When the two twins separate, in this fantastic story where one of the two
twins returns to earth having aged twelve years younger than his brother,
we set off WATCHES. That is to say, already four watches (two for each
protagonist, one measuring local time and chronotropy, the other measuring
the subject's own time, and which is the watch itself).
So here we are with four watches (To, To', t, t').
This is where it leads to read Hachel, and we know that the madman is not
ready to stop, especially as it seems that some encourage him behind the
scenes.
We will then think of giving two watches to the star that the twin must go
around 12 light years away.
BUT ... how do you trigger To" and t" for this distant observer?
Let us not forget the famous saying of Doctor Hachel: "The theory of
relativity, finally, and unlike Einstein, I find it very simple. It is
only anisochrony and chronotropy to integrate well. But it is full of
little traps." So that's the question of the day for my little sweethearts
of sci.physics.relativity.

I wish them good and productive thinking.

R.H.

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 6:56:08 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> When the two twins separate, in this fantastic story where one of the two
> twins returns to earth having aged twelve years younger than his brother,
> we set off WATCHES. That is to say, already four watches (two for each
> protagonist, one measuring local time and chronotropy, the other measuring
> the subject's own time, and which is the watch itself).
> So here we are with four watches (To, To', t, t').
> This is where it leads to read Hachel, and we know that the madman is not
> ready to stop, especially as it seems that some encourage him behind the
> scenes.
> We will then think of giving two watches to the star that the twin must go
> around 12 light years away.
> BUT ... how do you trigger To" and t" for this distant observer?
> Let us not forget the famous saying of Doctor Hachel: "The theory of
> relativity, finally, and unlike Einstein, I find it very simple. It is
> only anisochrony and chronotropy to integrate well. But it is full of
> little traps." So that's the question of the day for my little sweethearts
> of sci.physics.relativity.
>
> I wish them good and productive thinking.
>
> R.H.

This has all been worked out previously, Richard. You start your clock and
send a light signal to an accomplice at the star. He starts his clock and
immediately sends a signal back to you. Now you know how far away he is
and what the time delay is between sending and receiving. You reset your
clock and immediately send a signal back and your accomplice also knows.
He also knows to set his clock at t' = L/c.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation#:~:text=Einstein%20synchronisation%20%28or%20Poincar%C3%A9%E2%80%93Einstein%20synchronisation%29%20is%20a%20convention,and%20recognized%20its%20fundamental%20role%20in%20relativity%20theory.

Le 04/01/2022 à 16:40, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
> This has all been worked out previously, Richard. You start your clock and
> send a light signal to an accomplice at the star. He starts his clock and
> immediately sends a signal back to you. Now you know how far away he is
> and what the time delay is between sending and receiving. You reset your
> clock and immediately send a signal back and your accomplice also knows.
> He also knows to set his clock at t' = L/c.

Your conviction is very interesting, but it assumes that the universe is
isochronous, that is to say that the present time plane (often represented
in the drawings) actually exists.
However, such a present plane IS not a physical reality. So we are talking
into the wind.
I know we can send a message from A to B, and set this B clock. But this
position is as stupid as phoning from London to Denver, to tell a friend
that we have there. "We need to tune our solar clocks. Go into your
garden, and we'll do a very fine adjustment, here the sun is going to be
right south in ten minutes, I'm going to give you the top, and you are
going to set your clock. on mine. Wait ... Ready to put it in the midday
position? "
This is obviously absurd. It is this absurdity that Einstein does, without
understanding that the universe is anisochronous, as solar clocks also
depend on their position due to the roundness of the earth.

T.H.

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 11:20:28 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 04/01/2022 à 16:40, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
> >
> > This has all been worked out previously, Richard. You start your clock and
> > send a light signal to an accomplice at the star. He starts his clock and
> > immediately sends a signal back to you. Now you know how far away he is
> > and what the time delay is between sending and receiving. You reset your
> > clock and immediately send a signal back and your accomplice also knows..
> > He also knows to set his clock at t' = L/c.
>
> Your conviction is very interesting, but it assumes that the universe is
> isochronous, that is to say that the present time plane (often represented
> in the drawings) actually exists.
> However, such a present plane IS not a physical reality. So we are talking
> into the wind.

It works throughout the solar system and used for synchronizing clocks
aboard space probes.

