Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #659577 > unrolled thread

Relativistic synchronisation method

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-16 12:22 +0000
    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2024-12-16 22:59 +0800
      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-16 16:25 +0100
        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-16 16:06 +0000
          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-16 17:43 +0100
            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-16 17:02 +0000
              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-16 19:51 +0100
                Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-16 23:25 +0000
          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-17 14:51 +0100
            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 14:31 +0000
              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-21 15:22 +0100
                Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-21 17:26 +0000
                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-22 14:02 +0100
                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-22 13:35 +0000
                      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-22 11:16 -0800
                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-26 14:08 -0800
                      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-22 20:58 +0100
                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-22 12:21 -0800
                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 12:31 -0800
                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-23 11:32 -0800
                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-24 00:17 -0800
                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-22 21:25 +0100
                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 12:26 -0800
                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-22 21:15 +0000
                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 13:31 -0800
                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-12-23 10:16 +0100
                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-23 16:01 +0000
                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-29 13:39 +0100
                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-29 08:25 -0800
                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-29 17:59 +0000
                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-30 21:43 +0100
                                Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-30 20:59 +0000
                                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-31 11:15 +0100
                                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-31 10:32 +0000
                                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-31 11:40 +0100
                                      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-31 11:26 +0000
                                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-31 13:05 +0100
                                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-31 13:10 +0000
                                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-31 10:58 +0000
                                      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-01 12:37 +0100
                                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-01 13:06 +0100
                                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-01 13:53 +0000
                                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-01 17:18 +0000
                                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-01 18:17 +0000
                                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-01 19:30 +0100
                                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-01 21:50 +0000
                                                Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-02 00:03 +0100
                                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 09:05 -0800
                                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 09:24 -0800
                                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 09:28 -0800
                                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-01 17:55 +0000
                                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-01 21:22 +0100
                                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-01 21:55 +0100
                                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-02 00:07 +0000
                                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-01 18:14 +0000
                                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-01 18:22 +0000
                                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-01 18:38 +0000
                                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-01 21:52 +0000
                                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-01 22:01 +0100
                                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-02 00:21 +0000
                                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-01 18:29 +0000
                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-29 18:04 +0000
                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-30 21:43 +0100
                                Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-30 21:06 +0000
                                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-31 11:26 +0100
                                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-31 11:04 +0000
                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-31 16:29 +0100
                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-31 16:46 +0100
                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-01 14:22 +0100
                                Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-01 19:33 +0100
                                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-01-01 23:28 +0100
                                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-02 00:05 +0100
                                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-02 14:31 +0100
                                      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-02 14:49 +0100
            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 14:52 +0000
      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-16 15:35 +0000
      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-16 15:36 +0000
        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-16 17:41 +0100
        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2024-12-17 12:33 +0800
          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 10:45 +0000
            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-17 12:24 +0100
            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 16:42 +0000
              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 17:19 +0000
                Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 17:32 +0000
                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 17:50 +0000
                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 17:57 +0000
                      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 18:14 +0000
                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 18:15 +0000
                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "shades@cov.net.inv" <seeu@nt.net> - 2024-12-17 20:47 +0000
                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 18:02 +0000
                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 17:58 +0000
                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jp@python.invalide> - 2024-12-17 18:40 +0000
                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 18:01 +0000
                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 18:05 +0000
                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-18 16:43 +0000
              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-17 18:51 +0100
    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-12-17 15:30 +0200
      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 14:16 +0000
        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-12-19 12:52 +0200
          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-19 11:34 +0000

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#659802

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > On 12/22/2024 12:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
> > >>> Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
> > >>>> answer "YES" or "NO".
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Here we go:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
> > >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
> > >>>> (or is your watch a computer on the net?)
> > >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
> > >>>> (or is your watch a mobile phone?)
> > >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Do you use GPS to set your watch?
> > >>>> (or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
> > >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
> > >>>> (or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
> > >>>> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
> > >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please
> > >>>
> > >>> Everything you say is true.
> > >>>
> > >>> So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
> > >>
> > >> OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
> > >>
> > >> You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
> > >> of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
> > >>
> > >> That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
> > >> are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
> > >> So do the clocks in most western European countries,
> > >> Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
> > >> (My clock within 1 second)
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a
> > >>> synchronization process consists of in our universe.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a
> > >>> single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given
> > >>> place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in
> > >>> the cosmos).
> > >>
> > >> Quite.
> > >> The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
> > >> Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
> > >>
> > >>    https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/
> > >>
> > >>> This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the
> > >>> watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.
> > >>
> > >> It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
> > >>
> > >> Richard, I am in the real world.
> > >>
> > >> I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:
> > >>
> > >> https://time.is/clock
> > >>
> > >> It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
> > >> and corrected for, so the displayed  time will be correct
> > >> within a second.
> > >>
> > >> You answered yes to these questions:
> > >> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
> > >> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
> > >> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
> > >>
> > >> So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
> > >> expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
> > >> (I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
> > >>
> > >> So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
> > >> when you set your clock.
> > >>
> > >> How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature,
> > >>> and will always remain so,
> > >>
> > >> You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
> > >> so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
> > >> Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
> > >>
> > >> Merry Christmas Richard.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Paul
> > >>
> > >> https://paulba.no/
> > >
> > >
> > > I synchronise my clock to the first 3 seconds of the big bang...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Well that's ignorant, both Big Bang and Steady State
> > are neither falsifiable, neither "scientific",
> > both merely exercises in tuning, furthermore
> > now it's stopped.
> >
> > The JWST has roundly paint-canned expansion theory
> > and most of inflationary theory since it was already
> > for decades and decades that astronomy just has
> > only one variable "redshift" that redshift bias
> > is removable because of optical effects and now
> > all the old Cold Lambda have a sort of speculative
> > way of reading them.
> 
> You have to understand..
> 
> Time (as you know it) had it's beginging with space and time.
> 
> The first 3 seconds is universal time.
> 
> Local time is Einstien's Time.
> 
> In other words, you have your clock synchronized to a
> Cuckoo clock that sits outside looking out of
> Einstein'ts window.
> 
> Just take the first 3 seconds and add additional seconds until
> you reach...Now. That would be the correct time...now.
> 
> 


Now, if my clock had a button on it which I press...and all of Time
would stop, all
over the uinverse...it would stop..NOW. 

