Le 22/02/2024 à 22:16, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
écrit :
> Huh? The usual statement of the twin paradox holds that
> Stella flies straight out, turns, and then flies straight
> back. Even if it takes her 24 hours by her clock to
> accomplish the turnaround, there is no semi-circle for
> Terrence to observe.

No connection.

R.H.

Le 22/02/2024 à 22:16, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
écrit :
>
> She changes from a radial speed of 0.8c outwards to a
> radial speed of 0.8c inwards over a 24 hour period by
> her clock.
>
> What's all this "tangential speed" stuff?
>
> Be very, very careful here. What Terrence and Stella "see" is
> quite different from what they would "measure" after properly
> compensating for speed of light effects.
>
> What they each "see" is that light from their twin changes
> from pronounced redshift to pronounced blueshift, and
> their twin's apparent motions changes from super slow due to
> relativistic Doppler effect to super fast.
>
> I presume from the numbers that you have presented that
> the star system is 4 ly away for a total trip time, by
> Terrence's clock, of 10 years. Measured by Stella's clock,
> the total trip time would be 6 years.

No, I asked 12 al (the distance to Tau Ceti).

Or for Stella: go 9 years, turn around on a large semi-circle 24 hours,
return 9 years. Total 30 years.

Or for Terrence (in real time): go 27 years, turn around 40 hours,
return 3 years. Total 30 years.

Either for the neutral earth-Tau Ceti benchmark; go 15 years, turn around
40 hours, return 15 years, total 30 years.

But your answer is nonetheless correct.

R.H.

Le 22/02/2024 à 22:16, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:

> You are confusing "seeing" with "measurement". When Stella reaches
> the destination star, the light entering her telescope is from
> 4 years previous. On her way back, she catches up with all of the
> "missing" light.

Unfortunately, I'm not confusing anything at all.

Always always always I am very clear and very sure of myself in my words.

I also think that YOU are mistaken in the concepts that should be yours if
you had correctly understood the theory of relativity (which is not
necessarily the one that men teach).

Listen to me carefully, it's worth the trip for those who really seek to
understand, and not to show off by reciting by heart nonsense taught by
men.

When Stella arrives there, at Tau Ceti (12 al) after a 12 al outward
journey, she looks through her telescope and "sees" there, an earth
located at 4 al (instead of 12 al) due to the contraction distances. I did
say 4al, where men, asking anything and doing anything, say 7.2 al.

She sees, if her telescope is powerful enough, the earth 3 years old.

I'll stop here, because I already know that the readers will (9 chances
out of 10) lose their temper.

For those who agree with me, I can then continue the description, but I
advise them to be cautious in the face of the beauty and clarity of the
complete reasoning which will lead, for both, to a perfect agreement. She
will be 18, he will be 30.

R.H.

Le 22/02/2024 à 22:16, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
écrit :

> You have spent years being totally confused.

LOL.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 22/02/2024 à 22:16, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
> écrit :
>> Richard Hachel wrote:

>>> For 40 years, I have been trying to do serious relativistic science, with
>>> serious models.
>>
>>> As for what happens at the moment of the U-turn for the space traveler,
>>> and for his twin who observes him through the telescope,
>>> I would even say, which will shock my reader (but stuck as he is either in
>>> Newtonism or in Minkowskianism), that almost nothing happens at all.
>>
>> Correct. Nothing happens at all.

> Yééééééééééééééééééééé!

> Champagne, les mecs!

Have you spent 40 years in the false belief that physics
students believe that something mystical happens at the
moment of turnaround? All that happens with a change of
motion is a change in the set of points considered to be
simultaneous with a given event on an observer's world
line.

That's very sad.

