Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> 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.

I think a good reality check is whether you are the only one claiming to
have a special insight about reality that everyone else misses. If you find
this is true for you, the problem is not with others. It’s with you. This
may not be something you wish to accept, but it is exceedingly —
extraordinarily exceedingly — likely nevertheless.

> 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.

See above.

You will find yourself dying lonely, believing you are an unappreciated
genius.

The foreshadowing of apocalypse is a related symptom.

>
> R.H.
>

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

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:

I haven't been following this thread.
But by quickly glancing at it, it looks like it's just a matter of definition. You weren't arguing a definition, no?
If so, then you are arguing for nothing since definition are to be taken True by all parties. That's how language works, that's how communication works.

Two distanced clocks at rest with respect to each other can be synchronized. Just apply the definition of "synchronize".
I also saw in your rants, the expression "absolute synchronisation". This is not synchronisation as used in physics. So make sure you are not mixing up the words and expressions. That is what it looks like is happening.

Perhaps if you would start a new thread, explaining yourself *briefly* and *concisely* in one small paragraph then I might consult it.

Le 26/11/2021 à 20:45, rotchm a écrit :
> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> I haven't been following this thread.
> But by quickly glancing at it, it looks like it's just a matter of definition.
> You weren't arguing a definition, no?
> If so, then you are arguing for nothing since definition are to be taken True by
> all parties. That's how language works, that's how communication works.
>
> Two distanced clocks at rest with respect to each other can be synchronized.
> Just apply the definition of "synchronize".
> I also saw in your rants, the expression "absolute synchronisation". This is not
> synchronisation as used in physics. So make sure you are not mixing up the words
> and expressions. That is what it looks like is happening.
>
> Perhaps if you would start a new thread, explaining yourself *briefly* and
> *concisely* in one small paragraph then I might consult it.

Thank you for your answer, but I think the problem is not scientific but
human.
I absolutely do not believe that the various stakeholders who despise or
insult me ​​do not understand anything at all about my grievances
against the synchronization methods they are proposing.
I don't believe at all that they consider me a complete jerk either, and I
think they understand very well where I am going.
I have been telling them for decades, that when it comes to relativity, WE
CANNOT physically tune two watches placed in different places, and if we
tune two watches in the same place, then slowly separate them, they are
out of tune. conversely and naturally of a time t = x / c.
Just as there exists between two distant objects a notion of distances,
which we will denote by distance d,
there will inexorably be a time lag between the two objects (dt = x / c in
a vacuum), and just as we can never match two solar clocks placed one in
Moscow and the other in Paris, we cannot can never actually tune two
watches distant from each other. Each will always see the other lagging
behind. A bit as if taking a watch away also took it away in "my past".
This is what I mean when I speak of universal anisochrony.
The idea is easily understood by a child of nine to ten.
If we do not understand it, it is because we do not want to understand it.
And there, it is a question of giving drink to donkeys who are not
thirsty.

R.H.

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 4:32:17 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 26/11/2021 à 20:45, rotchm a écrit :

Your reply is too long for my liking. Try to be succinct.

> that when it comes to relativity, WE
> CANNOT physically tune two watches placed in different places,

Yes we can, provided we give a (operational) definition of " tune to watches".

> and if we tune two watches in the same place, then slowly separate them, they are
> out of tune.

OK, looks like you are talking about synchronizing (two) clocks, aka: synching, synch, e-synch, coordinating (the space).

> Just as there exists between two distant objects a notion of distances,

aka: coordination of the space, positions, distances.
> and just as we can never match two solar clocks placed one in
> Moscow and the other in Paris,

Yes we can, depending on the definition of "match...".

> we cannot can never actually tune two watches distant from each other.

"actually" ?

To 'tune two watches' you mean to e-synch them. We can 'really', 'actually' e-synch them; we can synch them
(since 'synch' means to e-synch).

> This is what I mean when I speak of universal anisochrony.

OK... you are referring to the 'absolute synch' and the anisochrony it entails. A well known, old & defunct subject.
Note that that is not physics though; they are notions that are not defined and unmeasurable. They are thus useless concepts.
If you mean some other Concepts, then clearly defined them, give the operational definitions.

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> 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.

coordinate systems has no centers.

Am 27.11.2021 um 19:22 schrieb Nabor Nave:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> coordinate systems has no centers.
>

Well...in a way...

I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance.

I call this point 'center', even if this point could be relocated and
another point can be regarded as 'center'.

The zero-spot is the point, from where the position vectors of the other
points start.

