Richard Hachel wrote:

> 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.

I'm not sure. If you are in europe you can't take FM canada, but you can
do Short Waves canada. Which suggest longer travelling time.

Le 02/12/2021 à 20:11, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm not sure. If you are in europe you can't take FM canada, but you can
> do Short Waves canada. Which suggest longer travelling time.

Aucun rapport.

R.H.

Expanding local space is incredibly small..
The larger the whole universe gets the larger it gets
by more distance expanding.
We see the universe size as it was.
Cosmology is a smaller appearance.

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:37:22 AM UTC-8, Richard 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.

Non-sequitur. It's a *definition*.

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

False.

> 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.

And also meaningless junk.

--
Jan

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

Well, it SHOULD be. If you think differently than sensible people, that’s a
separate issue.

>
> R.H.
>
>
>

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

Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote:
....
> 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.

This is complete gibberish not defining ANYTHING.

Python wrote:
> Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote:
> ...
>> 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.
>
> This is complete gibberish not defining ANYTHING.

A gentle advice for Richard - Lengrand - Hachel, after several
decades of spouting nonsens it may be time for YOU to read
carefully part I.1 (I. Partie cinématique - 1. Définition de
la simultanéité) in 1905 Einstein's paper :

https://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/De-l%C3%A9lectrodynamique-des-corps-en-mouvement.pdf

read it very slowly, one sentence at a time, do not go on
to the next one until you have understood all sentences
before.

This is the KEY part of Einstein's article, which is the real
breakthrough when compared to previous works of Poincaré or
Lorentz.

This is the part that you've always FAILED to understand, the
part that Thomas Heger (another crank down here) completely
overlooked (he sincerely think that Einstein consider simultaneity
in the way YOU do, go figure!)

When you'll (if ever, I'm not very optimistic) get it you'll
threw all your sh*t away and you'll realize you've lost most
of your life making a fool of yourself.

Le 02/12/2021 à 22:03, Jean-Pierre Messager a écrit :

>> 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.
>
> This is complete gibberish not defining ANYTHING.

Oui, mais là, je peux pas faire mieux, mon Jean-Pierre d'amour.

C'est impossible.

Je définis ce que c'est, pour moi, que la notion d'événements
simultanés, comme je définis ce que c'est que la chronotropie.

Ensuite, on me comprend ou on ne me comprend pas.

Après, c'est plus mon problème.

R.H.

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:22:14 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 02/12/2021 à 19:28, Harif Kuloo a écrit :

Can you tell us why you responded to him?

Again, you got God. You responded to the troll and you did not even notice it.
Once again this shows that you do not have the brains to discuss intelligently.

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 1:15:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:51, Harif Kuloo a écrit :

Again, you got got.
You stroked the troll again and you didn't even notice it. Are you really that stupid and Clueless?

You should seriously take a long look at yourself.

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 12:45:15 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:28, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

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

Of course he knows. He just wants to make fun of you and you are falling for it every time.
You are such a sucker...

Richard - Lengrand - Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 22:03, Jean-Pierre Messager a écrit :
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> This is complete gibberish not defining ANYTHING.
>
> Oui, mais là, je peux pas faire mieux,

Well, *you* cannot do better, because you are a fool and an idiot.

> C'est impossible.

It can be done, it HAS been done.

> Je définis ce que c'est, pour moi, que la notion d'événements
> simultanés

Ça ne définit rien. You do not define anything.
Tautologie sans signification. Meaningless tautology.

Real definition follows, part I.1.
Une vraie définition est décrite, partie I.1.

FR:
https://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/De-l%C3%A9lectrodynamique-des-corps-en-mouvement.pdf

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

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 12:31:18 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel 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

You idiot, of course that is his goal. You responded to the troll again. Are you really that clueless and dumb?
You wrote a full page for him. He will not read it he will just pick up a few words and Bible about it and once again you will fall for it again and again and again. That is how dumb you are. I hope you do realize this. Once you're able to realize it, you can start correcting yourself.

rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:22:14 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 02/12/2021 à 19:28, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
> Can you tell us why you responded to him?
>
> Again, you got God. You responded to the troll and you did not even notice it.
> Once again this shows that you do not have the brains to discuss intelligently.

It is a common pattern amongst cranks that they take seriously the
"nym-shifting troll" even whan it is obvious that he's just making
fun of them (Lengrand/Hachel, Heger, etc.). This is definitely a sign
of mental illness not to be able to spot irony.

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 11:50:38 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 17:26, rotchm a écrit :

> > 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.

Of course those Notions exist. If you can talk about it, they exist.
Then again do you know at least what it means to "exist"?

Richard Hachel wrote:

> When you don't fully understand a theory, you have to start with its
> basics.

True.

> What is needed, above all, is never to state words, notions, concepts
> without a precise idea of ​​what you are saying.

Also true.

> This is, unfortunately, what is most often done.

Not at all. You must have been reading mostly the bad popular-scientific
books instead of the good ones, or textbooks.

It would explain all the misconceptions that you have about the topic.

Now the strange and really *insane* thing about you is that instead of
understanding the theory, you make up fantasies about it and invent
concepts, and terms for it, that have no basis in fact.

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)

Richard 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.