Now is universal.


Einstein's time is Locult Time.


It's regional, not universal.


Regional, Einstein can control the speed of light, but he cannot contol
it universally.


Relativity is a cult.


stay within your local boundaries and you won't be penalized...





-- 
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]

#659741

W dniu 22.12.2024 o 20:58, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
> Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>
>>> I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
>>>
>>> I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
>>> answer "YES" or "NO".
>>>
>>> Here we go:
>>>
>>> Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>
>>> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
>>> (or is your watch a computer on the net?)
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>
>>> Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
>>> (or is your watch a mobile phone?)
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>
>>> Do you use GPS to set your watch?
>>> (or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>
>>> Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
>>> (or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
>>>
>>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
>>> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please
>>
>> Everything you say is true.
>>
>> So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
> 
> OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
> 
> You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
> of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
> 
> That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
> are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.

Of course, your idiot guru has forbidden that.
But even the hardest fanatics of The Shit
are not stupid enough to really treat the idiot
seriously.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659742

On 12/22/2024 11:58 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>
>>> I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
>>>
>>> I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
>>> answer "YES" or "NO".
>>>
>>> Here we go:
>>>
>>> Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>
>>> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
>>> (or is your watch a computer on the net?)
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>
>>> Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
>>> (or is your watch a mobile phone?)
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>
>>> Do you use GPS to set your watch?
>>> (or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>
>>> Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
>>> (or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
>>>
>>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
>>> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please
>>
>> Everything you say is true.
>>
>> So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
>
> OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
>
> You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
> of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
>
> That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
> are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
> So do the clocks in most western European countries,
> Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
> (My clock within 1 second)
>
>>
>> The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what
>> a synchronization process consists of in our universe.
>
>>
>> When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a
>> single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a
>> given place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative
>> speed in the cosmos).
>
> Quite.
> The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
> Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
>
>   https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/
>
>
>> This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the
>> watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.
>
> It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
>
> Richard, I am in the real world.
>
> I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:
>
> https://time.is/clock
>
> It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
> and corrected for, so the displayed  time will be correct
> within a second.
>
> You answered yes to these questions:
> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
>
> So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
> expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
> (I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
>
> So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
> when you set your clock.
>
> How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D
>
>>
>> This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature,
>> and will always remain so,
>
> You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
> so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
> Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
>
>
> Merry Christmas Richard.
>

There are a lot more corrections to the clock,
the time-of-day, than is given in usual accounts.

"Zulu" time, say.

The "naval" observatory in Colorado,
..., the most land-locked state, ....


Heh, "Washington DC's latitude and longitude"
are known to vary.

Many long-running timekeeping apparatuses
do not agree, yet, clocks only ever slow or meet.


Then, the clock, as with regards to
time-of-day, terrestrial, are two different things.


Lattices of atomic clock lattive arrays
readily demonstrate space-contraction,
because of GR, not SR.

About light falling, or Pound-Rebka,
you'll notice it also falls "up".


Einstein in Einstein's Relativity
has a "the time", a clock hypothesis.

There are no closed time-like curves,
and furthermore never negative time,
as with regards to space contraction
and the differences space-contraction-linear
and space-contraction-rotational, which
may have experimental verification
readily defined.

GPS does operate on a principle of relativity -
it says how the clocks changed because of
presuming dead reckoning and comparing clocks,
figuring it's cheaper to keep the satellite
array synchronized than updating zillions
of ground-based receivers.

It's like "the JPL Ephemeris is constantly
updated according to detected clock changes
reflecting space-time continuum flexing,
it's called Parameterized Post-Newtonian".

Hey, have you heard that "Relativity of
Simultaneity is non-local"? It follows
from "SR is local", which is part of
Einstein's Relativity since Einstein
said so, which most people didn't notice.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659744

Le 22/12/2024 à 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>
>>> I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
>>>
>>> I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
>>> answer "YES" or "NO".
>>>
>>> Here we go:
>>>
>>> Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>
>>> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
>>> (or is your watch a computer on the net?)
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>
>>> Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
>>> (or is your watch a mobile phone?)
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>
>>> Do you use GPS to set your watch?
>>> (or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>
>>> Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
>>> (or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
>>>
>>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
>>> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
>>>   'yes' or 'no', please
>> 
>> Everything you say is true.
>> 
>> So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
> 
> OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
> 
> You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
> of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
> 
> That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
> are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
> So do the clocks in most western European countries,
> Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
> (My clock within 1 second)
> 
>> 
>> The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a 
>> synchronization process consists of in our universe.
> 
>> 
>> When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a 
>> single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given 
>> place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in 
>> the cosmos).
> 
> Quite.
> The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
> Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
> 
>   
> https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/
> 
> 
>> This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the 
>> watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.
> 
> It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
> 
> Richard, I am in the real world.
> 
> I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:
> 
> https://time.is/clock
> 
> It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
> and corrected for, so the displayed  time will be correct
> within a second.
> 
> You answered yes to these questions:
> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
> 
> So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
> expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
> (I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
> 
> So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
> when you set your clock.
> 
> How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D
> 
>> 
>> This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature, 
>> and will always remain so,
> 
> You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
> so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
> Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
> 
> 
> Merry Christmas Richard.

