Le 29/11/2021 à 02:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :

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

Yes. You are right. It's Roemer.

Thanks.

R.H.

Le 29/11/2021 à 02:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :

> The Doppler Effect will be apparent in any wavelike transmission with a
> finite speed.

You are wrong, just because there is a Doppler effect does not mean that
the transmission of the message is done at finite speed.
This is obviously what you think at first, until you realize that there is
still (even if it is quite pretty) something wrong with the theory of
relativity.
Take, for example, the notion of apparent speeds in RR. We realize that if
we practice like this, the whole theory collapses, and things are
obviously wrong.
Ditto if we talk about quantum coherence and instantaneous effect.
Ditto if we speak of the Andromeda paradox. It is wrong.
We must therefore find WHY this is wrong, without having to discuss
everything.

R.H.

Le 29/11/2021 à 17:06, Michael Moroney a écrit :

> Members of some sort of kook club?

Yes, a kind of Kook club.

You are quite right.

We could also say, less vulgarly, a sort of Navel club.

It's exactly that.

R.H.

rotchm wrote:

> 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?

Heger is a doctor, compared to you, you stupid basics uneducated
imbecile, not even knowing elementary stuff. There are no centers in
coordinate systems, you shit eater. lol

Richard Lengrand wrote:

> Ditto if we talk about quantum coherence and instantaneous effect.
> Ditto if we speak of the Andromeda paradox. It is wrong.

These are two LIES.

rotchm wrote:

here is how to report the crap coming from this stupid spammer:

Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Message-ID: <bb3952fb-ae7b-44b8-83d8-24e6f4279e56n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Watch problem
From: rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:24:18 +0000
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 06:24:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <j0jdgrFg3p2U1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=184.160.32.227;
posting-account=BHsbrQoAAAANJj6HqXJ987nOEDAC1EsJ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.160.32.227
References: <R9GjEL1FIXnAIviXPOpB5G1yt-U@jntp>

Nym-shifting troll, aka Chason Aceta schwrote:
> rotchm wrote:
>
> here is how to report the crap coming from this stupid spammer:
> From: Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
> Subject: Re: Watch problem
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 23:13:35 -0000 (UTC)
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Message-ID: <so3mqv$1sm5$4@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <R9GjEL1FIXnAIviXPOpB5G1yt-U@jntp> <snip5d$1mo7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> <j08pvfFf51hU1@mid.individual.net> <sntt20$bm8$4@gioia.aioe.org>
> <j0gmrrFbhdU1@mid.individual.net> <so0o0u$1js3$3@gioia.aioe.org>
> <j0jdgrFg3p2U1@mid.individual.net>
> <bb3952fb-ae7b-44b8-83d8-24e6f4279e56n@googlegroups.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="62149"; posting-host="sHOXf7EwUFqQynFIiR4AXg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
> User-Agent: Microsoft Windows Live Mail/14.0.8117.416 (MSIE 8; Windows NT 5.1;
> Trident/4.0; GTB7.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR
> 3.5.30729; TmstmpExt)
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2

Right!

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> 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'.

what's the "center" when you have an angle driven coordinate system? And
the universe is 4D not 3. And your (0,0,0) is arbitrary, hence not fixed.

Python wrote:

> Chason Aceta schwrote:
>> rotchm wrote:
>>
>> here is how to report the crap coming from this stupid spammer:
>
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Message-ID:
> <bb3952fb-ae7b-44b8-83d8-24e6f4279e56n@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Watch problem From: rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:24:18 +0000 User-Agent: G2/1.0
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 06:24:17 -0800
> (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <j0jdgrFg3p2U1@mid.individual.net>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com;
> posting-host=184.160.32.227;
> posting-account=BHsbrQoAAAANJj6HqXJ987nOEDAC1EsJ NNTP-Posting-Host:
> 184.160.32.227 References: <R9GjEL1FIXnAIviXPOpB5G1yt-U@jntp>
>
> Right!

eat shit you stupid incompetent troll spammer. Uneducated frogs are
sticking together as I can see. Disgusting sacks of subhuman excrement.

Le 30/11/2021 à 00:10, Jean Paul Messager a écrit :

>> Ditto if we talk about quantum coherence and instantaneous effect.
>> Ditto if we speak of the Andromeda paradox. It is wrong.
>
> These are two LIES.

But I like to lie, Jean-Pierre, I like to lie.
I, at my hosiery-making factory, lie to the workers all the time.
But the people like to be lied to.
Relativities too.
So I lie to him.
I even make him believe that the relativistic theory is so false that if
we treat an exercise in apparent speeds (that is to say what we would see
in telescopes) the conclusions are absurd.
And the people love it.
I lie to him, and he asks for more.
R.H.

On 11/29/2021 12:08 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 29/11/2021 à 02:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>
>> The Doppler Effect will be apparent in any wavelike transmission with
>> a finite speed.
>
> You are wrong, just because there is a Doppler effect does not mean that
> the transmission of the message is done at finite speed.
> This is obviously what you think at first, until you realize that there
> is still (even if it is quite pretty) something wrong with the theory of
> relativity.
> Take, for example, the notion of apparent speeds in RR. We realize that
> if we practice like this, the whole theory collapses, and things are
> obviously wrong.
> Ditto if we talk about quantum coherence and instantaneous effect.
> Ditto if we speak of the Andromeda paradox. It is wrong.
> We must therefore find WHY this is wrong, without having to discuss
> everything.

I haven't thought about either in detail but both appear to be
relativity of simultanety issues, by assuming there is a "now" that's
true for the entire universe implicitly.

Le 30/11/2021 à 16:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> I haven't thought about either in detail but both appear to be
> relativity of simultanety issues, by assuming there is a "now" that's
> true for the entire universe implicitly.

There is no such thing as a "now".
It is an idea of ​​Jean-Pierre Messager and all his relativistic
friends.
Their only goal is to keep the power over the conscience.
Above all, do not lose it ...
Above all...

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 30/11/2021 à 16:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> I haven't thought about either in detail but both appear to be
>> relativity of simultanety issues, by assuming there is a "now" that's
>> true for the entire universe implicitly.
>
>
> There is no such thing as a "now".
> It is an idea of ​​Jean-Pierre Messager and all his relativistic
> friends.
> Their only goal is to keep the power over the conscience.
> Above all, do not lose it ...
> Above all...
>
> R.H.
>

Wow. Classic paranoid weirdo crap.

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

Le 30/11/2021 à 17:51, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 30/11/2021 à 16:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>> I haven't thought about either in detail but both appear to be
>>> relativity of simultanety issues, by assuming there is a "now" that's
>>> true for the entire universe implicitly.
>>
>>
>> There is no such thing as a "now".
>> It is an idea of ​​Jean-Pierre Messager and all his relativistic
>> friends.
>> Their only goal is to keep the power over the conscience.
>> Above all, do not lose it ...
>> Above all...
>>
>> R.H.
>>
>
> Wow. Classic paranoid weirdo crap.

1. Paranoid.
2. Crap.

Woooooow...

LOL.

I prefer to say nothing.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 30/11/2021 à 17:51, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 30/11/2021 à 16:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>>> I haven't thought about either in detail but both appear to be
>>>> relativity of simultanety issues, by assuming there is a "now" that's
>>>> true for the entire universe implicitly.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as a "now".
>>> It is an idea of ​​Jean-Pierre Messager and all his relativistic
>>> friends.
>>> Their only goal is to keep the power over the conscience.
>>> Above all, do not lose it ...
>>> Above all...
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>>
>> Wow. Classic paranoid weirdo crap.
>
> 1. Paranoid.
> 2. Crap.
>
> Woooooow...
>
> LOL.
>
> I prefer to say nothing.
>
> R.H.
>

What you have to say would be better said to a psychiatrist anyway.

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

Le 30/11/2021 à 19:44, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 30/11/2021 à 17:51, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>> Le 30/11/2021 à 16:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>>>> I haven't thought about either in detail but both appear to be
>>>>> relativity of simultanety issues, by assuming there is a "now" that's
>>>>> true for the entire universe implicitly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as a "now".
>>>> It is an idea of ​​Jean-Pierre Messager and all his relativistic
>>>> friends.
>>>> Their only goal is to keep the power over the conscience.
>>>> Above all, do not lose it ...
>>>> Above all...
>>>>
>>>> R.H.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow. Classic paranoid weirdo crap.
>>
>> 1. Paranoid.
>> 2. Crap.
>>
>> Woooooow...
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> I prefer to say nothing.
>>
>> R.H.
>>
>
> What you have to say would be better said to a psychiatrist anyway.

Et vous consultez quand, docteur Odd Bokkin?

"Et parmi les humains, on trouva les plus fous".

C'est un joli alexandrin.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 30/11/2021 à 19:44, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 30/11/2021 à 17:51, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>> Le 30/11/2021 à 16:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>>>>> I haven't thought about either in detail but both appear to be
>>>>>> relativity of simultanety issues, by assuming there is a "now" that's
>>>>>> true for the entire universe implicitly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no such thing as a "now".
>>>>> It is an idea of ​​Jean-Pierre Messager and all his relativistic
>>>>> friends.
>>>>> Their only goal is to keep the power over the conscience.
>>>>> Above all, do not lose it ...
>>>>> Above all...
>>>>>
>>>>> R.H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow. Classic paranoid weirdo crap.
>>>
>>> 1. Paranoid.
>>> 2. Crap.
>>>
>>> Woooooow...
>>>
>>> LOL.
>>>
>>> I prefer to say nothing.
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>>
>> What you have to say would be better said to a psychiatrist anyway.
>
> Et vous consultez quand, docteur Odd Bokkin?

I don’t, but I’m sure you’re already acquainted with one. Whether you
follow the guidance is another matter.

>
> "Et parmi les humains, on trouva les plus fous".
>
> C'est un joli alexandrin.
>
> R.H.
>
>
>
>
>

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

Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 30/11/2021 à 16:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> I haven't thought about either in detail but both appear to be
>> relativity of simultanety issues, by assuming there is a "now" that's
>> true for the entire universe implicitly.
>
>
> There is no such thing as a "now".
> It is an idea of ​​<whoever>

A LIE again as SR is exactly about not assuming any significance
for a single "now" for every reference frame. You are a dumb and
disgusting LIAR, Richard Lengrand.

Richard Lengrand, from Saint Yzan De Soudiac, you'd better
don't claim anything about what other people ideas are or are not as
you are dumb as a stone and dishonest as shit. You'll pay for that at
the end, you know?

On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 23:00:17 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 30/11/2021 à 16:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> >> I haven't thought about either in detail but both appear to be
> >> relativity of simultanety issues, by assuming there is a "now" that's
> >> true for the entire universe implicitly.
> >
> >
> > There is no such thing as a "now".
> > It is an idea of ​​<whoever>
>
> A LIE again as SR is exactly about not assuming any significance
> for a single "now" for every reference frame. You are a dumb and
> disgusting LIAR, Richard Lengrand.

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

Am 30.11.2021 um 00:23 schrieb Chason Aceta:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> 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'.
>
> what's the "center" when you have an angle driven coordinate system? And
> the universe is 4D not 3. And your (0,0,0) is arbitrary, hence not fixed.
>

The zero point of the co-moving 3d space are actually we ourselves.

The world we see is an internal representation of the outer world, which
is based on a certain spot within our brain.

So lets call that hypothetical spot 'observer' and what we see with our
eyes 'universe'.

Then we have a valid model of the process of seeing and of what is seen.

This 'universe' is, of course, not universal, but an subjective image,
that only represents the outer world.

Only, we humans are so used to use this method, that we usually forget,
that an internal representaion of the world is not the world, but an image.

Now I extend this and say, that we do that all the time and everybody
does that, hence the collective representation of the vision of the
outer world is called 'the real universe'.

But, in fact, this also only a subjective representaion of the outer
world, too, but by a larger set of individuals (humanity), which call
themselves 'I' as a collective.

So, what is the 'real universe' than????

My solution: I don't know and take the subjective vision as real,
because for now I (we) have no other means.

I call this 'subjectivism' and use it as kind of 'backdrop' for my own
'theory':

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

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> what's the "center" when you have an angle driven coordinate system?
>> And the universe is 4D not 3. And your (0,0,0) is arbitrary, hence not
>> fixed.
>
> The zero point of the co-moving 3d space are actually we ourselves.
> The world we see is an internal representation of the outer world, which
> is based on a certain spot within our brain.
> So lets call that hypothetical spot 'observer' and what we see with our
> eyes 'universe'.

this is wrong even more. What's the distance between an arbitrary
coordinate system and "you", in millimetres?

> Then we have a valid model of the process of seeing and of what is
> seen. This 'universe' is, of course, not universal, but an subjective
> image, that only represents the outer world.
> Only, we humans are so used to use this method, that we usually forget,
> that an internal representaion of the world is not the world, but an
> image.

wrong even more. Think!

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

wasting your time. Better just focus on Einstine. He was wrong.

Le 30/11/2021 à 23:00, Jean-Pierre Messager a écrit :

> You'll pay for that at the end, you know?

I especially believe that you are completely crazy.

R.H.

Le 28/11/2021 à 17:32, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> This is sometimes paired with feelings of persecution or paranoia.

Note, it's like in France. It seems that there is a growing feeling of
insecurity in some suburbs. But as the minister said, it's just a feeling.
LOL.

R.H.

Le 25/11/2021 à 07:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> 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

If you can read french text.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ZqZfRZIt6Ml9UgXMhN8DjONxPUc@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

Le 01/12/2021 à 08:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
> moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just
> like all serious clocks always did.

It is precisely because the universe is based on strict and true laws such
as that of universal gravitation or that of spatial anisochrony that gps
exist.
If there were not this "original anisochrony" the observable speed c of
light would be infinite, and there would not be this temporal Doppller
effect of the first degree which makes it possible to measure distances
and therefore positions.

R.H.