It doees.

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

Nobody but you, and certainly not Einstein, has suggested anything of the
sort. In fact, he said the exact opposite of what you claim that he said.

From your ignorance about the subject matter, you are making up things and
then argue against your own strawman. That approach is hopeless.

I guess that, consciously or subconsciously, you are merely seeking
attention because you are very lonely and are looking for some sort of
confirmation that you are still relevant.

PointedEars
--
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Richard Hachel wrote:

> When you don't fully understand a theory, you have to start with its
> basics.

True.

> What is needed, above all, is never to state words, notions, concepts
> without a precise idea of ​​what you are saying.

Also true.

> This is, unfortunately, what is most often done.

Not at all. You must have been reading mostly the bad popular-scientific
books instead of the good ones, or textbooks.

It would explain all the misconceptions that you have about the topic.

Now the strange and really *insane* thing about you is that instead of
trying to understand the theory and its concepts, and the meaning of the
terms that it introduces, you make up fantasies about it and invent ill-
defined concepts, and ill-defined terms for it (like “chronotropy”), that
have no basis in fact (or linguistics).

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)

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.

You are the one not comprehending correctly even the basics of special
relativity, and as a poor substitute you are making up fantasies that you
never explain properly, which are therefore incomprehensible to rationally-
thinking beings.

> As for the transport of sound, obviously everyone understood that there is
> a certain time between the emission and the reception of the sound.

If you do not know the distance, then you have no choice but to conclude
that they were simultaneous.

A similar thing happens with light in the train-and-two-lightnings thought
experiment: what one observer describes as simultaneous the other does not
because they are moving relative to the first observer (and need not know
about that because they are at rest in their frame). That is (what Einstein
called) “the relativity of simultaneity”.

IOW, Einstein does NOT say what you claim that he said; he says the exact
opposite: Time is NOT absolute.

PointedEars
--
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)

—Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601): inscription at Hven

On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 19:50:45 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@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,

Samely as no sensibe person will agree on YOUR concept
of simultaneity.

On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 02:13:29 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > When you don't fully understand a theory, you have to start with its
> > basics.
>
> True.
>
> > What is needed, above all, is never to state words, notions, concepts
> > without a precise idea of ​​what you are saying.
>
> Also true.
>
> > This is, unfortunately, what is most often done.
>
> Not at all. You must have been reading mostly the bad popular-scientific
> books instead of the good ones, or textbooks.
>
> It would explain all the misconceptions that you have about the topic.
>
> Now the strange and really *insane* thing about you is that instead of
> trying to understand the theory and its concepts, and the meaning of the
> terms that it introduces, you make up fantasies about it and invent ill-
> defined concepts, and ill-defined terms for it (like “chronotropy”), that
> have no basis in fact (or linguistics).

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

On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 07:41:34 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> If you do not know the distance, then you have no choice but to conclude
> that they were simultaneous.
>
> A similar thing happens with light in the train-and-two-lightnings thought
> experiment: what one observer describes as simultaneous the other does not
> because they are moving relative to the first observer (and need not know
> about that because they are at rest in their frame). That is (what Einstein
> called) “the relativity of simultaneity”.

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

the stupid uneducated wannabe "physicist" troll, former JPB, now Python
wrote:

> impertinent troll, Stephane Baune, aka the "rotchm" pretentious
> ignorant, wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:22:14 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel
>> wrote:
>>>> Le 02/12/2021 à 19:28, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>>
>> Can you tell us why you responded to him?
>>
>> Again, you got God. You responded to the troll and you did not even
>> notice it.
>> Once again this shows that you do not have the brains to discuss
>> intelligently.
>
> It is a common pattern amongst cranks that they take seriously the

wow, the frogs stick together. LOL, your attempt in support of the widely
known stupid crackpot "Stephane Baune, aka the "rotchm" pretentious
ignorant, makes you worse than him.

although, I met nice persons frogs. You two dumb asses, must be an
exception.

mentally retarded troll, Stephane Baune, aka the "rotchm" pretentious
ignorant, wrote:

> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 1:15:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:51, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
> Again, you got got.

talk engilsh, you stupid retarded troll.

> http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Stephane_Baune
>
> 2011 - "Superluminal and negative velocities according to ether theory"
> (Read in full)
> 2009 - "Faster Than the Brighter-Light Beacon"
> 2009 - "Time for Another Paradox"
> 2006 - "[[Theory of Special Relativity vs. Preferred Reference Frame
> Theory: A Theoretical Distinction: UPDATE]]" (Read in full)
> 2005 - "Theory of Special Relativity vs. Preferred Reference Frame
> Theory:
> A Theoretical Distinction" (Read in full)
>
>
> Music: Nurse With Wound, Current93, Skinny Puppy, The Residents, And
> One, Vive la fete, Beruriuer Noir ...
> Favorite online music channels: Doomed, Tormented radio...
>
> Favorite TV stations: PBS.
> Favorite TV shows: Cyberchase, Nova, Nature, Frontline, Simpsons, House,
> WWE RAW, ...
> Favorite Movies: ...
>
> Extra interests: Wandering the streets, observing, interacting
> and putting my nose where it does not belong...
> ( because it just smells so good
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/activities