You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (it's been four 
decades).

We breathe, we blow.

We have a little coffee, and we hold our heads in our hands.

WE CANNOT absolutely synchronize two watches with each other, because it 
is physically impossible.

This is like saying: "draw me a round square".

We must therefore synchronize the two watches on a third virtual watch for 
which the two events watch A marks noon, and watch B marks noon are 
SIMULTANEOUS.

It is on the universal simultaneity of this abstract watch that physicists 
build their usable universe.

This watch does not exist, it is virtual, although very useful.

I repeat it again and again, watches A and B cannot be tuned to each 
other. If I agree A on B (I say that the two events A1 and B1 are 
simultaneous) for A, but they will no longer be for B.

And so on for the entire universe.

A synchronization of type M is then necessary, and we imagine, without 
realizing it, a point M placed very far away in a hypothetical fourth 
dimension and at an equal distance from all points A, B, C, D, etc... of 
the universe.

This point M has its own hyperplane of present time, in which all events 
take place at the same instants and we note tM(e1)= tM(e2)=tM(e3)=etc...

And it is on this virtual point that we refer when synchronizing all the 
watches.

Synchronizing the watches (let's breathe, let's blow) does not mean 
"agreeing to say that all the watches mark noon at the same time", it is 
grotesque, false, and absurd. This is NOT what it means. Believing this is 
an idea as religious as it is false.

It simply means that for M, all events occurred at the same present 
moment.

I repeat it again because it is so important, and because it is the very 
basis of the theory of relativity well understood:
It simply means that for M, all events occurred at the same present 
moment.

Paul, Paul, I beg you to understand this concept which, I know 
unfortunately confuses 99.9% of those who read me.

Paul, Paul, I beg you to make an effort to understand, and to UNDERSTAND 
the simple notion of universal anosochrony and the usefulness of this 
abstract virtual watch that the whole world uses without understanding 
that it is a useful watch, but virtual and that NEVER two events can be 
RECIPROCALLY SIMULTANEOUS.

It is only by abstract convention that we use the notion of synchronized 
watches.

If you understand French, you will see that I write in my pdf: "Just as 
all consciousness is consciousness of something, all synchronization is 
synchronization ON something". Here, it is the point M as described in my 
pdf.

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?6s8YJGP42H0C-4FoL8dk0ahw7GU@jntp/Data.Media:1> ---> direct acces here <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=6s8YJGP42H0C-4FoL8dk0ahw7GU@jntp>

Merry Christmas for all. 

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659745

On 12/22/2024 01:15 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 22/12/2024 à 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
>>>>
>>>> I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
>>>> answer "YES" or "NO".
>>>>
>>>> Here we go:
>>>>
>>>> Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
>>>> (or is your watch a computer on the net?)
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
>>>> (or is your watch a mobile phone?)
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use GPS to set your watch?
>>>> (or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
>>>> (or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
>>>>
>>>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
>>>> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please
>>>
>>> Everything you say is true.
>>>
>>> So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
>>
>> OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
>>
>> You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
>> of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
>>
>> That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
>> are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
>> So do the clocks in most western European countries,
>> Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
>> (My clock within 1 second)
>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and
>>> what a synchronization process consists of in our universe.
>>
>>>
>>> When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on
>>> a single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a
>>> given place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative
>>> speed in the cosmos).
>>
>> Quite.
>> The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
>> Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
>>
>> https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/
>>
>>
>>
>>> This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all
>>> the watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.
>>
>> It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
>>
>> Richard, I am in the real world.
>>
>> I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:
>>
>> https://time.is/clock
>>
>> It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
>> and corrected for, so the displayed  time will be correct
>> within a second.
>>
>> You answered yes to these questions:
>> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
>> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
>>
>> So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
>> expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
>> (I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
>>
>> So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
>> when you set your clock.
>>
>> How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D
>>
>>>
>>> This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by
>>> nature, and will always remain so,
>>
>> You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
>> so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
>> Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
>>
>>
>> Merry Christmas Richard.
>
> You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (it's been four
> decades).
>
> We breathe, we blow.
>
> We have a little coffee, and we hold our heads in our hands.
>
> WE CANNOT absolutely synchronize two watches with each other, because it
> is physically impossible.
>
> This is like saying: "draw me a round square".
>
> We must therefore synchronize the two watches on a third virtual watch
> for which the two events watch A marks noon, and watch B marks noon are
> SIMULTANEOUS.
>
> It is on the universal simultaneity of this abstract watch that
> physicists build their usable universe.
>
> This watch does not exist, it is virtual, although very useful.
>
> I repeat it again and again, watches A and B cannot be tuned to each
> other. If I agree A on B (I say that the two events A1 and B1 are
> simultaneous) for A, but they will no longer be for B.
>
> And so on for the entire universe.
>
> A synchronization of type M is then necessary, and we imagine, without
> realizing it, a point M placed very far away in a hypothetical fourth
> dimension and at an equal distance from all points A, B, C, D, etc... of
> the universe.
>
> This point M has its own hyperplane of present time, in which all events
> take place at the same instants and we note tM(e1)= tM(e2)=tM(e3)=etc...
>
> And it is on this virtual point that we refer when synchronizing all the
> watches.
>
> Synchronizing the watches (let's breathe, let's blow) does not mean
> "agreeing to say that all the watches mark noon at the same time", it is
> grotesque, false, and absurd. This is NOT what it means. Believing this
> is an idea as religious as it is false.
>
> It simply means that for M, all events occurred at the same present moment.
>
> I repeat it again because it is so important, and because it is the very
> basis of the theory of relativity well understood:
> It simply means that for M, all events occurred at the same present moment.
>
> Paul, Paul, I beg you to understand this concept which, I know
> unfortunately confuses 99.9% of those who read me.
>
> Paul, Paul, I beg you to make an effort to understand, and to UNDERSTAND
> the simple notion of universal anosochrony and the usefulness of this
> abstract virtual watch that the whole world uses without understanding
> that it is a useful watch, but virtual and that NEVER two events can be
> RECIPROCALLY SIMULTANEOUS.
>
> It is only by abstract convention that we use the notion of synchronized
> watches.
>
> If you understand French, you will see that I write in my pdf: "Just as
> all consciousness is consciousness of something, all synchronization is
> synchronization ON something". Here, it is the point M as described in
> my pdf.
>
> <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?6s8YJGP42H0C-4FoL8dk0ahw7GU@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> ---> direct acces here
> <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=6s8YJGP42H0C-4FoL8dk0ahw7GU@jntp>
>
> Merry Christmas for all.
> R.H.

This is science, we don't "understand" anything.

("Unnerstand, unnerstand, unnerstand ...?" No I do not.)

We may make a generous yet critical reading, ....

Christmas might be a little different this year
since the North Pole recently moved.

Clocks either procede, slow, or meet.

The fastest clock is at rest, ....

... and, every one observes each other
as were it each so.

Just because the Lorentzian is a Laplacian
with a "negative time term"

(x'' + y'' + z'') = 0 (Laplacian, harmonic, metric)

(x'' + y'' + z'') - t'' = s'', ..., = 0 (Lorentzian, metric)

because the invariant about electrodynamics
pretty much only needs such a term, and the
rotational in the kinematic makes one, -t'',
has that it's never negative so time only
slows, while mostly it's zero.

Then, that being only about the various exchanges
or transits of energy, and about the kinetic,
helps fix that various manufactured problems
are as of their own making, when really it's
that under-neath in the theory it's not a problem.


Besides that classical theories have a clock hypothesis,
where the classical theory is a continuum,
also Einstein's Relativity does, if not "popular Relativity".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659754

Am Sonntag000022, 22.12.2024 um 22:15 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 22/12/2024 à 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
>>>>
>>>> I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
>>>> answer "YES" or "NO".
>>>>
>>>> Here we go:
>>>>
>>>> Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
>>>> (or is your watch a computer on the net?)
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
>>>> (or is your watch a mobile phone?)
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use GPS to set your watch?
>>>> (or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
>>>> (or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
>>>>
>>>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
>>>> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please
>>>
>>> Everything you say is true.
>>>
>>> So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
>>
>> OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
>>
>> You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
>> of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
>>
>> That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
>> are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
>> So do the clocks in most western European countries,
>> Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
>> (My clock within 1 second)
>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and 
>>> what a synchronization process consists of in our universe.
>>
>>>
>>> When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on 
>>> a single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a 
>>> given place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative 
>>> speed in the cosmos).
>>
>> Quite.
>> The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
>> Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
>>
>> https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval- 
>> Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/
>>
>>
>>> This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all 
>>> the watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.
>>
>> It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
>>
>> Richard, I am in the real world.
>>
>> I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:
>>
>> https://time.is/clock
>>
>> It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
>> and corrected for, so the displayed  time will be correct
>> within a second.
>>
>> You answered yes to these questions:
>> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
>> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
>>
>> So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
>> expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
>> (I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
>>
>> So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
>> when you set your clock.
>>
>> How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D
>>
>>>
>>> This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by 
>>> nature, and will always remain so,
>>
>> You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
>> so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
>> Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
>>
>>
>> Merry Christmas Richard.
> 
> You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (it's been four 
> decades).
> 
> We breathe, we blow.
> 
> We have a little coffee, and we hold our heads in our hands.
> 
> WE CANNOT absolutely synchronize two watches with each other, because it 
> is physically impossible.
> 
> This is like saying: "draw me a round square".
> 
> We must therefore synchronize the two watches on a third virtual watch 
> for which the two events watch A marks noon, and watch B marks noon are 
> SIMULTANEOUS.
> 
> It is on the universal simultaneity of this abstract watch that 
> physicists build their usable universe.
> 
> This watch does not exist, it is virtual, although very useful.

It is important to notice, that time should be local, hence 'universal 
simultineity' does not make sense.

It is actually a very important thing, that time is local, because you 
could explain all kinds of observations with this assumption.

see here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

> 
> I repeat it again and again, watches A and B cannot be tuned to each 
> other. If I agree A on B (I say that the two events A1 and B1 are 
> simultaneous) for A, but they will no longer be for B.

It is in fact possible to chose kind of 'mid-point-time' from M, in 
which A and B-events are simulteinious.

The problem:

if you have more than two points to compare, this does not work, because 
the midpoint of a triangle is not lying uopn its edjes.

IaW: the mid-point of a triangle ABC is not in the middle between any 
two of the end-points.

This would exclude the possibility to generallize the mid-point-time 
from M (in the middle between A and B) from above.


