In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and
terms you use.
It is not always easy.
For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches
are triggered".
As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we
trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?"
A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling.
And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is
obvious".
And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be
those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off."
And against all, he is right.
It is necessarily not those that we trigger.
I love this guy.

R.H.

Le 22/11/2021 à 23:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words
> and terms you use.

ce groupe est francophone.

--
Fabrice

Richard Hachel wrote:

> In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and
> terms you use.

And you are not.

> It is not always easy.

It becomes easier when you study this so that you know what you are talking
about. When will you start?

> For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches
> are triggered".
> As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we
> trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?"
> A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling.
> And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is
> obvious".

Nonsense. These are origins of spaceTIME coordinate systems. It is the
same as saying: There are two watches which are in the same place and
*there* they show the same time.

> And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be
> those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off."

Nonsense.

> And against all, he is right.
> It is necessarily not those that we trigger.
> I love this guy.

But you still do not understand special relativity.

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 08:18:35 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and
> > terms you use.
> And you are not.
> > It is not always easy.
> It becomes easier when you study this so that you know what you are talking
> about. When will you start?
> > For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches
> > are triggered".
> > As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we
> > trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?"
> > A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling.
> > And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is
> > obvious".
> Nonsense. These are origins of spaceTIME coordinate systems. It is the
> same as saying: There are two watches which are in the same place and
> *there* they show the same time.
> > And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be
> > those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off."
> Nonsense.
> > And against all, he is right.
> > It is necessarily not those that we trigger.
> > I love this guy.
> But you still do not understand special relativity.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your moronic
religion GPS clcoks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and
> terms you use.
> It is not always easy.
> For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches
> are triggered".
> As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we
> trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?"
> A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling.
> And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is
> obvious".
> And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be
> those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off."
> And against all, he is right.
> It is necessarily not those that we trigger.
> I love this guy.
>
> R.H.
>

Knowing full well that you are off your rocker, we are talking about
synchronizing a watch near O that is at rest in S, with another watch near
O’ that is at rest in S’. The only opportunity to do that is when O and O’
coincide, putting these watches very near each other.

It is also then necessary to apply a synchronization procedure for the
clock near O and all the other clocks at rest in S, as well as for the
clock near O’ and all the other clocks at rest in S’. That is a different
synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but
though different it is not complicated.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 14:09:04 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and
> > terms you use.
> > It is not always easy.
> > For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches
> > are triggered".
> > As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we
> > trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?"
> > A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling.
> > And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is
> > obvious".
> > And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be
> > those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off."
> > And against all, he is right.
> > It is necessarily not those that we trigger.
> > I love this guy.
> >
> > R.H.
> >
> Knowing full well that you are off your rocker, we are talking about
> synchronizing a watch near O that is at rest in S, with another watch near
> O’ that is at rest in S’. The only opportunity to do that is when O and O’
> coincide, putting these watches very near each other.
>
> It is also then necessary to apply a synchronization procedure for the
> clock near O and all the other clocks at rest in S, as well as for the
> clock near O’ and all the other clocks at rest in S’. That is a different
> synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but
> though different it is not complicated.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your moronic
religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

Le 23/11/2021 à 14:09, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and
>> terms you use.
>> It is not always easy.
>> For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches
>> are triggered".
>> As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we
>> trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?"
>> A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling.
>> And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is
>> obvious".
>> And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be
>> those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off."
>> And against all, he is right.
>> It is necessarily not those that we trigger.
>> I love this guy.
>>
>> R.H.
>>
>
> Knowing full well that you are off your rocker, we are talking about
> synchronizing a watch near O that is at rest in S, with another watch near
> O’ that is at rest in S’. The only opportunity to do that is when O and O’
> coincide, putting these watches very near each other.
>
> It is also then necessary to apply a synchronization procedure for the
> clock near O and all the other clocks at rest in S, as well as for the
> clock near O’ and all the other clocks at rest in S’. That is a different
> synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but
> though different it is not complicated.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?5Ku14XS-g-9tbJqRKhK_7Z9DsBw@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Richard Hachel wrote:

> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?5Ku14XS-g-9tbJqRKhK_7Z9DsBw@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Wrong (as you have been told /ad nauseam/ before).

PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Le 24/11/2021 à 01:44, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?5Ku14XS-g-9tbJqRKhK_7Z9DsBw@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> Wrong (as you have been told /ad nauseam/ before).
>
>
> PointedEars

Merci de votre participation.

Mais j'espère que vous vous rendez compte qu'elle n'est d'aucune espèce
d'intérêt.

Les chiens aboient ; la caravane passe.

On ne crache pas efficacement sur des vérités éternelles.

R.H.

Le 23/11/2021 à 14:09, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> Knowing full well that you are off your rocker, we are talking about
> synchronizing a watch near O that is at rest in S, with another watch near
> O’ that is at rest in S’. The only opportunity to do that is when O and O’
> coincide, putting these watches very near each other.
>
> It is also then necessary to apply a synchronization procedure for the
> clock near O and all the other clocks at rest in S, as well as for the
> clock near O’ and all the other clocks at rest in S’. That is a different
> synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but
> though different it is not complicated.

You're absolutely right.
If we lived in a universe where gravity didn't exist, bodies wouldn't
fall, and there wouldn't be anything called "universal gravity".
It is the same if there were no rupture of simultaneity by change of
observer in a simple given frame of reference and one would not speak of
"universal anisochrony".
I remind you that two benches located in the same playground, or two
stations placed on the same railway network will never be able to agree on
"what time it is".
Moreover, when two observers are in relativistic motion relative to each
other, an additional quadratic effect appears and further complicates
matters. This time a break in chronotropy appears. The hands of the shows
reciprocally rotate at different speeds according to their direction and
speed.
This is what must be understood.
But that's not all.
We must also give the right transformations, and understand what we are
talking about when we talk about x, y, z (easy) and To and t (more
difficult if we are not attentive to what I am saying).

R.H.

Am 23.11.2021 um 14:09 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and
>> terms you use.
>> It is not always easy.
>> For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches
>> are triggered".
>> As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we
>> trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?"
>> A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling.
>> And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is
>> obvious".
>> And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be
>> those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off."
>> And against all, he is right.
>> It is necessarily not those that we trigger.
>> I love this guy.
>>
>> R.H.
>>
>
> Knowing full well that you are off your rocker, we are talking about
> synchronizing a watch near O that is at rest in S, with another watch near
> O’ that is at rest in S’. The only opportunity to do that is when O and O’
> coincide, putting these watches very near each other.
>
> It is also then necessary to apply a synchronization procedure for the
> clock near O and all the other clocks at rest in S, as well as for the
> clock near O’ and all the other clocks at rest in S’. That is a different
> synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but
> though different it is not complicated.

We could think about two clocks only, which are located at the center of
their coordinate system.

The relative velocity v is zero for comoving clocks in the own
coordinate system and have v>0 in a moving system.

The synchronisation procedure for the own system would be, to measure
the delay, which is caused by the distance, which the synchronisation
signal needs to reach the remote clock.

The 'master clock' at point 0 would subtract the delay, hence the remote
clocks receives the synch-signal at the intended time.

For the control-reading of the remote clock by the master clock, the
delay needed to be added to the received time-code.

For a moving system we would need to compensate the Doppler effect, too.