By the way, a better word than "measurement" in my
previous post might be "calculation". Consider the following
slight variation on the twin paradox:

Stella travels at 0.8 c to a star 4 ly distant that is
mutually at rest with her home planet. When she reaches
the star, she stops for a few minutes to refuel. While
waiting for her tank to refill, she calculates that her
brother, Terrence, is older by five years than when she
started, even though her wristwatch shows only three
years elapsed time. The latest message from her brother,
however, dates from a year after she started. On the
way back home, all the messages from her brother are
sped up so that her brother's words are barely
comprehensible. When she arrives home, her brother is
10 years older, while her wristwatch shows that 6 years
have elapsed.

Am 20.02.2024 um 13:58 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Eisntein said:
>
> ------------------
> We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
> line of
> thought.
> 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
> neigh-
> bourhood 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. Let a ray of light start at the “A time”
> tA from
> A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
> direction of A,
> and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
> .
>
> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>
> tB − tA = tA − tB.
> ---------------------
>
> I don't understand anything this man is saying.
>
> Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand
> anything at all?
>

Einstein assumed, that a place called 'A' and a very remote place called
'B' have own times ('A-Time' and 'B-Time') which do not necessarily
coincide.

To find a time 'AB-time' allowing to synchronize clocks at place 'A' and
place 'B', he took the local time of a place exactly in the middle
between A and B.

This time local to a location at (A+B)/2 would then allow to synchronize
clocks at equidistant locations like A and B.

The dependence of time on the location stems from an error of Einstein,
who made no efforts to compensate the delay of a light signal, caused by
the finite speed of light.

That's why a remote clock was seemingly too late and the later, the
further away.

But a hypothetical observer in the middle would see both ends of the
connecting line from A to B at the same time, hence could be used as a
judge, whether or not the clocks at A and B run in synch.

His time would then be 'common time' and could be used to synchronize
clocks at A and B.

I, personally, do not really agree, because removal of the run time
delay would have been an option, too, and much easier.

My method has a disadvantage, however, because synchronisation would
require a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity, which does not exist.

But one could measure the delay quite easily (by sending a 'ping' and
cut the delay for the roundtrip in half).

The delay time could be added to the coded timing signal and we have
also synchronisation. But in that case the time at the remote localtions
would be different to the time according to Einstein's method.

TH

TH

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 22/02/2024 à 22:16, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog a
> écrit :
>> Richard Hachel wrote:

>> You are confusing "seeing" with "measurement". When Stella reaches
>> the destination star, the light entering her telescope is from
>> 4 years previous. On her way back, she catches up with all of the
>> "missing" light.

> Unfortunately, I'm not confusing anything at all.

> Always always always I am very clear and very sure of myself in my words.

> I also think that YOU are mistaken in the concepts that should be yours if
> you had correctly understood the theory of relativity (which is not
> necessarily the one that men teach).

> Listen to me carefully, it's worth the trip for those who really seek to
> understand, and not to show off by reciting by heart nonsense taught by
> men.

> When Stella arrives there, at Tau Ceti (12 al) after a 12 al outward
> journey, she looks through her telescope and "sees" there, an earth
> located at 4 al (instead of 12 al) due to the contraction distances. I did
> say 4al, where men, asking anything and doing anything, say 7.2 al.

> She sees, if her telescope is powerful enough, the earth 3 years old.

> I'll stop here, because I already know that the readers will (9 chances
> out of 10) lose their temper.

> For those who agree with me, I can then continue the description, but I
> advise them to be cautious in the face of the beauty and clarity of the
> complete reasoning which will lead, for both, to a perfect agreement. She
> will be 18, he will be 30.

You fail to maintain the reciprocal relationship between
length contraction and time dilation.

If we applied your math to the survival of atmospheric
muons to Earth, the time dilation approach would yield
different results from the length contraction approach.

Le 23/02/2024 à 08:09, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> ...
> Einstein assumed, that a place called 'A' and a very remote place called

"very remote" is something you made up out of nothing. It is clear
for any decent reader that the point is to synchronize clocks involves
a given practical physical situation, such a an experiment in a
lab. So distances between clocks is in the order of centimeters
or meters in typical case.