...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659760

Le 23/12/2024 à 10:16, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am Sonntag000022, 22.12.2024 um 22:15 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>> Le 22/12/2024 à 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

> The problem:
> 
> if you have more than two points to compare, this does not work, because 
> the midpoint of a triangle is not lying uopn its edjes.
> 
> IaW: the mid-point of a triangle ABC is not in the middle between any 
> two of the end-points.
> 
> This would exclude the possibility to generallize the mid-point-time 
> from M (in the middle between A and B) from above.

> TH

It's not always easy, but I've always thought that we shouldn't state, 
teach, or divulge scientific theories without a clear idea of ​​what 
we're saying.

If I say that, I'll have the entire scientific community with me, and 
they'll all cheer my words and say that since Newton and Poincaré, I'm 
the greatest scientist to have lived on earth.

Except that if I ask them to apply the principle, they'll all run away 
with their tails between their legs, from the best Nobel Prize winner to 
the smallest sci.physics.relativity poser

We call that a contradiction.

So let's clearly explain what time dilation is (it's NOT AT ALL what is 
taught). If we want a clearer idea and a better understanding of the 
things we like to teach others, we should say: "chronotropy dilation".

This means that the internal mechanism of watches turns reciprocally less 
quickly for an opposite watch (the one that is in the other frame of 
reference).

This is what Dr. Richard Hachel calls the internal Doppler effect on 
chronotropies.

It is very simple to understand.

The equation is known to all: To'=To/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

But what does this mean, which Dr. Hachel understands perfectly but 
physicists do not?

This means that point M of frame of reference R is in a relativistic 
chronotropy relationship with point M' of frame of reference R'.

Now, we must not forget that these points are abstract and virtual 
creatures, and that they do not exist in nature.

It is the false belief in their real existence that has caused much damage 
to modern physics. We confuse the time of watches (the one on this table, 
the one down there in the rocket) with the time noted, that is to say the 
relative internal chronotropy, by the abstract and virtual watches M and 
M' resulting from our fanatical belief in the notion of absolute 
simultaneity.

This is what led for 120 years to the extraordinary Langevin paradox, 
which no one has ever been able to explain clearly.

Never.

Now, "we must say clear things".

We then come to make the statement: "The two watches of Stella and 
Terrence beat reciprocally faster than the other watch" and we say: 
"However, Stella comes back younger".

This is obviously doubly absurd, and for forty years, I have not ceased to 
see physicists answer me that "if it is absurd, it is because I do not 
understand".

Telling this to Richard Hachel is just one more absurdity, and showing 
oneself to be particularly arrogant, grotesque, as well as idiotic.

Let's go back to our explanation.

And let's pay attention to the WORDS, to the fog of words.

We say: "For thirty years, Terrence will observe that Stella's watch will 
beat less quickly, and for eighteen years, Stella will observe that 
Terrence's watch beats less quickly".

There is a tremendous twist of the concept here. It is NOT Stella's or 
Terrence's watch that beats less quickly than the other, it is the 
chronotropy of point M relative to point M', and the chronotropy of point 
M' relative to point M.

It is the confusion of concepts that causes a paradox that does not really 
exist.
Chronotropy is not everything, we must also consider anisochrony.

Having a different INTERNAL chronotropy is not everything, we must also 
consider external anisochrony, and the fact that two watches placed in 
different places have different notions of simultaneity, and that, 
logically, crossing spaces in the frame of reference of the other watch, 
they modify their time a second time, and that we must add this 
modification to the chronotropic effect.

We then find ourselves in a clearer, more logical theory, and 
experimentally magnificently proven.

Only, we must clearly explain things.

Same thing with the relativistic zoom effect (physicists seem to me 
incapable of understanding the elasticity of lengths and distances). This 
is not normal.

It is unworthy of them.

If I say that down there, when Stella turns, and rushes back towards the 
earth, there is a relativistic zoom effect for her, and that she SEES the 
earth at 36 light years, since D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) if we 
take D=12 and Vo=0.8c, they go crazy and start laughing.

They look like monkeys who have been thrown bananas, and that makes you 
laugh.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659922

Den 22.12.2024 22:15, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 22/12/2024 à 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
>>>>
>>>> I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
>>>> answer "YES" or "NO".
>>>>
>>>> Here we go:
>>>>
>>>> Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
>>>> (or is your watch a computer on the net?)
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
>>>> (or is your watch a mobile phone?)
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use GPS to set your watch?
>>>> (or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
>>>> (or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
>>>>
>>>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
>>>> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
>>>>   'yes' or 'no', please

>>>
>>> Everything you say is true.
>>>
>>> So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.

>>
>> OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
>>
>> You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
>> of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
>>

> 
> You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (it's been four 
> decades).

Yes, your clear answer to my question was easy to understand.

My question was:
"Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
  the wall of a railway station or an airport?"

Your answer was 'yes'.

So you expect the clock on the railway station to be synchronous with
your clock.

> 
> We breathe, we blow.
> 
> We have a little coffee, and we hold our heads in our hands.
> 
> WE CANNOT absolutely synchronize two watches with each other, because it 
> is physically impossible.

Right.
There is no such thing as "absolute synchronisation".
It is meaningless because it is no "absolute time".

Your clock and my clock and the clock on the railway station
in Paris are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred
frame of reference (ECI-frame).

> 
> We must therefore synchronize the two watches on a third virtual watch 
> for which the two events watch A marks noon, and watch B marks noon are 
> SIMULTANEOUS.

My question was:
"Do you use the internet to set your watch?"

Your answer was 'yes'.

So you know you can synchronise your clock to all the millions
of other synchronous clocks showing UTC+1h, to within a second
via internet:

https://time.is/clock

You may call the 'clock' you see on your screen "a virtual clock".

But you don't have to do it at noon, you can do it any time.

<snip>

Happy new year!

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659936

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
> Den 22.12.2024 22:15, skrev Richard Hachel:
> > Le 22/12/2024 à 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> >> Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
> >>> Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>> I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
> >>>>
> >>>> I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
> >>>> answer "YES" or "NO".
> >>>>
> >>>> Here we go:
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
> >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
> >>>> (or is your watch a computer on the net?)
> >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
> >>>> (or is your watch a mobile phone?)
> >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you use GPS to set your watch?
> >>>> (or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
> >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
> >>>> (or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
> >>>> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
> >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please
> 
> >>>
> >>> Everything you say is true.
> >>>
> >>> So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
> 
> >>
> >> OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
> >>
> >> You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
> >> of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
> >>
> 
> >
> > You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (it's been four
> > decades).
> 
> Yes, your clear answer to my question was easy to understand.
> 
> My question was:
> "Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
>   the wall of a railway station or an airport?"
> 
> Your answer was 'yes'.
> 
> So you expect the clock on the railway station to be synchronous with
> your clock.
> 
> >
> > We breathe, we blow.
> >
> > We have a little coffee, and we hold our heads in our hands.
> >
> > WE CANNOT absolutely synchronize two watches with each other, because it
> > is physically impossible.
> 
> Right.
> There is no such thing as "absolute synchronisation".
> It is meaningless because it is no "absolute time".
> 
> Your clock and my clock and the clock on the railway station
> in Paris are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred
> frame of reference (ECI-frame).
> 
> >
> > We must therefore synchronize the two watches on a third virtual watch
> > for which the two events watch A marks noon, and watch B marks noon are
> > SIMULTANEOUS.
> 
> My question was:
> "Do you use the internet to set your watch?"
> 
> Your answer was 'yes'.
> 
> So you know you can synchronise your clock to all the millions
> of other synchronous clocks showing UTC+1h, to within a second
> via internet:
> 
> https://time.is/clock
> 
> You may call the 'clock' you see on your screen "a virtual clock".
> 
> But you don't have to do it at noon, you can do it any time.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Happy new year!
> 
> --
> Paul
> 
> https://paulba.no/

My watch is synchronized to the first picosecond of the big bang...


everyone else watch has the incorrect untrue time.




I'm the only one in the universe who knows what time it is...now.

-- 
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]

#659939

Le 29/12/2024 à 13:37, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> 
> Yes, your clear answer to my question was easy to understand.
> 
> My question was:
> "Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
>   the wall of a railway station or an airport?"
> 
> Your answer was 'yes'.
> 
> So you expect the clock on the railway station to be synchronous with
> your clock.
> 
>> 

No.

I do not expect the station clock to be synchronous with mine. I have told 
you dozens of times that two spatially separated clocks will never be able 
to agree on the notion of simultaneity (I have been saying this for forty 
years).

I do not understand your determination to constantly destroy what I say, 
while for my part I never stop explaining to you not only the correct 
things, but also the things as neither Poincaré nor Einstein said them.

But you do not believe me. So we go around in circles and poison the 
words.

I explained to you that the current synchronization is a virtual, abstract 
synchronization, very useful for giving a form of coherence to things.

I said that it was a type M synchronization.

But that it was not the reality of things, even if it was very useful.

You have the same thing with the Mercator projection in geography, it is 
incredibly logical, beautiful, and useful.

But completely wrong locally: Greenland is larger than Africa, which is 
absurd for those who have been around it.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659967

Den 29.12.2024 18:59, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 29/12/2024 à 13:37, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>
>> Yes, your clear answer to my question was easy to understand.
>>
>> My question was:
>> "Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
>>   the wall of a railway station or an airport?"
>>
>> Your answer was 'yes'.
>>
>> So you expect the clock on the railway station to be synchronous with
>> your clock.
>>
>>>
> 
> No.
> 
> I do not expect the station clock to be synchronous with mine. I have 
> told you dozens of times that two spatially separated clocks will never 
> be able to agree on the notion of simultaneity (I have been saying this 
> for forty years).

You set your clock to show UTC+1h when you were at home.
The clock on the station shows UTC+1h.
When you arrive at the station you expect the station clock
to show the same as your clock.

But you do _not_ expect the clocks to be synchronous.

In physics "synchronous" means that two clocks simultaneously
show the same.

When two clocks are side by side and show the same,
they are synchronous by definition.


> 
> I do not understand your determination to constantly destroy what I say, 
> while for my part I never stop explaining to you not only the correct 
> things, but also the things as neither Poincaré nor Einstein said them.
> 
> But you do not believe me. So we go around in circles and poison the words.
> 
> I explained to you that the current synchronization is a virtual, 
> abstract synchronization, very useful for giving a form of coherence to 
> things.
> 
> I said that it was a type M synchronization.
> 
> But that it was not the reality of things, even if it was very useful.
> 
> You have the same thing with the Mercator projection in geography, it is 
> incredibly logical, beautiful, and useful.
> 
> But completely wrong locally: Greenland is larger than Africa, which is 
> absurd for those who have been around it.
> 
> R.H.

I see. When two clocks side by side show the same, they are
"M synchronous" which is very useful, but they are not
really showing the same, exactly as a paper map is not real world.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659970

Le 30/12/2024 à 21:41, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

> In physics "synchronous" means that two clocks simultaneously
> show the same.
> 
> When two clocks are side by side and show the same,
> they are synchronous by definition.

