I have very often explained that the Lorentz transformations are correct
if one understands well what one is doing.

That is to say if you master your subject and if you visualize things a
little in your mind.

But if we don't understand what we are doing, we imagine everything and
anything.

Where then is the problem?

We imagine two frames of reference R and R', one sliding on the axis Ox of
the other.

So far so good.

The clocks are then triggered when O and O' intersect.

We then place lots of coordinates all over the place, and we do it very
well and very correctly.

So where is the problem?

To find out, you have to ask the immense doctor Hachel, a true genius in
the history of humanity: so dazzling is his muscular strength, his
physical beauty, and his sexual performance.

Seriously...

So where is the problem?

Tell us, Doctor Hachel! He is where, where, where? ? ?

It is in the fact that the watches that have been triggered are not really
the O and O' watches.

Here is the problem.

A second scientific misfortune will then occur: we CANNOT say where these
watches are that are triggered.

They are abstract clocks that cannot be positioned anywhere in R, nor in
R'.

These watches are useful, it's true.

But they are abstract.

And no more positioned in O than in O', nor anywhere else.

It is this conceptual error that leads to heaps of paradoxes,
misunderstandings and fallacies in SR (while otherwise, this theory is
quite correct).

Thank you for listening carefully.

R.H.

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

>
> So where is the problem?
>
> To find out, you have to ask the immense doctor Hachel, a true genius in
> the history of humanity: so dazzling is his muscular strength, his
> physical beauty, and his sexual performance.
>
> Seriously...
>
>

Bang your head harder on the door jamb.

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

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> I have very often explained that the Lorentz transformations are correct
> if one understands well what one is doing.

Definitely. Especially one need to understand what t (and t') means.
This is why Einstein states how to synchronize clocks in paragraph
I.1 in his 1905 paper.

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

If one cannot understand this part because he is definitely not
qualified in physics, like Dr. Lengrand, he could watch a modern
course about SR aimed at non-physicists:

Etienne Parizot — Physique pour non spécialistes : séance 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf2hCnbxvM8

It is interesting to notice that even if Poincaré and Einstein
suggested to use light signals to synchronize co-moving clocks
it is indeed not mandatory to involve light in order to obtain
a equivalent procedure. One just has to assume that at least
one Galilean Frame exists and first Newton's laws holds good.

> [snip gibberish]

> We then place lots of coordinates all over the place, and we do it very
> well and very correctly.

> So where is the problem?

The problem is to overlook that for all events involved in a given
experiment, in order to be able to assign a time coordinates for
these events in both frames you have to assume that two clocks,
one at rest in R and one at rest in R' are present in the immediate
vicinity of these events.

All clocks of this kind in R (and in R') being synchronized by
a procedure similar or equivalent to the one described in paragraph
I.1 (see above).

> [snip more gibberish]

> A second scientific misfortune will then occur: we CANNOT say where
> these watches are that are triggered.

It doesn't matter. Assuming that a clock at rest in R at position O
and a clock at rest in R' at position O' both mark t=t'=0 for the
event "O and O' coincide" can be done without loss of generality.

> They are abstract clocks that cannot be positioned anywhere in R, nor in
> R'.

If they cannot be positioned anywhere they do not exists, hence...

> These watches are useful, it's true.

.... they cannot be useful. Your are blathering.

On Saturday, 19 March 2022 at 14:55:10 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> > I have very often explained that the Lorentz transformations are correct
> > if one understands well what one is doing.
> Definitely. Especially one need to understand what t (and t') means.

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend a wise one.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> In the meantime in the real world, Peano arithmetics
> is a theory of numbers, not about theories. Godel's
> theorem isn't a part of it. Godel has concocted a brandly
> new theory, but somehow he has forgotten to
> specify its assumptions.
> There are some other reasons why his theorem has no
> value, but they're all too muchg for [...]

If you really want your confusion and misconceptions about
Gödel's theorems to be addressed, please explain what assumptions
"Gödel somehow forgot to specify" according to you, as well as the
"other reasons why his theorem has no value" on sci.logic.