> 'B' have own times ('A-Time' and 'B-Time') which do not necessarily
> coincide.

A-time is just a way to express that it is a time marked by clock
at a given position A, same for B clocks, both being in mutual
rest and identical in all points.

The point, that you fail to understand, even after it has been
explained to you numerous times, is that even both clocks are
similar (using same time units, run at same rate) you need
a procedure to synchronize them (or check that they are synchronized)

> To find a time 'AB-time' allowing to synchronize clocks at place 'A' and
> place 'B', he took the local time of a place exactly in the middle
> between A and B.

> This time local to a location at (A+B)/2 would then allow to synchronize
> clocks at equidistant locations like A and B.

The is NOTHING of that kind in part I.1. in Einstein paper. This is,
again, something you made up out of nothing !!!

> The dependence of time on the location stems from an error of Einstein,
> who made no efforts to compensate the delay of a light signal, caused by
> the finite speed of light.

The two equations in part I.1. in Einstein paper are precisely about
taking such a delay into account without having to pre-suppose pre-
synch.

The "delay" is embedded in the synch procedure so to speak, in quite
an obvious way for any decent reader.

> That's why a remote clock was seemingly too late and the later, the
> further away.
>
> But a hypothetical observer in the middle would see both ends of the
> connecting line from A to B at the same time, hence could be used as a
> judge, whether or not the clocks at A and B run in synch.
>
> His time would then be 'common time' and could be used to synchronize
> clocks at A and B.
>
>
> I, personally, do not really agree, because removal of the run time
> delay would have been an option, too, and much easier.
>
> My method has a disadvantage, however, because synchronisation would
> require a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity, which does not exist.
>
> But one could measure the delay quite easily (by sending a 'ping' and
> cut the delay for the roundtrip in half).
>
> The delay time could be added to the coded timing signal and we have
> also synchronisation. But in that case the time at the remote localtions
> would be different to the time according to Einstein's method.
>
>
> TH
>
>
>
> TH
>

W dniu 23.02.2024 o 13:15, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog pisze:

> You fail to maintain the reciprocal relationship between length
> contraction and time dilation.
>
> If we applied your math to the survival of atmospheric
> muons to Earth, the time dilation approach would yield different results
> from the length contraction approach.

Bullshit, anyone can check GPS, there is no time dilation,
time (as defined by your idiot guru himself) is galilean
with the precision of an acceptable error.

Le 23/02/2024 à 08:04, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Einstein assumed, that a place called 'A' and a very remote place called
> 'B' have own times ('A-Time' and 'B-Time') which do not necessarily
> coincide.
>
> To find a time 'AB-time' allowing to synchronize clocks at place 'A' and
> place 'B', he took the local time of a place exactly in the middle
> between A and B.
>
> This time local to a location at (A+B)/2 would then allow to synchronize
> clocks at equidistant locations like A and B.
>
> The dependence of time on the location stems from an error of Einstein,
> who made no efforts to compensate the delay of a light signal, caused by
> the finite speed of light.
>
> That's why a remote clock was seemingly too late and the later, the
> further away.
>
> But a hypothetical observer in the middle would see both ends of the
> connecting line from A to B at the same time, hence could be used as a
> judge, whether or not the clocks at A and B run in synch.
>
> His time would then be 'common time' and could be used to synchronize
> clocks at A and B.
>
>
> I, personally, do not really agree, because removal of the run time
> delay would have been an option, too, and much easier.
>
> My method has a disadvantage, however, because synchronisation would
> require a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity, which does not exist.
>
> But one could measure the delay quite easily (by sending a 'ping' and
> cut the delay for the roundtrip in half).
>
> The delay time could be added to the coded timing signal and we have
> also synchronisation. But in that case the time at the remote localtions
> would be different to the time according to Einstein's method.

The speed of the signal sent by M does not matter to adjust watches A and
watches B as long as the speed is identical.

We therefore do not have to worry about it, the best being to use an
electromagnetic interaction.

When A and B receive the signal they re-transmit to M, and M receives,
ANYWAY, both signals simultaneously.

The two watches A and B are therefore synchronized on M.

That is to say that the two events E(A) and E(B) occurred simultaneously
somewhere in M's present.

This is how GPS works. It is artificially assumed that all terrestrial
watches are synchronized on a point M artificially placed very far and
equidistant from all 3D terrestrial points, in a virtual fourth dimension.

This is what men do, perhaps realizing it, and this is how it works.

So, I repeat, the problem of synchronization was not properly explained in
1905 by Einstein. It does not say that it is M who ensures
synchronization, and that it is on him that the reference used is based.

It does not say that in reality A and B are not synchronized with each
other at all but only on a virtual M.

A and B will NEVER be in sync with each other.

A's present time plan will never be B's present time plan.

To believe it is to imagine an abstract idea of reality.

And he doesn't say that.

Note that if A could see B's present time plane, which is a perfect plane
for B, A would see a hypercone.

R.H.

Le 23/02/2024 à 16:47, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
> [snip non sense]

Note for Thomas: in case you didn't notice: Richard "Hachel"
Lengrand has his own personal (and idiotic) opinion on
clocks synchronization which has ZERO common ground with
Einstein/Poincaré procedure.

Le 23/02/2024 à 15:02, My great lover, Python (Jean-Pierre Messager pour
les intimes) a écrit :

> The two equations in part I.1. in Einstein paper are precisely about
> taking such a delay into account without having to pre-suppose pre-
> synch.
>
> The "delay" is embedded in the synch procedure so to speak, in quite
> an obvious way for any decent reader.

Yes, but I am a particularly indecent reader.
I can afford it with my extremist and powerful ideology
against which we can do nothing except stupid verbiage or threats or
stupid taunts.
I do not approve of two things in Einstein's paper, and on that, I am
necessarily stronger than him.
For what?
He completely ignores the notion of anisochrony which will ultimately make
his theory ridiculous if we move on to Langevin in apparent speeds.
I take the precaution of pre-supposing it, he doesn't. So there is laxity.
It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
demonstrate it.

Which is based on the best principles.

He sets t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c

I do the same, and I posit that a swallow is a swallow: a great deal.

For the rest, I find myself wondering, despite years spent on the bans of
school (perhaps even of college) how you were able to slip through the net
with so many intellectual deficiencies.

You don't understand anything.

My complaint against absolute synchronization, you don't understand it.
The apparent speeds, it takes you three months to understand.
Langevin as I explain it is beyond you.
I'm not even talking about uniformly accelerated frames of reference and
rotating frames of reference. It's beyond you.

I'm still waiting for your criticism on the transformations I gave
on this to a blissful and paralyzed humanity, which is a bit like you.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?rY3c_qzH9owDWGL6Rhanjgmj3n4@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Eisntein said:

> ------------------
> We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line
> of
> thought.
> 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
> neigh-
> bourhood 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. Let a ray of light start at the “A
> time” tA from
> A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
> direction of A,
> and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
> ..

> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if

> tB − tA = tA − tB.
> ---------------------

> I don't understand anything this man is saying.

He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.

> Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand
> anything at all?

I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard and simple.
You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for a while.
What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really works.
Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are valid methods
of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.

--
Jan

Le 23/02/2024 à 22:52, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
> He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
> quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
> selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
> depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
>
>> Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand
>> anything at all?
>
> I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard and
> simple.
> You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for a while.
> What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really works.
> Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are valid
> methods
> of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
>
> --

What is important to understand, before starting to discuss with me, is
that I am a man of great listening (forty years of professionalism where I
have always strived to listen to others with attention and respect ).
Don't laugh friends, those who tell you it's common are lying.
As Sartre said, the problem with bad faith is that bad faith is faith.
You say that the speed of light is equal from A to B, and from B to A, I
agree, but for WHO?
Where is this observer who decrees this?
If, precisely, I pose a problem of anisochrony, it is quite obvious that
the fact can only be true for a neutral observer, that is to say placed
perpendicular to the path of the photon.
Do you understand this?
Thus the equation t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c which is clearly true for everyone
(except for idiots but I have never seen one of this type) does not
necessarily imply t(B)-t(A)=t(A')-t(B).
It is easy and a very common a priori for men to say that.
And yet, it is false.
Is anyone capable of raising their intellectual level to this, and saying
"Sir, you are absolutely right, and I completely understand your point of
view"?

R.H.

Le 24/02/2024 à 00:11, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
> Le 23/02/2024 à 22:52, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
>> He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
>> quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
>> selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
>> depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
>>
>>> Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't
>>> understand anything at all?
>>
>> I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard
>> and simple.
>> You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for
>> a while.
>> What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really
>> works.
>> Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are
>> valid methods
>> of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
>>
>> --
>
> What is important to understand, before starting to discuss with me, is
> that I am a man of great listening (forty years of professionalism where
> I have always strived to listen to others with attention and respect ).

You've never done that a single time in your life, Lengrand. You are
an infatuated nymphomaniac crank. Not only in physics, btw.

And I can illustrated by your previous post on this very issue. Check
all the crap you've posted on this very part of Einstein paper in 2004
on fr.sci!

> Don't laugh friends, those who tell you it's common are lying.
> As Sartre said, the problem with bad faith is that bad faith is faith.

You are the liar and the hypocrite here, Lengrand.

> You say that the speed of light is equal from A to B, and from B to A, I
> agree, but for WHO?

For the set of clocks conventionally synchronized in a the
Poincaré/Einstein method you've always failed to understand.

> Where is this observer who decrees this?
> If, precisely, I pose a problem of anisochrony, it is quite obvious that
> the fact can only be true for a neutral observer, that is to say placed
> perpendicular to the path of the photon.
> Do you understand this?
> Thus the equation t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c which is clearly true for everyone
> (except for idiots but I have never seen one of this type) does not
> necessarily imply t(B)-t(A)=t(A')-t(B).

Idiot!!! And hypocrite liar, nobody ever pretend the first equation
implied the second one. You missed the point (as always). How can
you be such a stupid git Lengrand? For so many years...

> It is easy and a very common a priori for men to say that.
> And yet, it is false.
> Is anyone capable of raising their intellectual level to this, and
> saying "Sir, you are absolutely right, and I completely understand your
> point of view"?

We do understand your "point of view" and we recognize it as fallacious.

You are a kook, you've always been a kook, and you will die so,
Lengrand.

The fact that you are allowed to practice as an M.D. in France is
a shame and put people lifes at risk for decades.

Am 23.02.2024 um 16:53 schrieb Python:
> Le 23/02/2024 à 16:47, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
>> [snip non sense]
>
> Note for Thomas: in case you didn't notice: Richard "Hachel"
> Lengrand has his own personal (and idiotic) opinion on
> clocks synchronization which has ZERO common ground with
> Einstein/Poincaré procedure.
>
Well, possibly, but I had written about my own interpretation of
Einstein's text.

I tried to make sense out of his method, while maintaining the idea of
time as local phenomenon (opposite to Newton's universal time).

This would be possible, if an additional (hypothetical) observer 'M'
(according to RHs proposal) in the middle between A and B is placed, who
decides, whether or not clocks at A and B are in synch.

(The places A and B are permanently equidistant to M by definition, even
if A or B move)

This is overly complicated, but would make some sense.

The disadvantage, however: it works only for two points (A and B), but
not for three (A, B and C), because three points usually do not have an
equidistant midpoint.

(Because the midpoint of a triangle is not lying on the edges).

