. For B, the time e2-time e1 = 2AB/c C'est bon, tu comprends? Je suis sûr que tu planes, et que ça va encore être de ma très grande faute. Jean-Pierre, au moins une fois dans ta vie, je te supplie d'être sérieux. Fais un petit effort, bon sang!!! R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-20 18:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <va2fsa$3c12c$22@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #656179 |
Le 20/08/2024 à 18:18, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : > Le 20/08/2024 à 17:32, Python a écrit : > >>> In short, for A, tB and tA' are simultaneous. >>> I repeat, for A, tB and tA' are simultaneous. >> >> Numbers like t_B or t'_A cannot be "simultaneous". Events >> like e1 = "B sends back a light signal to A" or e2 = "A receives >> this signal" can be. >> >> If this is what you meant, which is likely, then, according >> to Einstein-Poincaré *definition* of simultaneity: >> >> e1 and e2 are NOT simultaneous for A (nor for B) > > No. According to Einstein-Poincaré definition of simultaneity they are not simultaneous. However you like or not this *definition* this is something you CANNOT deny. A definition cannot be false. It is either consistent or not. E-P's one can be proven so. Yours can be proven inconsistent (even *you* actually proved that it is inconsistent). > [snip whining]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web