> I know we can send a message from A to B, and set this B clock. But this
> position is as stupid as phoning from London to Denver, to tell a friend
> that we have there. "We need to tune our solar clocks. Go into your
> garden, and we'll do a very fine adjustment, here the sun is going to be
> right south in ten minutes, I'm going to give you the top, and you are
> going to set your clock. on mine. Wait ... Ready to put it in the midday
> position? "
> This is obviously absurd. It is this absurdity that Einstein does, without
> understanding that the universe is anisochronous, as solar clocks also
> depend on their position due to the roundness of the earth.
>
> T.H.

What you have done is called a straw man argument. You have
mischaracterized Einstein synchronization. You have further muddled
the case of scientific synchronization with the concept of time zones.

On Tuesday, 4 January 2022 at 20:23:48 UTC+1, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> It works throughout the solar system and used for synchronizing clocks
> aboard space probes.

Gary, poor halfbrain, didn't your insane guru teach you
it can only be applied for things not moving wrt each
other?

Le 04/01/2022 à 20:23, Gary Harnagel a écrit :

> It works throughout the solar system and used for synchronizing clocks
> aboard space probes.

I do not disagree.
I'm saying that when you do that, you don't calculate the speed of light,
but spatial anisochrony.
Why do GPS work?
Because the speed of light is equal to c? Not at all. But because two
different places in space send signals more or less late in relation to
others, even if the information transfer is instantaneous for the
receiver.

> What you have done is called a straw man argument. You have
> mischaracterized Einstein synchronization. You have further muddled
> the case of scientific synchronization with the concept of time zones.

I'm trying to show you absurdly that synchronizing watches in
anisochronous environment is almost the same stupidity as synchronizing
terrestrial clocks over the entire surface of the earth.
In short, that Einstein was wrong when he thought he was setting A over B.
It's not that it's technically impossible, it's that it's physically
absurd.

R.H.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> > This has all been worked out previously, Richard. You start your
>> > clock and send a light signal to an accomplice at the star. He starts
>> > his clock and immediately sends a signal back to you. Now you know
>> > how far away he is and what the time delay is between sending and
>> > receiving. You reset your clock and immediately send a signal back
>> > and your accomplice also knows. He also knows to set his clock at t'
>> > = L/c.
>>
>> Your conviction is very interesting, but it assumes that the universe
>> is isochronous, that is to say that the present time plane (often
>> represented in the drawings) actually exists.
>> However, such a present plane IS not a physical reality. So we are
>> talking into the wind.
>
> It works throughout the solar system and used for synchronizing clocks
> aboard space probes.

you confuse matrices with tensors. You have to think in tensors. Not in
matrices.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> This has all been worked out previously, Richard. You start your clock
> and send a light signal to an accomplice at the star. He starts his
> clock and immediately sends a signal back to you. Now you know how far
> away he is and what the time delay is between sending and receiving.
> You reset your clock and immediately send a signal back and your
> accomplice also knows. He also knows to set his clock at t' = L/c.

you involve a set of strict individual events, having nothing to do with
the control you think you have. Try again.

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 12:37:46 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 04/01/2022 à 20:23, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
> >
> > It works throughout the solar system and used for synchronizing clocks
> > aboard space probes.
>
> I do not disagree.
>
> I'm saying that when you do that, you don't calculate the speed of light,

The speed of light is MEASURED and determined to be constant in all
inertial frames by other experiments. NASA uses those results to synchronize
their spacecraft.

> but spatial anisochrony.

"Anisochrony," perhaps. "Spatial"? Nope. It's proper name is "relativity of
simultaneity. Why rename things already named? It only promotes confusion..

> Why do GPS work?

Because, although RoS is a fact of nature, GPS adjusts the on-board clocks
to run slow, so time that satellites send down mimics time on earth.

> Because the speed of light is equal to c? Not at all.

RoS is a consequence of the speed of light being constant. Slowing down the
on-board clocks is an attempt to work around nature.

> But because two different places in space send signals more or less late in
> relation to others,

Einstein synchronization takes care of that. It's not important WHERE the
different places are, but if they are in relative motion.

> even if the information transfer is instantaneous for the
> receiver.