TH

On 2024-02-24 07:48:37 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 23.02.2024 um 16:53 schrieb Python:
>> Le 23/02/2024 à 16:47, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
>>> [snip non sense]
>>
>> Note for Thomas: in case you didn't notice: Richard "Hachel"
>> Lengrand has his own personal (and idiotic) opinion on
>> clocks synchronization which has ZERO common ground with
>> Einstein/Poincaré procedure.

> Well, possibly, but I had written about my own interpretation of
> Einstein's text.
>
> I tried to make sense out of his method, while maintaining the idea of
> time as local phenomenon (opposite to Newton's universal time).
>
> This would be possible, if an additional (hypothetical) observer 'M'
> (according to RHs proposal) in the middle between A and B is placed,
> who decides, whether or not clocks at A and B are in synch.
>
> (The places A and B are permanently equidistant to M by definition,
> even if A or B move)

That is another way to define the same concept of synchronicity.

> This is overly complicated, but would make some sense.

Not really more complicated and often used.

> The disadvantage, however: it works only for two points (A and B), but
> not for three (A, B and C), because three points usually do not have an
> equidistant midpoint.
>
> (Because the midpoint of a triangle is not lying on the edges).

Not a signifiacnt disadvantage. But an important question is whether
the syncronicity of A and B and the syncronicity of B and C imply
the syncronicity of A and C. Einstein does not say much about that
in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but elsewhere says "yes".

In Special Relativity any observer who is equidistant from clocks A and
B can determine the synchronization of A and B the same wah as an observer
halfway between. For almost every for points A, B, C, and D an observer
can be equidistant from those points.

--
Mikko

W dniu 24.02.2024 o 02:00, Python pisze:
> Le 24/02/2024 à 00:11, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
>> Le 23/02/2024 à 22:52, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
>>> He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
>>> quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
>>> selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
>>> depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
>>>
>>>> Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't
>>>> understand anything at all?
>>>
>>> I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard
>>> and simple.
>>> You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics
>>> for a while.
>>> What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science
>>> really works.
>>> Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are
>>> valid methods
>>> of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> What is important to understand, before starting to discuss with me,
>> is that I am a man of great listening (forty years of professionalism
>> where I have always strived to listen to others with attention and
>> respect ).
>
> You've never done that a single time in your life, Lengrand. You are

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read
definition 9 and learnt what a function is?

On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 23/02/2024 à 15:02, My great lover, Python (Jean-Pierre Messager pour
> les intimes) a écrit :
>
>> The "delay" is embedded in the synch procedure so to speak, in quite
>> an obvious way for any decent reader.
>
> Yes, but I am a particularly indecent reader.
> I can afford it with my extremist and powerful ideology
> against which we can do nothing except stupid verbiage or threats or
> stupid taunts.

What about the ordinary corrections given to you without threats or taunts?

> I do not approve of two things in Einstein's paper, and on that, I am
> necessarily stronger than him.

Since there aren't errors in the SR paper the two things must be
correct, showing Einstein is stronger than you.

> For what?
> He completely ignores the notion of anisochrony

What is an anisochrony? Is it a purple alien monster with three eyes and
11 tentacles? I'll agree that Einstein did not consider the existence of
space aliens in any of his papers.

> It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
> demonstrate it.

No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all
(inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.
>
> Which is based on the best principles.
>
> He sets t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c

And AB/c is the delay of a signal from B to A (or vice versa). Why do
you claim Einstein didn't consider the signal delay?

Le 24/02/2024 à 08:43, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Well, possibly, but I had written about my own interpretation of
> Einstein's text.
>
> I tried to make sense out of his method, while maintaining the idea of
> time as local phenomenon (opposite to Newton's universal time).
>
> This would be possible, if an additional (hypothetical) observer 'M'
> (according to RHs proposal) in the middle between A and B is placed, who
> decides, whether or not clocks at A and B are in synch.
>
> (The places A and B are permanently equidistant to M by definition, even
> if A or B move)
>
>
> This is overly complicated, but would make some sense.
>
> The disadvantage, however: it works only for two points (A and B), but
> not for three (A, B and C), because three points usually do not have an
> equidistant midpoint.
>
> (Because the midpoint of a triangle is not lying on the edges).
>
>
> TH

If you take the circumference of a circle, and you synchronize on the
center O, the entire circumference, if we synchronize it by O, is found,
at the moment where it receives its beep in the same "instant here".

But this notion of simultaneity, that is to say of a common present
moment, does not exist for all of the points between them.

This universal belief is false.

To put it better, it is an abstract idea.

We will never be able to "absolutely" agree two points separated by a
distance, even fixed between them, it is impossible, they do not have the
same notion of the universal present.

We can only synchronize virtually, and abstractly, and only on another
point.

This is what happens with GPS. We synchronize, in fact, on a point placed
in a fourth dimension, and equidistant from all the points of the 3D
reference frame considered.

I am surprised that few people understand this obvious fact.

R.H.

Le 24/02/2024 à 10:01, Mikko a écrit :
> Not a signifiacnt disadvantage. But an important question is whether
> the syncronicity of A and B and the syncronicity of B and C imply
> the syncronicity of A and C. Einstein does not say much about that
> in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but elsewhere says "yes".
>
> In Special Relativity any observer who is equidistant from clocks A and
> B can determine the synchronization of A and B the same wah as an observer
> halfway between. For almost every for points A, B, C, and D an observer
> can be equidistant from those points.

Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony, that is to say
constantly exist at the same present moment, does not make sense in
special relativity (or at least, it should not).

However, Einstein seems to think so, which surprises me a lot.

Two events can only be simultaneous for a given point.

For example, if I send from M, middle of AB, a beep, it is clear that the
reception of the beep will be simultaneous for M, and that the response
will also be simultaneous for M.

But not for A in relation to B, nor B in relation to A.

Those who believe this confuse anisochrony and the speed of light.

I've been explaining this for 40 years.

No one ever understands it.

R.H.

Le 24/02/2024 à 13:40, Volney a écrit :
> On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 23/02/2024 à 15:02, My great lover, Python (Jean-Pierre Messager pour
>> les intimes) a écrit :
>>
>>> The "delay" is embedded in the synch procedure so to speak, in quite
>>> an obvious way for any decent reader.
>>
>> Yes, but I am a particularly indecent reader.
>> I can afford it with my extremist and powerful ideology
>> against which we can do nothing except stupid verbiage or threats or
>> stupid taunts.
>
> What about the ordinary corrections given to you without threats or taunts?
>
>> I do not approve of two things in Einstein's paper, and on that, I am
>> necessarily stronger than him.
>
> Since there aren't errors in the SR paper the two things must be
> correct, showing Einstein is stronger than you.
>
>> For what?
>> He completely ignores the notion of anisochrony
>
> What is an anisochrony? Is it a purple alien monster with three eyes and
> 11 tentacles? I'll agree that Einstein did not consider the existence of
> space aliens in any of his papers.
>
>> It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
>> demonstrate it.
>
> No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
> one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all
> (inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
> often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.
>>
>> Which is based on the best principles.
>>
>> He sets t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c
>
> And AB/c is the delay of a signal from B to A (or vice versa). Why do
> you claim Einstein didn't consider the signal delay?

You don't want to understand what I'm saying.

Is your hardness ideological?

R.H.

On 2024-02-24 13:06:27 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 24/02/2024 à 10:01, Mikko a écrit :
>> Not a signifiacnt disadvantage. But an important question is whether
>> the syncronicity of A and B and the syncronicity of B and C imply
>> the syncronicity of A and C. Einstein does not say much about that
>> in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but elsewhere says "yes".
>>
>> In Special Relativity any observer who is equidistant from clocks A and
>> B can determine the synchronization of A and B the same wah as an observer
>> halfway between. For almost every for points A, B, C, and D an observer
>> can be equidistant from those points.
>
> Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony,

It needn't be perfect, just close enough for whatever purpose it
is needed.