 Absolutely.

 R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659979

Den 30.12.2024 21:59, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 30/12/2024 à 21:41, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> 
>> In physics "synchronous" means that two clocks simultaneously
>> show the same.
>>
>> When two clocks are side by side and show the same,
>> they are synchronous by definition.
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> R.H.
> 

So you finally resign.

At home you set your clock to  UTC+1h.
You know the station clock shows UTC+1h.
You expect the clocks will be synchronous within a second
when you arrive at the station.

It would be ridiculous to claim that the clocks were not
synchronous when you were at home, but in some mysterious
way became synchronous when you arrived at the station.
Or wouldn't it? :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659981

Le 31/12/2024 à 11:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 30.12.2024 21:59, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 30/12/2024 à 21:41, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>> 
>>> In physics "synchronous" means that two clocks simultaneously
>>> show the same.
>>>
>>> When two clocks are side by side and show the same,
>>> they are synchronous by definition.
>> 
>> Absolutely.
>> 
>> R.H.
>> 
> 
> So you finally resign.

 Absolutely not.

 R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659982

W dniu 31.12.2024 o 11:15, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
> Den 30.12.2024 21:59, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 30/12/2024 à 21:41, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>
>>> In physics "synchronous" means that two clocks simultaneously
>>> show the same.
>>>
>>> When two clocks are side by side and show the same,
>>> they are synchronous by definition.
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>> R.H.
>>
> 
> So you finally resign.
> 
> At home you set your clock to  UTC+1h.
> You know the station clock shows UTC+1h.

And you may be absolutely sure it's never
going to show "local time" absurd invented
by your idiot guru.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659985

Le 31/12/2024 à 11:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> 
> And you may be absolutely sure it's never
> going to show "local time" absurd invented
> by your idiot guru.

Newtonian physicists (they are called cranks because they no longer exist 
in laboratories or very few) make two mistakes, where Einsteinian 
physicists only make one.
Only Dr. Hachel (that's me) does not make either of these two mistakes.
The first mistake of Newtonians is to consider that time is ubiquitous. 
They consider that when it is December 31, 2024, it is December 31, 2024 
everywhere in the universe, and that tomorrow, the entire universe will 
move to January 1, 2025. They do not understand the relativity of the 
notion of local simultaneity. They do not understand the notion of 
universal ANISOCHRONY.
Certainly, there is, at this very moment, in my hyperplane of 
simultaneity, a moment that corresponds to my present time, over there, on 
Tau Ceti (12 light-years from Earth). If I drop a marble, maybe at the 
same present moment over there, a comet has just crashed into one of the 
moons of its solar system, and I can affirm that the events were 
simultaneous (FOR ME).
But this simultaneity is mine, it is not reciprocal. An observer placed 
over there, in this inatant (for me) perceives very well that a comet has 
just crashed. But the event "my marble has just fallen to the ground" does 
not exist for him. It will only exist in 24 years (breathe, blow). And no 
one will be able to do anything about it at all. I cannot prevent my 
marble from falling, and he cannot prevent (notion of causality) that in 
his future (24 years!!!), he will perceive the fall of my marble, 24 years 
after he perceived the shock of the comet in his system.
That is the first error.
Physicists do the same, and are completely overwhelmed when I talk to them 
about it.
The second mistake of Newtonians is to consider that chronotropy (the 
measurement of time) is invariant, and does not depend on the speed of the 
frame of reference that takes the measurements. At least, since Poincaré, 
leading physicists no longer make this mistake.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659986

W dniu 31.12.2024 o 12:26, Richard Hachel pisze:

> Only Dr. Hachel (that's me) does not make either of these two mistakes.
> The first mistake of Newtonians is to consider that time is ubiquitous. 
> They consider that when it is December 31, 2024, it is December 31, 2024 
> everywhere in the universe

Oh oh, that's what that moronic religion called
physics doing to the brains of its victims;
everybody sane knows that when it's  December
31, 2024 in Warsaw it's not necessary at all
that it's also December 31, 2024 in Beijing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659988

Le 31/12/2024 à 13:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 31.12.2024 o 12:26, Richard Hachel pisze:
> 
>> Only Dr. Hachel (that's me) does not make either of these two mistakes.
>> The first mistake of Newtonians is to consider that time is ubiquitous. 
>> They consider that when it is December 31, 2024, it is December 31, 2024 
>> everywhere in the universe
> 
> Oh oh, that's what that moronic religion called
> physics doing to the brains of its victims;
> everybody sane knows that when it's  December
> 31, 2024 in Warsaw it's not necessary at all
> that it's also December 31, 2024 in Beijing.

Mais non, tout le monde ne le sait pas.

Si tout le monde le savait, il n'aurait pas été besoin que je sois là 
pour vous l'apprendre.

Nous sommes dans un monde de singes, ne l'oubliez pas.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659983

Le 31/12/2024 à 11:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 30.12.2024 21:59, skrev Richard Hachel:

> At home you set your clock to  UTC+1h.
> You know the station clock shows UTC+1h.
> You expect the clocks will be synchronous within a second
> when you arrive at the station.



> It would be ridiculous to claim that the clocks were not
> synchronous when you were at home, but in some mysterious
> way became synchronous when you arrived at the station.
> Or wouldn't it? :-D

If the watches are well tuned, it is logical that when I find myself in 
the presence of the station clock, my watch will note the same time.
The opposite would also be absurd, since by definition they must be tuned.

But you still do not seem to have understood something about the nature of 
time (the notion of anisochrony).