On Saturday, 19 March 2022 at 15:12:04 UTC+1, Python wrote:

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend a wise one.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 2:41:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> I have very often explained that the Lorentz transformations are correct
> if one understands well what one is doing.
>
> That is to say if you master your subject and if you visualize things a
> little in your mind.
>
> But if we don't understand what we are doing, we imagine everything and
> anything.
>
> Where then is the problem?
>
> We imagine two frames of reference R and R', one sliding on the axis Ox of
> the other.
>
> So far so good.
>
> The clocks are then triggered when O and O' intersect.
>
> We then place lots of coordinates all over the place, and we do it very
> well and very correctly.
>
> So where is the problem?
>
> To find out, you have to ask the immense doctor Hachel, a true genius in
> the history of humanity: so dazzling is his muscular strength, his
> physical beauty, and his sexual performance.
>
> Seriously...
>
> So where is the problem?
>
> Tell us, Doctor Hachel! He is where, where, where? ? ?
>
> It is in the fact that the watches that have been triggered are not really
> the O and O' watches.
>
> Here is the problem.

No. The problem is you don't understand Einstein's paper.

--
Jan

Am 19.03.2022 um 14:55 schrieb Python:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>> I have very often explained that the Lorentz transformations are
>> correct if one understands well what one is doing.
>
> Definitely. Especially one need to understand what t (and t') means.
> This is why Einstein states how to synchronize clocks in paragraph
> I.1 in his 1905 paper.
>
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies#%C2%A7_1._Definition_of_Simultaneity.
>
>
> If one cannot understand this part because he is definitely not
> qualified in physics, like Dr. Lengrand, he could watch a modern
> course about SR aimed at non-physicists:
>
> Etienne Parizot — Physique pour non spécialistes : séance 1
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf2hCnbxvM8
>
> It is interesting to notice that even if Poincaré and Einstein
> suggested to use light signals to synchronize co-moving clocks
> it is indeed not mandatory to involve light in order to obtain
> a equivalent procedure. One just has to assume that at least
> one Galilean Frame exists and first Newton's laws holds good.

It is also interesting, that Einstein used only one coordinate system
for his definition of simultineity.

It is not easy to see, but his definition requires the unmentionend
fact, that both clocks would not move in respect to the other.

Since the second coordinate system k was introduced to 'contain' the
moving objects, we don't need it here, if v=0.

Now the remaining single coordinate system is actually a Euclidean space
with Newtonian mechanics valid.

In this we have two clocks, which are synchronized with each other.

The 'moving clock method' cannot be used, because these clocks shall not
move.

We therefore take light signals, which start at each clock and once the
delay is measured as equal as seen from both sides and time values seen
are also equal, the clock are synchronised.

That method is actually correct and would succesfully synchronize remote
clocks in euclidean space.

The only problem: that was not the method used by Einstein.

As far as I can tell, Einstein took the actual reading of the remote
clock as time of the remote side and adjusted the remote clock until it
matched the own.

The similar procedure from the other side was not considered.

TH

....

Le 22/03/2022 à 11:09, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> It is also interesting, that Einstein used only one coordinate system
> for his definition of simultineity.
>
> It is not easy to see, but his definition requires the unmentionend
> fact, that both clocks would not move in respect to the other.
>
> Since the second coordinate system k was introduced to 'contain' the
> moving objects, we don't need it here, if v=0.
>
> Now the remaining single coordinate system is actually a Euclidean space
> with Newtonian mechanics valid.
>
> In this we have two clocks, which are synchronized with each other.
>
> The 'moving clock method' cannot be used, because these clocks shall not
> move.
>
> We therefore take light signals, which start at each clock and once the
> delay is measured as equal as seen from both sides and time values seen
> are also equal, the clock are synchronised.
>
> That method is actually correct and would succesfully synchronize remote
> clocks in euclidean space.
>
> The only problem: that was not the method used by Einstein.
>
> As far as I can tell, Einstein took the actual reading of the remote
> clock as time of the remote side and adjusted the remote clock until it
> matched the own.
>
> The similar procedure from the other side was not considered.

You are wasting your time in useless discussions.

You cannot synchronize two distant clocks.

