"You have to define things well."
Richard Hatchel. Pasadena Conference 1986.
In relativity, it is even more true because the relativistic notions are
not infused.
We call simultaneity the set of events which, for ONE observer, take place
at the same time.
The way in which the internal mechanisms of watches measure time is called
chronotropy.
These two concepts are relative.
The relativity of simultaneity is positional.
The relativity of chronotropy is kinematic.

R.H.

On Wednesday, 10 May 2023 at 08:52:11 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> "You have to define things well."

Why won't you start from defining "define"?

On 5/10/2023 2:52 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> "You have to define things well."

Of course you never defined your made-up words.

> The way in which the internal mechanisms of watches measure time is
> called chronotropy.

No it isn't, except perhaps yourself.

You never defined your made-up word, and should you do so, we can just
use the definition instead rather than needlessly deal with nonsense words.

Le 10/05/2023 à 17:39, Volney a écrit :
>> "You have to define things well."
>
> Of course you never defined your made-up words.
>
>> The way in which the internal mechanisms of watches measure time is
>> called chronotropy.
>
> No it isn't, except perhaps yourself.
>
> You never defined your made-up word, and should you do so, we can just
> use the definition instead rather than needlessly deal with nonsense words.

I find very interesting, in relativity, the use of the word chronotropy.

Just as Marseille housewives have found it very interesting for centuries
to use the word "lemon".

Thus one can hear, on this market: "Sir, three lemons, please".

This is a word that everyone understands and is quite useful for language.

I hasten to say, that I am not for the use of the fog of words denounced
by George Berkeley, and that on that, I agree with you.

But there, it was necessary for the song.

We could have said:
"Sir, three units of this kind of citrus fruit, yellow in color, oval in
shape, with a nipple at the top, and the pulp of which contains an acidic
juice."

It was however more complicated to communicate.

R.H.

Le 10/05/2023 à 17:39, Volney a écrit :
>> "You have to define things well."
>
> Of course you never defined your made-up words.
>
>> The way in which the internal mechanisms of watches measure time is
>> called chronotropy.
>
> No it isn't, except perhaps yourself.
>
> You never defined your made-up word, and should you do so, we can just
> use the definition instead rather than needlessly deal with nonsense words.

I find very interesting, in relativity, the use of the word chronotropy.

Just as Marseille housewives have found it very interesting for centuries
to use the word "lemon".

Thus one can hear, on this market: "Sir, three lemons, please".

This is a word that everyone understands and is quite useful for language.

I hasten to say, that I am not for the use of the fog of words denounced
by George Berkeley, and that on that, I agree with you.

But there, it was necessary for the song.

We could have said:
"Sir, three units of this kind of citrus fruit, yellow in color, oval in
shape, with a nipple at the top, and the pulp of which contains an acidic
juice."

It was however more complicated to communicate.

G.F.

On 5/10/2023 12:52 PM, Georgina Fudois wrote:
> Le 10/05/2023 à 17:39, Volney a écrit :
>>> "You have to define things well."
>>
>> Of course you never defined your made-up words.
>>
>>> The way in which the internal mechanisms of watches measure time is
>>> called chronotropy.
>>
>> No it isn't, except perhaps yourself.
>>
>> You never defined your made-up word, and should you do so, we can just
>> use the definition instead rather than needlessly deal with nonsense
>> words.
>
> I find very interesting, in relativity, the use of the word chronotropy.

Of course you do. But nobody else in the world knows what it means.
>
> Just as Marseille housewives have found it very interesting for
> centuries to use the word "lemon".
>
> Thus one can hear, on this market: "Sir, three lemons, please".
>
> This is a word that everyone understands and is quite useful for language.

Yet nobody knows what the made-up word "chronotropy" means.

> We could have said:
> "Sir, three units of this kind of citrus fruit, yellow in color, oval in
> shape, with a nipple at the top, and the pulp of which contains an
> acidic juice."
>
> It was however more complicated to communicate.

What you are trying to do is going to the fruit stand in Marseille and
asking "Sir, three slithargs, please." The vendor states "What is a
slitharg? I've never heard of that! I don't even know if it is a fruit!
The customer insists on getting three slithargs. Finally, the customer
states "Sir, three units of this kind of citrus fruit, yellow in color,
oval in shape, with a nipple at the top, and the pulp of which contains
an acidic juice." The fruit vendor states "We call that a lemon. Why
didn't you say you wanted lemons or at least describe it like you just did?"

On 2023-05-10 16:47:36 +0000, Georgina Fudois said:

> Le 10/05/2023 à 17:39, Volney a écrit :
>>> "You have to define things well."
>>
>> Of course you never defined your made-up words.
>>
>>> The way in which the internal mechanisms of watches measure time is
>>> called chronotropy.
>>
>> No it isn't, except perhaps yourself.
>>
>> You never defined your made-up word, and should you do so, we can just
>> use the definition instead rather than needlessly deal with nonsense
>> words.
>
> I find very interesting, in relativity, the use of the word chronotropy.
>
> Just as Marseille housewives have found it very interesting for
> centuries to use the word "lemon".
>
> Thus one can hear, on this market: "Sir, three lemons, please".

Not in the Marseilles markets that I frequent one can't. Mostly
customers don't speak in English, and know that the French for "lemon"
is not "lemon".

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots