When you don't fully understand a theory, you have to start with its
basics.
What is needed, above all, is never to state words, notions, concepts
without a precise idea of ​​what you are saying.
This is, unfortunately, what is most often done.
No relativistic physicist in the world (where they are hiding) is capable
of explaining the evolutions of the Langevin paradox (which remains
current and on which cranks and trolls of all kinds have a nice game to
come over). They do not understand what they are talking about, and drown
their fish under a haze of words like "when the reference frame is jumped,
the needles go crazy".
I have never used such words, nor been so vague in the terms. So the
question is: "Who is using the best principles?"
I take this opportunity to present here a very important transformation
that all students should know by heart, and which is that of the vision of
the universe by two (or more) momentarily joint observers.
This transformation is useful, beautiful, and true.
It is still necessary to understand, like me, who disseminated it, clearly
the meaning and the terms.
t and t 'are equal to 0. It is the moment when the two (or more) observers
cross each other and trigger their watch. x, y, z represent the universe
they are observing at this moment (it is exactly the same but the
specified spatial deformations).
To, To 'represent the instants when the events observed live by the
observers took place.
Be careful not to mislead the signs. To and To 'are always negative in the
present case of the crossing t' = t = 0.
In R, t=0, To=-sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c
In R', t'=0, To'=-sqrt(x'²+y²+z²)/c

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Zz0V6g3eMCApr3qzLlcDc3weNXw@jntp/Data.Media:1>

--
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Zz0V6g3eMCApr3qzLlcDc3weNXw@jntp>

Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote:
> When you don't fully understand a theory, you have to start with its
> basics.

Sure. Why haven't you ever done that?

> I have never used such words, nor been so vague in the terms.

You are the one with fuzzy ("vague") language. While you define
"simultaneous" by "happening at the same time" which is a pure
and meaningless tautology, Einstein defines *precisely* and
*operationally* what simultaneity means.

Hint: this is part I.1 of 1905 paper :

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies#%C2%A7_1._Definition_of_Simultaneity.

It is quite amusing that another kind of crank of your
kind also completely missed the point of this part.
Thomas Heger is convinced (despite numerous explanation
from many people here) that Einstein is following your
broken definition of simultaneity...

You have NEVER understood what this part is about and what
it says, even when it was explained to you in details years
ago.

Le 02/12/2021 à 16:19, Jean-Pierre Messager, qui n'a toujours rien
compris de ce que je disais, a écrit :

> what simultaneity means.

The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist. Two
watches, even fixed, placed in different places will never agree on what
is called the notion of the present universe.
It's surprising, eh Jean-Pierre, and it gives you cold sureurs? Wait, you
haven't seen everything. Let me tell you, my criticisms of Einstein are
worse than that. Not only do I disagree on the fact that we can tune two
watches placed in different places, but also, I say that if we place them
in the same place and that we tune them, they will go out of tune.
systematically as soon as we separate them. Each will observe that the
other lags behind her by AB / c.
It's not over, Jean-Pierre, and stay there. Your ordeal has only just
begun.
I also say the opposite of Einstein when he says that the notion of
simultaneity is relative by change of frame of reference. This is wrong,
it is the chronotropy which is relative. NOT simultaneity. As I wrote in
the previous post, two observers (or as many as we want) who intersect in
an instant have exactly the same notion of the present universe. Their
universe is very distorted (I gave the simple equations) but they observe
the same universe present. Exactly the same. Hence the silly idea when
someone starts talking about the Andromeda paradox. Let him read Hachel.
Ditto when we talk about Langevin's traveler, without ever having read
Hachel. It's stupid, I alone clearly explain what happens when the
traveler who turns around and the immense SPATIAL zoom effect that he sees
(without the clocks being modified, and without him there is a
"gap-time"). The gap-time is dust under the taps to reframe clocks where
there is NOTHING to reframe. Everything happens in continuity for all the
observers.

R.H.

Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote;
> Le 02/12/2021 à 16:19, Jean-Pierre Messager, qui n'a toujours rien
> compris de ce que je disais, a écrit :
>
>> what simultaneity means.
>
> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.

Your opinion on this matter has no value a you've never understand
what paragraph I.1 of 1905 paper is stating.

Reminder (2007):

Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote;
>> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>> t_B-t_A=t'_A-t_B. [quote from 1905 article]
>
> ?????
> Attends, je rêve, là...
> Cela veut dire qu'Einstein trouve que les montres sont
> synchronisées si elles battent à la même vitesse???
> C'est ça que tu veux dire???
> Parce que l'équation dite ici dessus, c'est ça.

No, the equation above absolutely doesn't mean that "both
clocks beat at the same rate". THIS IS A FACT.

If you are missing the main part of this section, you cannot
say ANYTHING about Einstein definition of simultaneity. PERIOD.

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:37:22 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:

> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.

Of course it does. A simple proof: You are talking about it, hence it exists.

> Two
> watches, even fixed, placed in different places will never agree on what
> is called the notion of the present universe.

Irrelevant to the discussion. You need not State the above. It's Overkill.
It is not "to the point". This shows your lack of writing and thinking skills.

> Not only do I disagree on the fact that we can tune two
> watches placed in different places, but also, I say that if we place them
> in the same place and that we tune them, they will go out of tune.

Same as above. All irrelevant to your discussion.

> systematically as soon as we separate them. Each will observe that the
> other lags behind her by AB / c.

Simply State your belief on what a given device will display at a certain event.

> I also say the opposite of Einstein when he says that the notion of
> simultaneity is relative by change of frame of reference. This is wrong,

It is an experimental fact. So you are a reality denier too!

> it is the chronotropy which is relative. NOT simultaneity.

So now you are changing the definitions of the common words used here.

I will stop here since all that your write is rubbish. You do not know how to write clearly and concisely.

Le 02/12/2021 à 16:44, Python a écrit :
> Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote;
>> Le 02/12/2021 à 16:19, Jean-Pierre Messager, qui n'a toujours rien
>> compris de ce que je disais, a écrit :
>>
>>> what simultaneity means.
>>
>> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.
>
> Your opinion on this matter has no value a you've never understand
> what paragraph I.1 of 1905 paper is stating.
>
> Reminder (2007):
>
> Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote;
>>> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>>> t_B-t_A=t'_A-t_B. [quote from 1905 article]
>>
>> ? ? ? ? ?
>> Attends, je rêve, là...
>> Cela veut dire qu'Einstein trouve que les montres sont
>> synchronisées si elles battent à la même vitesse? ? ?
>> C'est ça que tu veux dire? ? ?
>> Parce que l'équation dite ici dessus, c'est ça.
>
> No, the equation above absolutely doesn't mean that "both
> clocks beat at the same rate". THIS IS A FACT.
>
> If you are missing the main part of this section, you cannot
> say ANYTHING about Einstein definition of simultaneity. PERIOD.

The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence of
all the events occurring in
same time, or again, being characterized by the set of all the physical
phenomena taking place
at the same time, we should be able, at least by considering all the fixed
components found
in a given inertial system, to speak of "absolute simultaneity", of
"universal synchronization", or of
"common calendar" - these terms then being capable of acquiring a real
physical meaning - if
one could, without it varying, transpose the specific simultaneity of a
particular observer to all
other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.

R.H.

mental retarded, uneducated sack of shit "rotchm" wrote:

> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:37:22 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel
> wrote:
>
>> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.
>
> Of course it does. A simple proof: You are talking about it, hence it
> exists.

shut the fuck up, you stupid baboon.

Le 02/12/2021 à 17:26, rotchm a écrit :
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:37:22 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.
>
> Of course it does. A simple proof: You are talking about it, hence it exists.

Je peux aussi parler des chimères, des carrés entiers négatifs, ou de
la Vierge Marie.

Ca ne les fait pas exister davantage pour autant.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

>> If you are missing the main part of this section, you cannot say
>> ANYTHING about Einstein definition of simultaneity. PERIOD.
>
> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence of
> all the events occurring in same time, or again, being characterized by
> the set of all the physical phenomena taking place

that's a single event. You can't have more than one event same time.

Le 02/12/2021 à 17:52, Harif Kuloo a écrit :

> that's a single event. You can't have more than one event same time.

Well if, obviously, this is called (for me) the notion of simultaneity.

A terrestrial observer can simultaneously observe a hundred thousand
cosmic events if he has the telescopic means to do so.

He will say that "all these events took place simultaneously".

I don't see how that bothers you.

Now, I will go further, I will say that this simultaneity is ABSOLUTE for
one or more other observers who would come to cross in the surroundings of
the earth even at relativistic speeds. These hundred thousand events are
ALSO to be perceived simultaneously by all the other observers being at
this moment conjunct to the earth.

This is where I refute the Andromeda paradox (as I refuted Langevin's
paradox by other means).

I am simply asking the reader to fully understand what I am saying, and
the words I am using.

He will see that, in the end, everything is very obvious in what I am
explaining.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 02/12/2021 à 17:52, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
>> that's a single event. You can't have more than one event same time.
>
> Well if, obviously, this is called (for me) the notion of simultaneity.
> A terrestrial observer can simultaneously observe a hundred thousand
> cosmic events if he has the telescopic means to do so.
> He will say that "all these events took place simultaneously".

try it. You can't focus over more than one thing same time. Disregard the
number of telescopes. You can come close on each observation, but never
same time.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 17:52, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
>> that's a single event. You can't have more than one event same time.
>
> Well if, obviously, this is called (for me) the notion of simultaneity.
>
> A terrestrial observer can simultaneously observe a hundred thousand
> cosmic events if he has the telescopic means to do so.
>
> He will say that "all these events took place simultaneously".

No, he will not say that. Not if he has any sense.

If someone hears two claps of thunder at the same time, one from nearby and
one from 6 km away, he will NOT say that the strikes happened
simultaneously, because he has the common sense to know that the one from
further away happened earlier.

However, if there are two strikes that can be confirmed to have happened
both from 8 km away (just from different directions) AND someone hears them
at the same time, then it is common sense to say that the strikes happened
simultaneously — and that does make sense.

>
> I don't see how that bothers you.
>
> Now, I will go further, I will say that this simultaneity is ABSOLUTE for
> one or more other observers who would come to cross in the surroundings of
> the earth even at relativistic speeds. These hundred thousand events are
> ALSO to be perceived simultaneously by all the other observers being at
> this moment conjunct to the earth.
>
> This is where I refute the Andromeda paradox (as I refuted Langevin's
> paradox by other means).
>
> I am simply asking the reader to fully understand what I am saying, and
> the words I am using.
>
> He will see that, in the end, everything is very obvious in what I am
> explaining.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Le 02/12/2021 à 18:07, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
> try it. You can't focus over more than one thing same time. Disregard the
> number of telescopes. You can come close on each observation, but never
> same time.

You play with words, and, if you persist like that, you'll end up spoiling
the discussion, and I don't think that's your goal (as Jean-Pierre
Messager always ends up doing).

I will take the example of the explosion of two supernovae, for example
one in the constellation Virgo, the other in the constellation Lyra.

In the usual use of words, if they happen by immense chance on the same
day, I would say that they happened simultaneously.

This is the meaning I give to the word "simultaneously".

I leave the various speakers the freedom to find another, and even to say
that seven joined to two makes eleven.

But I don't think it's interesting to practice like this.

Now what I'm saying is that when two observers pass each other (let's take
an alien rocket which passes that day near the earth at 0.8c (four hundred
and forty thousand km / s) and which is also observing that day - there
the explosion of the two supernovae) the notion of SIMULTANEITE is
invariant. Both terrestrial and extraterrestrial observers have the same
view of the universe.

Only the spatial distortions of the location of events will be very
different for the two. As in a relativistic distorting mirror.

But they will see the same universe, and will live (at this moment,
temporarily) in the same simultaneity.

The equations are simple, I gave them earlier for this very simple case
where the observers intersect and where t '= t = 0.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Only the spatial distortions of the location of events will be very
> different for the two. As in a relativistic distorting mirror.
>
> But they will see the same universe, and will live (at this moment,
> temporarily) in the same simultaneity.
>
> The equations are simple, I gave them earlier for this very simple case
> where the observers intersect and where t '= t = 0.

since you insist, but no. What are the t's, time stamps or passage of
time? You have to be careful.