> that is to say constantly exist at the same present moment,

That is not the same thing. But an additional assumption is needed
(as Einstein noted in a later article): if comoving inertial clocks
are synchronized they stay synchronized.

> does not make sense in special relativity (or at least, it should not).

It does when the meaning on synchrony is defined as Einstein
defined it or by an equivalent definition.

> However, Einstein seems to think so, which surprises me a lot.

It is reasonable to assume that an observer halfway between A and B
sees the clocks advancing at the same rate and therefore staying
synchronized. Einstein presented his assumptions differently but
this is what his assumptions mean.

> Two events can only be simultaneous for a given point.

In Special Relativity it is possible to define a reasonable
meaning for simultaneity at different points.

> For example, if I send from M, middle of AB, a beep, it is clear that
> the reception of the beep will be simultaneous for M, and that the
> response will also be simultaneous for M.

Simultaneity is meaningless for one beep or one response.

--
Mikko

Le 24/02/2024 à 13:40, Volney a écrit :
> On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 23/02/2024 à 15:02, My great lover, Python (Jean-Pierre Messager
>> pour les intimes) a écrit :
>>
>>> The "delay" is embedded in the synch procedure so to speak, in quite
>>> an obvious way for any decent reader.
>>
>> Yes, but I am a particularly indecent reader.
>> I can afford it with my extremist and powerful ideology
>> against which we can do nothing except stupid verbiage or threats or
>> stupid taunts.
>
> What about the ordinary corrections given to you without threats or taunts?
>
>> I do not approve of two things in Einstein's paper, and on that, I am
>> necessarily stronger than him.
>
> Since there aren't errors in the SR paper the two things must be
> correct, showing Einstein is stronger than you.
>
>> For what?
>> He completely ignores the notion of anisochrony
>
> What is an anisochrony? Is it a purple alien monster with three eyes and
> 11 tentacles? I'll agree that Einstein did not consider the existence of
> space aliens in any of his papers.
>
>> It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
>> demonstrate it.
>
> No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
> one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all
> (inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
> often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.
>>
>> Which is based on the best principles.
>>
>> He sets t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c
>
> And AB/c is the delay of a signal from B to A (or vice versa). Why do
> you claim Einstein didn't consider the signal delay?

You are confusing Hachel/Lengrand's claim with Heger's claims.

Both are insufferable cranks by the way, and both fail miserably
to understand part I.1. of A.E. paper for years.

The irony is that Thomas is claiming that Einstein didn't take
light propagation delays when synchronizing clocks, while he
definitely did so, and that Richard is claiming that this is
how it /should/ be done (i.e. ignoring the delay, considering
that light speed is infinite).

Richard Hachel wrote:

> I'm still waiting for your criticism on the transformations I gave
> on this to a blissful and paralyzed humanity, which is a bit like you.

> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?rY3c_qzH9owDWGL6Rhanjgmj3n4@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Interesting!

Consider a solid plane surface S with a circular hole cut out of it
having radius r_S.

Consider a solid circular disk D of radius r_D which is infinitesimally
smaller than the radius of the circular hole cut out of surface S, i.e.
r_S - r_D = ε.

Position surface S with its hole centered on the x-axis and oriented
parallel to the yz plane around point (x,y,z) = (1,0,0)

Position disk D centered on the x-axis and oriented parallel to the
yz plane around point (x,y,z) = (-1,0,0)

Scenario 1: Set disk D in motion in the positive x-direction so that
it is moving at speed v = 0.5 c towards stationary surface S. Will
the disk D pass freely through the hole in surface S or will it be
blocked?

Scenario 2: Set surface S in motion in the negative x-direction so
that it is moving at speed v = -0.5 c towards stationary disk D. Will
the hole in surface S pass freely around disk D or will it be
blocked?