In the best case, we will have an equivalent synchronization where each of
the two watches will see the other delay (REALLY delay) by deltaT = AB/c

Einstein's blindness is total: his relativistic universe is a very badly
put together chimera.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 22/03/2022 à 11:09, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> It is also interesting, that Einstein used only one coordinate system
>> for his definition of simultineity.
>>
>> It is not easy to see, but his definition requires the unmentionend
>> fact, that both clocks would not move in respect to the other.
>>
>> Since the second coordinate system k was introduced to 'contain' the
>> moving objects, we don't need it here, if v=0.
>>
>> Now the remaining single coordinate system is actually a Euclidean space
>> with Newtonian mechanics valid.
>>
>> In this we have two clocks, which are synchronized with each other.
>>
>> The 'moving clock method' cannot be used, because these clocks shall not
>> move.
>>
>> We therefore take light signals, which start at each clock and once the
>> delay is measured as equal as seen from both sides and time values seen
>> are also equal, the clock are synchronised.
>>
>> That method is actually correct and would succesfully synchronize remote
>> clocks in euclidean space.
>>
>> The only problem: that was not the method used by Einstein.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, Einstein took the actual reading of the remote
>> clock as time of the remote side and adjusted the remote clock until it
>> matched the own.
>>
>> The similar procedure from the other side was not considered.
>
> You are wasting your time in useless discussions.
>
> You cannot synchronize two distant clocks.

Yes, you can. You are just blind to what you should see if the distant
clocks are synchronized. Having synchronized clocks in different places
does NOT mean that a single observer will see the same time on both clocks.
It’s a mystery why you think that’s the claim.

>
> In the best case, we will have an equivalent synchronization where each of
> the two watches will see the other delay (REALLY delay) by deltaT = AB/c
>
> Einstein's blindness is total: his relativistic universe is a very badly
> put together chimera.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Le 22/03/2022 à 17:18, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> You cannot synchronize two distant clocks.
>
> Yes, you can. You are just blind to what you should see if the distant
> clocks are synchronized. Having synchronized clocks in different places
> does NOT mean that a single observer will see the same time on both clocks.
> It’s a mystery why you think that’s the claim.

The notion of simultaneity and the notion of chronotropy are absolute in
Newtonian physics.

This means that in Newtonian physics, when we are the third of March on
earth, we are also the third of March on plnet Krypton (the one from which
Superman comes), and this means that if my watch beats at a certain speed
it will necessarily see all the other watches beating at the same speed.

Now, in relativity, both facts are false.

The notion of simultaneity is relative by positional change (I could never
tune this clock placed on the fireplace and this watch placed on the
table: the three meters which separate them ALSO separate them by ten
nanoseconds) and the notion of chronotropy is such that two watches moving
relative to each other beat reciprocally
(see the other) more slowly.

Because of these two relative effects (especially the first), it is not
possible to synchronize two watches placed in different places.

And even if we succeeded (but it's absurd), the two watches would become
desynchronized not only because of their relative speeds, but also because
of their relative distance.

I've explained that enough.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 22/03/2022 à 17:18, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>> You cannot synchronize two distant clocks.
>>
>> Yes, you can. You are just blind to what you should see if the distant
>> clocks are synchronized. Having synchronized clocks in different places
>> does NOT mean that a single observer will see the same time on both clocks.
>> It’s a mystery why you think that’s the claim.
>
> The notion of simultaneity and the notion of chronotropy are absolute in
> Newtonian physics.
>
> This means that in Newtonian physics, when we are the third of March on
> earth, we are also the third of March on plnet Krypton (the one from which
> Superman comes), and this means that if my watch beats at a certain speed
> it will necessarily see all the other watches beating at the same speed.

Which has nothing to do with what an Earth observer would see on a Krypton
clock and on an Earth clock.

>
> Now, in relativity, both facts are false.

No, that’s not the case. What’s the case is that these are false if viewed
in relatively moving inertial frames. However, in the case that both clocks
are at rest in a common inertial reference frame, then the clocks are
perfectly capable of being synchronized and will run at the same rate as
seen by the other.

You’ve thrown the baby out with the bath water, thinking that relativity
breaks this in all cases.

>
> The notion of simultaneity is relative by positional change (I could never
> tune this clock placed on the fireplace and this watch placed on the
> table: the three meters which separate them ALSO separate them by ten
> nanoseconds) and the notion of chronotropy is such that two watches moving
> relative to each other beat reciprocally
> (see the other) more slowly.
>
> Because of these two relative effects (especially the first), it is not
> possible to synchronize two watches placed in different places.
>
> And even if we succeeded (but it's absurd), the two watches would become
> desynchronized not only because of their relative speeds, but also because
> of their relative distance.
>
> I've explained that enough.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Le 22/03/2022 à 17:18, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Yes, you can. You are just blind to what you should see if the distant
> clocks are synchronized. Having synchronized clocks in different places
> does NOT mean that a single observer will see the same time on both clocks.
> It’s a mystery why you think that’s the claim.