I remind you and those who read: "Paul B. Andersen is not an idiot, he 
understood very well what the concept of chronotropy is, which is the 
study of the relativity of the internal beats of watches. He knows that by 
permutation of reference, it is the opposite watch that beats less quickly 
and that t'(its time for me) = tau (its time, for it) / sqrt (1-Vo² / 
c²).

But to this is added ANOTHER concept, the concept of anisochrony, that no 
one (not Paul any more than the others WANTS to understand).

It is not a question of mental capacity, I understood that at the age of 
seven by reading the Superman books, it is a question of will.

I explained everything in my pdf (for those who read French, and in my 
posts on usenet).

The rest is just discriminatory will: "We do not want Dr. Hachel to reign 
over us", and this does not only affect theoretical physics, it also 
affects theology, sociology, medicine and politics.

Man does not WANT new data.

We have the same thing in religion.

What is the most widespread prayer in the world?

You will faint, I give it to you, the true, the real one:
"Our Father.
Who art in heaven.
Above all, stay there".

Note that when you say: "I tune my watch to the universal watch" you are 
making a conceptual error. You do not tune your watch to it, but it is it 
that tunes to you.

All the synchronizations of the universe that are done on it, it is just 
it that agrees on all these watches by specifying that FOR HER, everything 
that is agreed on it at this moment constitutes HER present moment, HER 
hyperplane of universal simultaneity.

I implore you to have three cups of coffee and to think about what I have 
just said, which seems very simple and very logical to me.

This is the primum movens of the theory of relativity, and if we do not 
understand that, we teach a theory that can still be interesting, but 
whose basis is lame.

If you do not understand why the synchronization of physicists (universal 
time) is an infinitely useful creation, but abstract, virtual, and 
representing nothing in itself (this watch is nowhere in our 3D universe), 
you still have not understood the theory of relativity.

R.H.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660003

Den 31.12.2024 11:58, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 31/12/2024 à 11:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 30.12.2024 21:59, skrev Richard Hachel:

>>> Le 30/12/2024 à 21:41, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> In physics "synchronous" means that two clocks simultaneously
>>>> show the same.
>>>>
>>>> When two clocks are side by side and show the same,
>>>> they are synchronous by definition.

>>> 
>>> Absolutely.
>>> 

>> At home you set your clock to  UTC+1h.
>> You know the station clock shows UTC+1h.
>> You expect the clocks will be synchronous within a second
>> when you arrive at the station.
>> 
>> It would be ridiculous to claim that the clocks were not
>> synchronous when you were at home, but in some mysterious
>> way became synchronous when you arrived at the station.
>> Or wouldn't it? :-D

> 
> If the watches are well tuned, it is logical that when I find myself in 
> the presence of the station clock, my watch will note the same time.
> The opposite would also be absurd, since by definition they must be tuned.

OK. So we can sum it up:

At home you "tune" your clock to show UTC+1h.
You know the station clock is "tuned" to show UTC+1h.
Since your clock and the station clock are well "tuned",
you expect the clocks will show the same when you arrive
at the station.

It would be ridiculous to claim that the clocks were not
"tuned" to show the same when you were at home, but in some
mysterious way became "tuned" to show the same when you arrived
at the station. The clocks which side by side show the same
must by definition be "tuned".


If the reader thinks that "being tuned" is the same as
"being synchronous", he is wrong, as Richard will explain below:

> 
> But you still do not seem to have understood something about the nature 
> of time (the notion of anisochrony).
> 
> I remind you and those who read: "Paul B. Andersen is not an idiot, he 
> understood very well what the concept of chronotropy is, which is the 
> study of the relativity of the internal beats of watches. He knows that 
> by permutation of reference, it is the opposite watch that beats less 
> quickly and that t'(its time for me) = tau (its time, for it) / sqrt (1- 
> Vo² / c²).
> 
> But to this is added ANOTHER concept, the concept of anisochrony, that 
> no one (not Paul any more than the others WANTS to understand).
> 
> It is not a question of mental capacity, I understood that at the age of 
> seven by reading the Superman books, it is a question of will.
> 
> I explained everything in my pdf (for those who read French, and in my 
> posts on usenet).
> 
> The rest is just discriminatory will: "We do not want Dr. Hachel to 
> reign over us", and this does not only affect theoretical physics, it 
> also affects theology, sociology, medicine and politics.
> 
> Man does not WANT new data.
> 
> We have the same thing in religion.
> 
> What is the most widespread prayer in the world?
> 
> You will faint, I give it to you, the true, the real one:
> "Our Father.
> Who art in heaven.
> Above all, stay there".
> 
> Note that when you say: "I tune my watch to the universal watch" you are 
> making a conceptual error. You do not tune your watch to it, but it is 
> it that tunes to you.
> 
> All the synchronizations of the universe that are done on it, it is just 
> it that agrees on all these watches by specifying that FOR HER, 
> everything that is agreed on it at this moment constitutes HER present 
> moment, HER hyperplane of universal simultaneity.
> 
> I implore you to have three cups of coffee and to think about what I 
> have just said, which seems very simple and very logical to me.
> 
> This is the primum movens of the theory of relativity, and if we do not 
> understand that, we teach a theory that can still be interesting, but 
> whose basis is lame.
> 
> If you do not understand why the synchronization of physicists 
> (universal time) is an infinitely useful creation, but abstract, 
> virtual, and representing nothing in itself (this watch is nowhere in 
> our 3D universe), you still have not understood the theory of relativity.
> 
> R.H.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web