So, you want to talk about tachyons? :-)

> > What you have done is called a straw man argument. You have
> > mischaracterized Einstein synchronization. You have further muddled
> > the case of scientific synchronization with the concept of time zones.
>
> I'm trying to show you absurdly that synchronizing watches in
> anisochronous environment is almost the same stupidity as synchronizing
> terrestrial clocks over the entire surface of the earth.

You failed because the time zone argument is specious.
> In short, that Einstein was wrong when he thought he was setting A over B..
> It's not that it's technically impossible, it's that it's physically
> absurd.
>
> R.H.

You are riding a dead horse, T.H. Even the GPS system does it -- and with relative
velocities and gravitational potential differences in the path.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> I'm saying that when you do that, you don't calculate the speed of
>> light,
>
> The speed of light is MEASURED and determined to be constant in all
> inertial frames by other experiments. NASA uses those results to
> synchronize their spacecraft.

what "spacecraft"?? they don't have any spacecraft, the are using the
russian spacecrafts.

better explain how the world are listening to these old mass murderer
eugenicist criminals, not arresting them? Explain, explain, explain. I
don't get it. You are american, aren't you.

Authoritarian Misinformation - Fake Experts Flip Flop Compilation (Gates,
Fauci, Wen, Biden...) https://www.bitchute.com/video/ULPFKmuGKq9Y/

On Tuesday, 4 January 2022 at 23:20:48 UTC+1, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 12:37:46 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> > Le 04/01/2022 à 20:23, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
> > >
> > > It works throughout the solar system and used for synchronizing clocks
> > > aboard space probes.
> >
> > I do not disagree.
> >
> > I'm saying that when you do that, you don't calculate the speed of light,
> The speed of light is MEASURED and determined to be constant in all
> inertial frames by other experiments.

Sure, sure! MEASURED in all inertial frames. In all 0 inertial
frames existing in the world we inhabit.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> When the two twins separate, in this fantastic story where one of the
> two twins returns to earth having aged twelve years younger than his
> brother, we set off WATCHES. That is to say, already four watches (two
> for each protagonist, one measuring local time and chronotropy, the
> other measuring the subject's own time, and which is the watch itself).

you are a coward.

Br. Bugnolo (mirror) Power wants us to be cowards
wget https://seed177.bitchute.com/PSY2qWS63dgI/txCT8yaGGzEQ.mp4

Le 05/01/2022 à 18:13, Jahn Brown a écrit :

> you are a coward.

Sniffff....

I am not.

Resnifff...

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> When the two twins separate, in this fantastic story where one of the two
> twins returns to earth having aged twelve years younger than his brother,

That Twin Paradox effect has been observed (just not with real twins yet,
but with atomic clocks¹; although NASA’s Twins Study² might also show
relativistic effects in the years to come).

¹ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment>

² <https://www.nasa.gov/twins-study>

PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

Le 06/01/2022 à 03:24, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>
>> When the two twins separate, in this fantastic story where one of the two
>> twins returns to earth having aged twelve years younger than his brother,
>
> That Twin Paradox effect has been observed (just not with real twins yet,
> but with atomic clocks¹; although NASA’s Twins Study² might also show
> relativistic effects in the years to come).

Yes indeed.
What must be understood is that the theory of relativity is a theory
largely proven by the facts for a very long time now and in multiple ways
in all the laboratories of the world. The current problem is not that of
its reality or of its non-reality, but that of its precise and detailed
description. That is to say: "How does it work exactly?".
It is on this question that we no longer agree.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> What must be understood is that the theory of relativity is a theory
> largely proven by the facts

Not “largely”, _completely_. And not "proven", but _confirmed_.

> for a very long time now and in multiple ways in all the laboratories of
> the world.

And in the rest of our universe.

> The current problem is not that of its reality or of its non-reality, but
> that of its precise and detailed description. That is to say: "How does it
> work exactly?". It is on this question that we no longer agree.

Yes, we do not agree.

(Special) relativity works: it has been confirmed by observations.

By contrast, your “not even wrong” description does not work. There is no
observational evidence to suggest it nor is there observational evidence to
support it. It is all just armchair philosophy – part of a delusion that
you keep telling yourself in order to feel special and get attention.

PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 15:09:57 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > What must be understood is that the theory of relativity is a theory
> > largely proven by the facts
> Not “largely”, _completely_. And not "proven", but _confirmed_.

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

> (Special) relativity works: it has been experimentally confirmed.

In a gedanken rocket of a gedanken twins.