Le 02/12/2021 à 18:28, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> If someone hears two claps of thunder at the same time, one from nearby and
> one from 6 km away, he will NOT say that the strikes happened
> simultaneously, because he has the common sense to know that the one from
> further away happened earlier.
>
> However, if there are two strikes that can be confirmed to have happened
> both from 8 km away (just from different directions) AND someone hears them
> at the same time, then it is common sense to say that the strikes happened
> simultaneously — and that does make sense.

Do you really think I don't know these things?

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:28, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> If someone hears two claps of thunder at the same time, one from nearby
>> and one from 6 km away, he will NOT say that the strikes happened
>> simultaneously, because he has the common sense to know that the one
>> from further away happened earlier.
>> However, if there are two strikes that can be confirmed to have
>> happened both from 8 km away (just from different directions) AND
>> someone hears them at the same time, then it is common sense to say
>> that the strikes happened simultaneously — and that does make sense.
>
> Do you really think I don't know these things?

He is also wrong. Once you hear them both same time, it's a single event.
(the audio sensing event). Their generation may be different, however.

Le 02/12/2021 à 18:42, Harif Kuloo a écrit :

> You have to be careful.

It's exactly what I said.

x,y,z,t,To,x',y',z',t',To', simultaneity, chronotropy.

All of these terms should be understood by whoever reads or uses them.

I agree to say that it is not easy to understand.
Already the term t is difficult to understand, whereas it is only the time
displayed on the watch O of the observer.
The difficulty comes from the fact that I completely refute this abstract
notion which is the speed of light which is only an apparent speed for a
transverse observer. This means that we are always observing the universe
live. This concept, I already have a hard time explaining it to you.
As for To (ie the time which appears in the Lorentz transformations), it
is a very useful, but abstract "species of local time", and which is not
specific to any observer. Yet it is this time that we use, for
convenience.
But it does not represent the very nature of things, and its misuse even
leads to paradoxes which do not exist if one understands that it is only a
useful value, but abstract.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:42, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
>> You have to be careful.
>
> It's exactly what I said.
> x,y,z,t,To,x',y',z',t',To', simultaneity, chronotropy.
>
> All of these terms should be understood by whoever reads or uses them.
>
> I agree to say that it is not easy to understand.
> Already the term t is difficult to understand, whereas it is only the
> time displayed on the watch O of the observer.

my friend, there's a huge difference between a *time_stamp* and a
*time_difference* (passage). A time_stamps tells almost nothing.

Le 02/12/2021 à 18:51, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
> He is also wrong. Once you hear them both same time, it's a single event.
> (the audio sensing event). Their generation may be different, however.

No, their generation is no different.
And this is the immense incomprehension that exists between the
relativists and me.
As for the transport of sound, obviously everyone understood that there is
a certain time between the emission and the reception of the sound. I am
even surprised that one might think that I do not know it.
BUT precisely, it is not so in the matter of relativity where we do not
speak of sounds, but of electromagnetic interaction.
And there, the notions of space-time are completely different.
The speed of light then becomes an illusion. And although it is
transmitted instantly (not like sound), the theory of relativity (because
of the universal anisochrony) will make that I will not have the correct
times of the departure and arrival of the luminous message. . A shift will
appear which will distort all notions of speed.
We will have an observable speed Vo which will not be the real speed Vr of
things.
The equation is very simple: Vo = Vr / sqrt (1 + Vr² / c²).
We then understand why nothing can "seem" to go faster than c.
We therefore have Berkeley's aphorism, which applies to philosophy, which
also applies to physics.
"Esse is percipi". I see the world as it is (not like sounds). So two
events perceived simultaneously, since the reality of things means that Vr
= Oo for light, were therefore really emitted simultaneously (in the local
reference frame of the observer).
The rest is only an illusion, when we put Vo = c.
In short, a negation of spatial anisochrony, and the belief in an absolute
intra-referential simultaneity which does not exist.

R.H.

Le 02/12/2021 à 19:08, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
> my friend, there's a huge difference between a *time_stamp* and a
> *time_difference* (passage). A time_stamps tells almost nothing.

"time stamp" ----> simultaneity.
"time difference" ----> chronotropy.