TH

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 23/11/2021 à 14:09, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> Knowing full well that you are off your rocker, we are talking about
>> synchronizing a watch near O that is at rest in S, with another watch near
>> O’ that is at rest in S’. The only opportunity to do that is when O and O’
>> coincide, putting these watches very near each other.
>>
>> It is also then necessary to apply a synchronization procedure for the
>> clock near O and all the other clocks at rest in S, as well as for the
>> clock near O’ and all the other clocks at rest in S’. That is a different
>> synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but
>> though different it is not complicated.
>
> You're absolutely right.
> If we lived in a universe where gravity didn't exist, bodies wouldn't
> fall, and there wouldn't be anything called "universal gravity".
> It is the same if there were no rupture of simultaneity by change of
> observer in a simple given frame of reference and one would not speak of
> "universal anisochrony".
> I remind you that two benches located in the same playground, or two
> stations placed on the same railway network will never be able to agree on
> "what time it is".

Don’t be silly. This is easy to come to an agreement for park benches at
the playground. I note on my watch that it is 12:38:21, and leaving my
watch behind, I walk at a steady pace to the other park bench. There I ask
the fellow sitting there what time it is, and he looks at his watch tells
me it’s 12:40:24. If the watches are synchronized, the time it took me to
walk there was 00:02:03. I immediately walk back to the first bench at the
same steady pace and when I arrive, I see that the time on my watch is
12:42:07. This tells me that indeed the watches are synchronized, and the
other fellow and I agree what time it is. Right now, in fact, it is
12:45:19, and he would say the same.

> Moreover, when two observers are in relativistic motion relative to each
> other, an additional quadratic effect appears and further complicates
> matters. This time a break in chronotropy appears. The hands of the shows
> reciprocally rotate at different speeds according to their direction and
> speed.
> This is what must be understood.
> But that's not all.
> We must also give the right transformations, and understand what we are
> talking about when we talk about x, y, z (easy) and To and t (more
> difficult if we are not attentive to what I am saying).
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Le 25/11/2021 à 14:46, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Don’t be silly. This is easy to come to an agreement for park benches at
> the playground. I note on my watch that it is 12:38:21, and leaving my
> watch behind, I walk at a steady pace to the other park bench. There I ask
> the fellow sitting there what time it is, and he looks at his watch tells
> me it’s 12:40:24. If the watches are synchronized, the time it took me to
> walk there was 00:02:03. I immediately walk back to the first bench at the
> same steady pace and when I arrive, I see that the time on my watch is
> 12:42:07. This tells me that indeed the watches are synchronized, and the
> other fellow and I agree what time it is. Right now, in fact, it is
> 12:45:19, and he would say the same.

Don't be silly, and take a little intellectual height.
Who do you think you're talking to?
Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand a timing idea?
But that's not what I mean when I say that it is impossible to tune
watches, and that in relativity, we can neither tune two watches placed in
different places (anisochrony), nor, a fortiori , evolving at different
speeds (chronotropy).

R.H.

Le 25/11/2021 à 14:46, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> Don’t be silly. This is easy to come to an agreement for park benches at
> the playground. I note on my watch that it is 12:38:21, and leaving my
> watch behind, I walk at a steady pace to the other park bench. There I ask
> the fellow sitting there what time it is, and he looks at his watch tells
> me it’s 12:40:24. If the watches are synchronized, the time it took me to
> walk there was 00:02:03. I immediately walk back to the first bench at the
> same steady pace and when I arrive, I see that the time on my watch is
> 12:42:07. This tells me that indeed the watches are synchronized, and the
> other fellow and I agree what time it is. Right now, in fact, it is
> 12:45:19, and he would say the same.

Il faut nommer correctement les choses.
Ma propre montre, je la nomme R (comme Richard, béni soit-il).
La première : A ; la deuxième : B.

Vous dites qu'au départ, vous synchronisez les montres R et A.

Je vous suis parfaitement dans cette idée. Les deux montres notent
chacune la même heure.

Si elles ne notaient pas la même heure, alors qu'elles sont au même
endroit au même moment, ce serait absurde.

On note donc pour R et pour A : 38'21.

Je quitte donc le premier banc de la cour de récréation, et je me dirige
très lentement, vers un autre banc, placé de l'autre côté de la cour.

Lorsque j'arrive là bas, je remarque qu'il est 40'24 à ma montre.