I think, the position of the observer is a good choice for the zero
spot, because then the zero spot could be called 'observer'.

This is an arbitrary setting, but the one which I usually chose.

The idea behind this setting is, that if the observer is located at the
zero spot, then all position vectors start at him.

This is a good setting, because then the term 'space' (of all the other
endpoints of all possible 'sight-vectors') coincides with what is called
'past-light-cone'.

Now we usually call that 'sight-space' 'universe', even if it is only
the space of the events, the observer could possibly see.

We only need to think, that also position vectors operate like light
rays and do not connect with infinete velocity, but with c.

This view is different to the Euclidean space, where vectors are
timeless, hence connect with infinite pace.

The disadvantage of Euclidean space: we cannot see with infinite speed,
hence the content of Euclidean space is invisible. Therefore we usually
call the own past-light-cone 'space' and our own position 'observer'.

TH

Den 25.11.2021 20:52, skrev Richard Hachel:
>
> 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.

Can you please explain why this is a blunder?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 1:45:18 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 27.11.2021 um 19:22 schrieb Nabor Nave:

> > coordinate systems has no centers.
> >
> Well...in a way...
>
> I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance.

It knows that, so why did you reply to it?
Didn't you notice? You replied to the nym Shifting troll.
It will say anything to get you, and it got you. You fell for it.

Just reported spam. And don't fall for it again. It's so obvious when it is the troll.
You should have noticed it.

Le 28/11/2021 à 10:03, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>
>
> Den 25.11.2021 20:52, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Can you please explain why this is a blunder?

Sometimes you have to be wary of the most obvious ideas, and those on
which everyone agrees. What could be clearer than in 1940, Nazi Germany
was going to dominate the world, that Hitler was going to be the tallest
man in all of human history, that he had a superb motorway network built,
an invincible and dedicated army, and that the whole world will speak
German for at least a thousand years.
The face of Germany seen from the sky five years later showed that the
Germans were wrong.
We have the same thing with human beings today. They say: "What could be
clearer than the speed of light is 3.10 ^ 8m / s. We know it, we have
measured it, and we are measuring it more and more precisely every day,
and today , to the nearest centimeter ". Their blindness is total.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 28/11/2021 à 10:03, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Den 25.11.2021 20:52, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Can you please explain why this is a blunder?
>
> Sometimes you have to be wary of the most obvious ideas, and those on
> which everyone agrees. What could be clearer than in 1940, Nazi Germany
> was going to dominate the world, that Hitler was going to be the tallest
> man in all of human history, that he had a superb motorway network built,
> an invincible and dedicated army, and that the whole world will speak
> German for at least a thousand years.
> The face of Germany seen from the sky five years later showed that the
> Germans were wrong.
> We have the same thing with human beings today. They say: "What could be
> clearer than the speed of light is 3.10 ^ 8m / s. We know it, we have
> measured it, and we are measuring it more and more precisely every day,
> and today , to the nearest centimeter ". Their blindness is total.
>
> R.H.
>

Richard, just a reminder… just about everyone here knows you are not well.
You deflecting by insisting that YOU are the doctor and everyone else is
sick, isn’t going to change that. Please seek help.

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

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 9:06:24 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> "What could be
> clearer than the speed of light is 3.10 ^ 8m / s. We know it, ...

Lets put it this way:

E-synch two (distant) clock (in the same i-frame), calling them A & B and the distance between them D (this distance is performed via the definition of Demeter, say.)

Now, send a pulse of light from A to B. Compute D/(TB - TA). What will you get?
Or, from B to A. What will you get?

Conclusion?

Le 28/11/2021 à 15:13, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> Richard, just a reminder… just about everyone here knows you are not well.

That is what I am saying.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 28/11/2021 à 15:13, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> Richard, just a reminder… just about everyone here knows you are not well.
>
>
> That is what I am saying.

Then get some help please, to try to become well.

>
> R.H.
>

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

On 11/28/2021 9:06 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 28/11/2021 à 10:03, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Den 25.11.2021 20:52, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Can you please explain why this is a blunder?
>
> Sometimes you have to be wary of the most obvious ideas, and those on
> which everyone agrees. What could be clearer than in 1940, Nazi Germany
> was going to dominate the world, that Hitler was going to be the tallest

The history of Nazi Germany is not a scientific reason why the Doppler
Effect on Jupiter's moons is a 'blunder'.

Please either give a scientific reason why that is a 'blunder', or do as
Odd suggests, seek professional help.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/2021 9:06 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 28/11/2021 à 10:03, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> Den 25.11.2021 20:52, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Can you please explain why this is a blunder?
>>
>> Sometimes you have to be wary of the most obvious ideas, and those on
>> which everyone agrees. What could be clearer than in 1940, Nazi Germany
>> was going to dominate the world, that Hitler was going to be the tallest
>
> The history of Nazi Germany is not a scientific reason why the Doppler
> Effect on Jupiter's moons is a 'blunder'.
>
> Please either give a scientific reason why that is a 'blunder', or do as
> Odd suggests, seek professional help.
>
>

If someone like Richard feels different than others, like he doesn’t fit
in, it is tempting to suppose this is because he is special (as opposed to
ill). Then the search is on for the cause of being special. This quickly
leads to believing in unique insights, while the rest of humanity is
deluded. This is sometimes paired with feelings of persecution or paranoia.

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

Le 28/11/2021 à 16:53, Michael Moroney a écrit :

> The history of Nazi Germany is not a scientific reason why the Doppler
> Effect on Jupiter's moons is a 'blunder'.

Je n'ai pas dis ça, Ô abruti.

J'ai simplement dit que c'était, comme l'autre, une croyance à la con.

L'effet Doppler n'est pas du à la vitesse de la lumière, mais à un
effet de perspective relativiste.

Effet du premier degré jouant sur la notion de simultanéité.

Comme l'effet de chronotropie du second degré joue, de plus, sur la
vitesse dont battent les montres placées en des référentiels inertiels
différents.

Bandes de pauvres cons, cerveaux de singes. Apprenez au moins à lire ce
que je dis avant de critiquer comme des malades que vous êtes.

Abrutis, va!!!

R.H.

rotchm wrote:

> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 1:45:18 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 27.11.2021 um 19:22 schrieb Nabor Nave:
>
>> > coordinate systems has no centers.
>> >
>> Well...in a way...
>> I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance.
>
> It knows that, so why did you reply to it?
> Didn't you notice? You replied to the nym Shifting troll.
> It will say anything to get you, and it got you. You fell for it.

He admits making mistake you inbreed cretin. That's origo, not center.
There are no centers in coordinate systems, you stupid bag of rocks.

Go report yourself, you gave google your phone number, how can you be
this stupid? Also, this group is not moderated, and Hager will shit a big
one in your mouth and the mouth of your stinking mother.

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> coordinate systems has no centers.
>>
> Well...in a way...
> I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance.

that's origo or origin, not center. Kindergarten stuff.

rotchm wrote:

> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> I haven't been following this thread.

you are too stupid and uneducated to follow everything, you inbreed
cretin. lol

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 26/11/2021 à 20:45, rotchm a écrit :
>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>> I haven't been following this thread.
>
> Thank you for your answer, but I think the problem is not scientific but
> human.

but he's an imbecile, and you are wasting your time.

On 11/28/2021 2:13 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 28/11/2021 à 16:53, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>
>> The history of Nazi Germany is not a scientific reason why the Doppler
>> Effect on Jupiter's moons is a 'blunder'.
>
> Je n'ai pas dis ça, Ô abruti.
>
> J'ai simplement dit que c'était, comme l'autre, une croyance à la con.
> L'effet Doppler n'est pas du à la vitesse de la lumière, mais à un effet
> de perspective relativiste.
> Effet du premier degré jouant sur la notion de simultanéité.
> Comme l'effet de chronotropie du second degré joue, de plus, sur la
> vitesse dont battent les montres placées en des référentiels inertiels
> différents.
> Bandes de pauvres cons, cerveaux de singes. Apprenez au moins à lire ce
> que je dis avant de critiquer comme des malades que vous êtes.
> Abrutis, va!!!
> R.H.

I asked you why Galileo made an "immense" blunder, in your opinion. You
go off blathering about Nazis rather than answering. You still won't
say why it's a blunder.

The Doppler Effect will be apparent in any wavelike transmission with a
finite speed. Including periodic effects superimposed on it (the orbits
of Jupiter's moons or modulated radio waves, for example),

(Besides, it was Roemer, not Galileo, who used Jupiter's moons' orbital
periods to measure the speed of light!)

Am 28.11.2021 um 21:15 schrieb Chason Aceta:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> coordinate systems has no centers.
>>>
>> Well...in a way...
>> I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance.
>
> that's origo or origin, not center. Kindergarten stuff.
>

I'm actually German and English is a second language for me.

Therefore I use eventually wrong words or words with wrong meanings. The
term 'center' I use for 'the central point of something'.