Two different notions.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:51, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>> He is also wrong. Once you hear them both same time, it's a single
>> event. (the audio sensing event). Their generation may be different,
>> however.
>
> No, their generation is no different.
> And this is the immense incomprehension that exists between the
> relativists and me.
> As for the transport of sound, obviously everyone understood that there
> is a certain time between the emission and the reception of the sound. I
> am even surprised that one might think that I do not know it.
> BUT precisely, it is not so in the matter of relativity where we do not
> speak of sounds, but of electromagnetic interaction.
> And there, the notions of space-time are completely different.
> The speed of light then becomes an illusion. And although it is
> transmitted instantly (not like sound), the theory of relativity
> (because of the universal anisochrony) will make that I will not have
> the correct

it takes different time for EM too (for a remote observer). See GPS.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:07, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>> try it. You can't focus over more than one thing same time. Disregard the
>> number of telescopes. You can come close on each observation, but never
>> same time.
>
> You play with words, and, if you persist like that, you'll end up spoiling
> the discussion, and I don't think that's your goal (as Jean-Pierre
> Messager always ends up doing).
>
> I will take the example of the explosion of two supernovae, for example
> one in the constellation Virgo, the other in the constellation Lyra.
>
> In the usual use of words, if they happen by immense chance on the same
> day, I would say that they happened simultaneously.

That would be a mistake. That’s YOUR shortcoming.
Sensible people would not say that. They would say the light arrived at the
same time, not that the explosions happened at the same time.

>
> This is the meaning I give to the word "simultaneously".

Then you are confused.

>
> I leave the various speakers the freedom to find another, and even to say
> that seven joined to two makes eleven.
>
> But I don't think it's interesting to practice like this.
>
> Now what I'm saying is that when two observers pass each other (let's take
> an alien rocket which passes that day near the earth at 0.8c (four hundred
> and forty thousand km / s) and which is also observing that day - there
> the explosion of the two supernovae) the notion of SIMULTANEITE is
> invariant. Both terrestrial and extraterrestrial observers have the same
> view of the universe.
>
> Only the spatial distortions of the location of events will be very
> different for the two. As in a relativistic distorting mirror.
>
> But they will see the same universe, and will live (at this moment,
> temporarily) in the same simultaneity.
>
> The equations are simple, I gave them earlier for this very simple case
> where the observers intersect and where t '= t = 0.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:28, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> If someone hears two claps of thunder at the same time, one from nearby and
>> one from 6 km away, he will NOT say that the strikes happened
>> simultaneously, because he has the common sense to know that the one from
>> further away happened earlier.
>>
>> However, if there are two strikes that can be confirmed to have happened
>> both from 8 km away (just from different directions) AND someone hears them
>> at the same time, then it is common sense to say that the strikes happened
>> simultaneously — and that does make sense.
>
> Do you really think I don't know these things?

I just looked at your example of light from two supernovae showing up on
the same day. You said YOU would call those simultaneous. But no sensible
person would, for the same reason that no sensible person would say that
strikes happened simultaneously just because the thunder happened at the
same time.

It’s the SAME thinking.

>
> R.H.
>
>
>

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

Le 02/12/2021 à 19:50, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:28, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>
>>> If someone hears two claps of thunder at the same time, one from nearby and
>>> one from 6 km away, he will NOT say that the strikes happened
>>> simultaneously, because he has the common sense to know that the one from
>>> further away happened earlier.
>>>
>>> However, if there are two strikes that can be confirmed to have happened
>>> both from 8 km away (just from different directions) AND someone hears them
>>> at the same time, then it is common sense to say that the strikes happened
>>> simultaneously — and that does make sense.
>>
>> Do you really think I don't know these things?
>
> I just looked at your example of light from two supernovae showing up on
> the same day. You said YOU would call those simultaneous. But no sensible
> person would, for the same reason that no sensible person would say that
> strikes happened simultaneously just because the thunder happened at the
> same time.
>
> It’s the SAME thinking.

No.

It's NOT the same thinking. Absolutly not.

R.H.

Le 02/12/2021 à 19:28, Harif Kuloo a écrit :

> it takes different time for EM too (for a remote observer). See GPS.

J'ai déjà répondu plusieurs fois à cette histoire de GPS.

Je n'ai pas à répéter cent fois la même chose à des gens qui,
malheureusement, ne me lisent pas.

Ce qui leur permet de critiquer des notions qu'ils n'ont absolument pas
comprises.

R.H.