Que puis-je en déduire? Que j'ai mis un temps propre, ou temps réel,
Tr=2'03".

Je remarque alors que l'autre montre B marque alors la même heure que la
mienne, qui marquait
la même heure que la montre A. J'en conclus DEJA que les trois montres
sont accordées.

Pas besoin de revenir en A, car si entre B et R les montres sont
accordées quand je pars de A, il va de soi que les montres A et R seront
accordées si je pars de B.

Donc votre procédure semble valable.

MAIS elle n'est valable que dans un univers isochrone. De même que la
géométrie plane n'est plus valable
sur un globe terrestre.

On peut, en physique, lorsqu'on ne va pas très loin, ou lorsqu'on ne va
pas très vite, simplifier les choses. Mais lorsqu'on va très loin
(j'observe les lunes de Jupiter), ou lorsqu'on va très vite
(je lance des particules relativistes), quelque chose de nouveau entre en
jeu.

L'anisochronie spatiale : deux événements ayant lieu dans un même
référentiel inertiel ne pourront, entre
eux, jamais s'accorder sur leurs instants, voire même sur leur
antériorité ou leur postériorité.

Pour mieux comprendre, prenons un exemple simple. L'heure solaire. Il
n'est pas la même heure, à Paris qu'à Denver.

On peut, éventuellement synchroniser les montres. On peut.

Mais l'heure solaire, c'est à dire la nature même des choses pour le
fermier du coin, vous ne pourrez
pas la changer. Denver, sur le cadran solaire, retardera toujours de
quelques heures.

Il en va de même dans le monde relativiste, où, cette fois, le principe
est réciproque. Chacune des deux montres va réellement considérer comme
principe formel et vrai, que l'autre montre retarde sur elle d'une durée
de t=x/c.

C'est comme ça.

L'univers est fait comme ça.

On peut alors essayer, comme vous le faites, ou comme Einstein le fait, de
trouver une procédure de synchronisation pour accorder "quand même" les
montres.

On les synchronise donc sur ma montre R.

Parce que c'est ça que l'on fait, si l'on comprend bien ce qu'on est en
train de faire.

On ne synchronise pas A avec B. C'est d'ailleurs impossible physiquement.

Ce qu'on fait, c'est qu'on prend le temps de R (qui se déplace lentement
parce que s'il se déplace à vitesse relativiste, un autre facteur du
second degré intervient en surplus), et qu'on va le proposer partout, en
temps que "temps local".

Un peu comme si je prenais le temps solaire de Paris, et que je le
télégraphiais instantanément à Denver et à Moscou.

On aurait alors toutes les horloges solaires qui marquerait la même
heure, il suffirait alors de tourner les socles des horloges de pierre.

Mais vous comprenez fort bien qu'il s'agit là d'un subterfuge.

Et qu'en réalité, il n'est pas la même heure solaire à Denver qu'à
Moscou.

L'exemple et un peu trivial et faux, je l'accorde.

Mais il peut être utile pour placer un doute dans l'esprit du lecteur, et
pour lui permettre de réfléchir à cette notion d'anisochronie que je
défends bec et ongle depuis des décennies déjà, avec, au total,
des explications bien plus satisfaisantes que celles des physiciens sur
des choses qu'ils ne comprennent pas clairement (vitesses apparentes dans
le Langevin, effet-zoom relativiste, paradoxe d'Andromède, impossibilité
d'effet quantique instantanée en RR mais possible en MQ).

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 25/11/2021 à 14:46, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Don’t be silly. This is easy to come to an agreement for park benches at
>> the playground. I note on my watch that it is 12:38:21, and leaving my
>> watch behind, I walk at a steady pace to the other park bench. There I ask
>> the fellow sitting there what time it is, and he looks at his watch tells
>> me it’s 12:40:24. If the watches are synchronized, the time it took me to
>> walk there was 00:02:03. I immediately walk back to the first bench at the
>> same steady pace and when I arrive, I see that the time on my watch is
>> 12:42:07. This tells me that indeed the watches are synchronized, and the
>> other fellow and I agree what time it is. Right now, in fact, it is
>> 12:45:19, and he would say the same.
>
> Don't be silly, and take a little intellectual height.
> Who do you think you're talking to?
> Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand a timing idea?
> But that's not what I mean when I say that it is impossible to tune
> watches, and that in relativity, we can neither tune two watches placed in
> different places (anisochrony),

I JUST explained how to tune watches in two different places. Did you not
read?

> nor, a fortiori , evolving at different
> speeds (chronotropy).
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 25/11/2021 à 14:46, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> Don’t be silly. This is easy to come to an agreement for park benches at
>> the playground. I note on my watch that it is 12:38:21, and leaving my
>> watch behind, I walk at a steady pace to the other park bench. There I ask
>> the fellow sitting there what time it is, and he looks at his watch tells
>> me it’s 12:40:24. If the watches are synchronized, the time it took me to
>> walk there was 00:02:03. I immediately walk back to the first bench at the
>> same steady pace and when I arrive, I see that the time on my watch is
>> 12:42:07. This tells me that indeed the watches are synchronized, and the
>> other fellow and I agree what time it is. Right now, in fact, it is
>> 12:45:19, and he would say the same.
>
> Il faut nommer correctement les choses.

Nope. This is an English speaking newsgroup

> Ma propre montre, je la nomme R (comme Richard, béni soit-il).
> La première : A ; la deuxième : B.
>
> Vous dites qu'au départ, vous synchronisez les montres R et A.
>
> Je vous suis parfaitement dans cette idée. Les deux montres notent
> chacune la même heure.
>
> Si elles ne notaient pas la même heure, alors qu'elles sont au même
> endroit au même moment, ce serait absurde.
>
> On note donc pour R et pour A : 38'21.
>
> Je quitte donc le premier banc de la cour de récréation, et je me dirige
> très lentement, vers un autre banc, placé de l'autre côté de la cour.
>
> Lorsque j'arrive là bas, je remarque qu'il est 40'24 à ma montre.
>
> Que puis-je en déduire? Que j'ai mis un temps propre, ou temps réel,
> Tr=2'03".
>
> Je remarque alors que l'autre montre B marque alors la même heure que la
> mienne, qui marquait
> la même heure que la montre A. J'en conclus DEJA que les trois montres
> sont accordées.
>
> Pas besoin de revenir en A, car si entre B et R les montres sont
> accordées quand je pars de A, il va de soi que les montres A et R seront
> accordées si je pars de B.
>
> Donc votre procédure semble valable.
>
> MAIS elle n'est valable que dans un univers isochrone. De même que la
> géométrie plane n'est plus valable
> sur un globe terrestre.
>
> On peut, en physique, lorsqu'on ne va pas très loin, ou lorsqu'on ne va
> pas très vite, simplifier les choses. Mais lorsqu'on va très loin
> (j'observe les lunes de Jupiter), ou lorsqu'on va très vite
> (je lance des particules relativistes), quelque chose de nouveau entre en
> jeu.
>
> L'anisochronie spatiale : deux événements ayant lieu dans un même
> référentiel inertiel ne pourront, entre
> eux, jamais s'accorder sur leurs instants, voire même sur leur
> antériorité ou leur postériorité.
>
> Pour mieux comprendre, prenons un exemple simple. L'heure solaire. Il
> n'est pas la même heure, à Paris qu'à Denver.
>
> On peut, éventuellement synchroniser les montres. On peut.
>
> Mais l'heure solaire, c'est à dire la nature même des choses pour le
> fermier du coin, vous ne pourrez
> pas la changer. Denver, sur le cadran solaire, retardera toujours de
> quelques heures.
>
> Il en va de même dans le monde relativiste, où, cette fois, le principe
> est réciproque. Chacune des deux montres va réellement considérer comme
> principe formel et vrai, que l'autre montre retarde sur elle d'une durée
> de t=x/c.
>
> C'est comme ça.
>
> L'univers est fait comme ça.
>
> On peut alors essayer, comme vous le faites, ou comme Einstein le fait, de
> trouver une procédure de synchronisation pour accorder "quand même" les
> montres.
>
> On les synchronise donc sur ma montre R.
>
> Parce que c'est ça que l'on fait, si l'on comprend bien ce qu'on est en
> train de faire.
>
> On ne synchronise pas A avec B. C'est d'ailleurs impossible physiquement.
>
> Ce qu'on fait, c'est qu'on prend le temps de R (qui se déplace lentement
> parce que s'il se déplace à vitesse relativiste, un autre facteur du
> second degré intervient en surplus), et qu'on va le proposer partout, en
> temps que "temps local".
>
> Un peu comme si je prenais le temps solaire de Paris, et que je le
> télégraphiais instantanément à Denver et à Moscou.
>
> On aurait alors toutes les horloges solaires qui marquerait la même
> heure, il suffirait alors de tourner les socles des horloges de pierre.
>
> Mais vous comprenez fort bien qu'il s'agit là d'un subterfuge.
>
> Et qu'en réalité, il n'est pas la même heure solaire à Denver qu'à
> Moscou.
>
> L'exemple et un peu trivial et faux, je l'accorde.
>
> Mais il peut être utile pour placer un doute dans l'esprit du lecteur, et
> pour lui permettre de réfléchir à cette notion d'anisochronie que je
> défends bec et ongle depuis des décennies déjà, avec, au total,
> des explications bien plus satisfaisantes que celles des physiciens sur
> des choses qu'ils ne comprennent pas clairement (vitesses apparentes dans
> le Langevin, effet-zoom relativiste, paradoxe d'Andromède, impossibilité
> d'effet quantique instantanée en RR mais possible en MQ).
>
> R.H.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Le 25/11/2021 à 17:19, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 25/11/2021 à 14:46, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>> Don’t be silly. This is easy to come to an agreement for park benches at
>>> the playground. I note on my watch that it is 12:38:21, and leaving my
>>> watch behind, I walk at a steady pace to the other park bench. There I ask
>>> the fellow sitting there what time it is, and he looks at his watch tells
>>> me it’s 12:40:24. If the watches are synchronized, the time it took me to
>>> walk there was 00:02:03. I immediately walk back to the first bench at the
>>> same steady pace and when I arrive, I see that the time on my watch is
>>> 12:42:07. This tells me that indeed the watches are synchronized, and the
>>> other fellow and I agree what time it is. Right now, in fact, it is
>>> 12:45:19, and he would say the same.
>>
>> Don't be silly, and take a little intellectual height.
>> Who do you think you're talking to?
>> Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand a timing idea?
>> But that's not what I mean when I say that it is impossible to tune
>> watches, and that in relativity, we can neither tune two watches placed in
>> different places (anisochrony),
>
> I JUST explained how to tune watches in two different places. Did you not
> read?
>
>> nor, a fortiori , evolving at different
>> speeds (chronotropy).
>>
>> R.H.
>>

Yes, of course, I can read.

I know.

It is YOU who cannot read ME.

I tell you that we cannot tune two watches placed in different places and
a fortiori if they are in relativistic movement with respect to each
other.

Don't pretend you don't understand.

It is this property of space that Galileo will perceive for the first time
in human history when he will point his telescope at Jupiter and observe
the rotation of its moons.

The moons seem to turn faster when Jupiter approaches, and slower when the
star moves away.

Galileo Galilei will then commit one of the most immense blunder in human
history. He will start to think that it is a Doppler effect due to the
limited speed of light.

This blunder still persists among scientists.

Whether it's a Doppler effect, I don't mind.

But I call it the "first degree relativistic Doppler effect".

As I call "the transverse relativistic Doppler effect of the second
degree" the relativity of the chronotropy of relativistic watches between
them.

R.H.

Le 25/11/2021 à 17:19, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

>> Il faut nommer correctement les choses.
>
> Nope. This is an English speaking newsgroup

There are now very good translators when the subject interests people.

Le français est encore une très belle langue, vous savez.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 25/11/2021 à 17:19, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>>> Il faut nommer correctement les choses.
>>
>> Nope. This is an English speaking newsgroup
>
> There are now very good translators when the subject interests people.

The subject of clocks synchronisation is interesting, what you
have to say, nevertheless, is complete crap.

> Le français est encore une très belle langue, vous savez.

It is, unfortunately your have very low writing ability, in
French to start with, and your English is atrocious.

Le 25/11/2021 à 21:02, Python a écrit :

> and your English is atrocious.

On aura au moins été d'accord sur quelque chose, mon petit poussin
chéri.

Tu vois Jean-Pierre, il ne faut jamais désespérer.

La vie mérite d'être vécue.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 25/11/2021 à 17:19, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 25/11/2021 à 14:46, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>> Don’t be silly. This is easy to come to an agreement for park benches at
>>>> the playground. I note on my watch that it is 12:38:21, and leaving my
>>>> watch behind, I walk at a steady pace to the other park bench. There I ask
>>>> the fellow sitting there what time it is, and he looks at his watch tells
>>>> me it’s 12:40:24. If the watches are synchronized, the time it took me to
>>>> walk there was 00:02:03. I immediately walk back to the first bench at the
>>>> same steady pace and when I arrive, I see that the time on my watch is
>>>> 12:42:07. This tells me that indeed the watches are synchronized, and the
>>>> other fellow and I agree what time it is. Right now, in fact, it is
>>>> 12:45:19, and he would say the same.
>>>
>>> Don't be silly, and take a little intellectual height.
>>> Who do you think you're talking to?
>>> Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand a timing idea?
>>> But that's not what I mean when I say that it is impossible to tune
>>> watches, and that in relativity, we can neither tune two watches placed in
>>> different places (anisochrony),
>>
>> I JUST explained how to tune watches in two different places. Did you not
>> read?
>>
>>> nor, a fortiori , evolving at different
>>> speeds (chronotropy).
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>
> Yes, of course, I can read.
>
> I know.
>
> It is YOU who cannot read ME.
>
> I tell you that we cannot tune two watches placed in different places

But I just told you how. Are you saying I cannot physically walk from one
park bench to another? Are you saying o cannot look at watches? Are you
saying this does not synchronize the watches?

> and
> a fortiori if they are in relativistic movement with respect to each
> other.
>
> Don't pretend you don't understand.
>
> It is this property of space that Galileo will perceive for the first time
> in human history when he will point his telescope at Jupiter and observe
> the rotation of its moons.
>
> The moons seem to turn faster when Jupiter approaches, and slower when the
> star moves away.
>
> Galileo Galilei will then commit one of the most immense blunder in human
> history. He will start to think that it is a Doppler effect due to the
> limited speed of light.
>
> This blunder still persists among scientists.
>
> Whether it's a Doppler effect, I don't mind.
>
> But I call it the "first degree relativistic Doppler effect".
>
> As I call "the transverse relativistic Doppler effect of the second
> degree" the relativity of the chronotropy of relativistic watches between
> them.
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 25/11/2021 à 17:19, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>>> Il faut nommer correctement les choses.
>>
>> Nope. This is an English speaking newsgroup
>
> There are now very good translators when the subject interests people.

An English speaking newsgroup should not require a language translation
service.

>
> Le français est encore une très belle langue, vous savez.
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Le 26/11/2021 à 03:20, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> But I just told you how. Are you saying I cannot physically walk from one
> park bench to another? Are you saying o cannot look at watches? Are you
> saying this does not synchronize the watches?

Yes, that's what I'm saying: it can't sync the watches to each other.
There is, between two different places of the same space, of the same
frame of reference, a special property called spatial anisochrony.
This is a true, real phenomenon.
As is also real that solar time is not the same in Moscow, as in Paris, as
in Denver.
We can then synchronize the hours by calling from Paris, and when it is
noon, adjust all the sundials so that the shadow of the hand falls on
noon.
We can.
The clocks are then synchronized.
When it is noon, it is noon everywhere.
Except that it no longer gives the real solar time.

So, I repeat, we cannot synchronize the watches like the relativists do
(believing they are doing well). Watches are not synchronized and can
never be. In this attempt at synchronization, based only on the R watch
which joins the AB watches, the two AB watches see the other watch being
delayed by T = x / c.
They can never be absolutely syndhronized.
If I then synchronize A on B. This time it is B which will be
desynchronized by t = 2x / c.
This is only synchronized on the R watch.
And again, only when R touches A (for A) and when R touches B (for B).
And above all, if the watch R moves quickly between A and B, there is a
chronotropy problem. It beats (on average round trip) less quickly than
the other two for the other two.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 26/11/2021 à 03:20, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> But I just told you how. Are you saying I cannot physically walk from one
>> park bench to another? Are you saying o cannot look at watches? Are you
>> saying this does not synchronize the watches?
>
> Yes, that's what I'm saying: it can't sync the watches to each other.

Well, you’ll have to excuse me, but that is simply delusional and you have
fallen off the edge of madness. The procedure I described is so ordinary,
so simple, and so demonstrably successful, that your muttering “impossible”
means nothing. Furthermore, please notice that what I described involved
nothing but walking between two park benches and two wristwatches. There is
absolutely nothing relativistic about it, and there is nothing involving
light signals, other than the ambient light needed to walk, and to see the
faces of the watches. This is the way people would have synchronized
watches back in the 1800s.

You have managed to confuse yourself into believing that something
commonplace and simple is impossible.

I do not prolong conversations with horribly confused people who have
disconnected from reality.

> There is, between two different places of the same space, of the same
> frame of reference, a special property called spatial anisochrony.
> This is a true, real phenomenon.
> As is also real that solar time is not the same in Moscow, as in Paris, as
> in Denver.
> We can then synchronize the hours by calling from Paris, and when it is
> noon, adjust all the sundials so that the shadow of the hand falls on
> noon.
> We can.
> The clocks are then synchronized.
> When it is noon, it is noon everywhere.
> Except that it no longer gives the real solar time.
>
> So, I repeat, we cannot synchronize the watches like the relativists do
> (believing they are doing well). Watches are not synchronized and can
> never be. In this attempt at synchronization, based only on the R watch
> which joins the AB watches, the two AB watches see the other watch being
> delayed by T = x / c.
> They can never be absolutely syndhronized.
> If I then synchronize A on B. This time it is B which will be
> desynchronized by t = 2x / c.
> This is only synchronized on the R watch.
> And again, only when R touches A (for A) and when R touches B (for B).
> And above all, if the watch R moves quickly between A and B, there is a
> chronotropy problem. It beats (on average round trip) less quickly than
> the other two for the other two.
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Le 26/11/2021 à 15:37, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> I do not prolong conversations with horribly confused people who have
> disconnected from reality.

That is what I am saying. People are so confused and out of touch with
reality that they don't understand anything I'm trying to explain to them.
The worst part is that it is all over the place, not only in science, but
also in philosophy, in theology, in sociology, in criminology.
People don't understand what I'm trying to tell them, and since they
don't, they imagine I'm the deepest jerk the world has created.
Do you see Emmanuel Kant teaching Jamel Debouzze, do you?
I exaggerate a little.
But we are not far from what is happening.
We live in times of apocalyptic revolt.
Nothing is loved more than the cutesy, the blurry, the ugly, the
misunderstood.
No period in the history of mankind has been more revolted than ours.

Yes, that is what I am saying.

The problem is not me.

R.H.