Possibly this is not correct, but I meant actually that.

This central point gets the coordinates (0, 0, 0) in a 3-dimensional
non-Euclidean space, which we usually call 'Universe'.

This IS actually the center of the own 'space of observations', because
all rays seen arrive actually there.

This 3D-space has no real center, because the observer could be moved to
any desired location and watch the universe from there, but the space of
observations obviously has.

This point is the point 'here and now', which therefore gets the
four-vector (0,0,0,0) (coordinates meant as relative to the observer).

This point is the center of the co-moving coordinate system, which the
observer usually uses.

The real universe (which is mainly not visible) has no center and no
zero spot.

The real universe is infinite in space and time, because it undergoes a
process, where it 'folds inside out'. The observer experiences this as
space and time, just by being somewhere.

That spot 'somewhere' serves then as center of the universe, which is
special for the observer in question.

TH

Le 29/11/2021 à 02:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> I asked you why Galileo made an "immense" blunder, in your opinion. You
> go off blathering about Nazis rather than answering. You still won't
> say why it's a blunder.
>
> The Doppler Effect will be apparent in any wavelike transmission with a
> finite speed. Including periodic effects superimposed on it (the orbits
> of Jupiter's moons or modulated radio waves, for example),
>
> (Besides, it was Roemer, not Galileo, who used Jupiter's moons' orbital
> periods to measure the speed of light!)

You answer beside the question. We laugh at the wave theory of light as we
laugh at its alleged "speed".
You go on an a priori basis. That of Galileo Galilei.
What does Galileo say?
He thinks, as any man would (even me) that if the moons seem to turn
slower when Jupiter moves away, and faster when it approaches, then there
is some kind of Doppler effect, and that light travels at finite speed.
This is his mistake.
This is not the real cause.
On earth, men have reproduced the experience by passing light through
small cogwheels.
They found the same thing as Galileo. The light "seems" to move to c.
They therefore deduce that it moves to c.
Their incomprehension of the real phenomenon is hidden from them.
I see an earthquake, it's a fact, I see it, the houses are on the ground
and we can measure its effects precisely (Richter scale, etc.). So, this
is the proof that four gigantic elephants sometimes unstable support the
earth, which is flat.

R.H.

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:24:15 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.11.2021 um 21:15 schrieb Chason Aceta:

> > that's origo or origin, not center. Kindergarten stuff.
> >
> I'm actually German and English is a second language for me.
>
> Therefore I use eventually wrong words or words with wrong meanings.

Why did you refer respond to the troll?
Didn't you notice his sole purpose was to make fun of you, and you fell for it?
Try harder to notice Such trivial things. Learn a little respect by not responding to the trolls. Else you are just contributing to their mischief.
What you should do, is to report them, report them as spam.

On 11/29/2021 8:53 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 29/11/2021 à 02:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> I asked you why Galileo made an "immense" blunder, in your opinion.
>> You go off blathering about Nazis rather than answering.  You still
>> won't say why it's a blunder.
>>
>> The Doppler Effect will be apparent in any wavelike transmission with
>> a finite speed.  Including periodic effects superimposed on it (the
>> orbits of Jupiter's moons or modulated radio waves, for example),
>>
>> (Besides, it was Roemer, not Galileo, who used Jupiter's moons'
>> orbital periods to measure the speed of light!)
>
> You answer beside the question. We laugh at the wave theory of light as
> we laugh at its alleged "speed".

"We"? Who else besides yourself? Members of some sort of kook club?

> You go on an a priori basis. That of Galileo Galilei.
> What does Galileo say?
> He thinks, as any man would (even me) that if the moons seem to turn
> slower when Jupiter moves away, and faster when it approaches, then
> there is some kind of Doppler effect, and that light travels at finite
> speed.
> This is his mistake.
> This is not the real cause.

And I asked why it is a mistake, and you respond with Nazis losing the war.

> On earth, men have reproduced the experience by passing light through
> small cogwheels.
> They found the same thing as Galileo. The light "seems" to move to c.
> They therefore deduce that it moves to c.
> Their incomprehension of the real phenomenon is hidden from them.
> I see an earthquake, it's a fact, I see it, the houses are on the ground
> and we can measure its effects precisely (Richter scale, etc.). So, this
> is the proof that four gigantic elephants sometimes unstable support the
> earth, which is flat.

So Galileo's mistake is not believing that earthquakes are caused by
restlessness in elephants supporting the earth? Or believing that
earthquakes are caused by restless elephants?

I always thought it was turtles, all the way down.