I see you don't understand what I mean when I say synchronization.

I remind you that in my theory (and this is the reality of things) any
observer placed in the universe observes the universe live-live.

If we want to synchronize the universe on him, he must observe all the
watches of the universe directly-live, and all will give him the same
time, that is to say his present instantaneousness.

If another observer passes by this place at relativistic speed (say 0.6 or
0.8c), he will also see the same universe present as the other, and all
the watches he observes will give him the same time as the other , i.e.
t=0.

I repeat, you cannot synchronize either two watches placed in the same
frame of reference, nor two watches present in different inertial frames
of reference.

The first watches will differ due to the universal anisochrony and will
give different TIMES, and the others will differ due to the relative
chronotropy and will beat, in addition, at different rhythms, i.e. faster
than those of the opposite frame of reference, and this, vice versa.

R.H.

Le 22/03/2022 à 19:16, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Which has nothing to do with what an Earth observer would see on a Krypton
> clock and on an Earth clock.
>
>>
>> Now, in relativity, both facts are false.
>
> No, that’s not the case. What’s the case is that these are false if viewed
> in relatively moving inertial frames. However, in the case that both clocks
> are at rest in a common inertial reference frame, then the clocks are
> perfectly capable of being synchronized and will run at the same rate as
> seen by the other.
>
> You’ve thrown the baby out with the bath water, thinking that relativity
> breaks this in all cases.

But not at all !!!

That's what I keep telling myself.

The notion of chronotropy is invariant for all the clocks present in a
reference frame.

Let's take this schoolyard, and line it with little, very precise atomic
clocks.

It is clear that all clocks will beat at the same speed.

Otherwise, an absurd cause would have to be found.

Of course all the little atomic clocks are beating at the same speed in
this playground.

I don't even think anyone in the world has ever thought otherwise.

When I talk about anisotropy, I'm necessarily talking about something
else.

I'm not talking about chronotropy.

I repeat (5689° edition):
1. The notion of chronotropy is invariant within the same frame of
reference. All the clocks there beat at the same speed.
2. The notion of chronotropy is relative between reference frame animated
by accelerated movement or uniform reciprocal.
The clocks of a frame of reference see reciprocally the clocks of the
other frame of reference beating less quickly.
3. The notion of simultaneity is relative in the same frame of reference,
all the atomic clocks placed in a playground beat at the same speed, BUT
advance on all the other watches placed elsewhere in the playground.
DeltaT=x/c.
4. The notion of simultaneity is perfectly absolute by change of inertial
reference frame so that the different observers meet in the same place. At
this precise and instantaneous moment, they observe exactly the same
universe.

I can't explain better than that.

It is absolutely impossible that a sane man could not understand my words.
If he doesn't understand them, it's because he doesn't want to understand
them. His blindness is voluntary. Why? I do not know. This belongs to
sociology, even to psychiatry (case of Python).

Doctor Richard Hachel

On Tuesday, 22 March 2022 at 19:16:10 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> No, that’s not the case. What’s the case is that these are false if viewed
> in relatively moving inertial frames. However, in the case that both clocks
> are at rest in a common inertial reference frame, then the clocks are

Sure, poor halfbrain; never.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 22/03/2022 à 17:18, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Yes, you can. You are just blind to what you should see if the distant
>> clocks are synchronized. Having synchronized clocks in different places
>> does NOT mean that a single observer will see the same time on both clocks.
>> It’s a mystery why you think that’s the claim.
>
> I see you don't understand what I mean when I say synchronization.

Perhaps so.

I am using the meaning understood by physicists.

You apparently have your own lexicon, where you have different meanings for
already prevalent words, and you introduce new words that mean nothing to
physicists.

This accomplishes nothing, really, except the sacrificing of communication
by abandoning shared language as a tool for that. In so doing, whether
deliberate or not, you alienate yourself from any community that uses that
shared language. It’s no surprise then that you have muddled around for
four decades with no improvement in that condition.

>
> I remind you that in my theory (and this is the reality of things) any
> observer placed in the universe observes the universe live-live.
>
> If we want to synchronize the universe on him, he must observe all the
> watches of the universe directly-live, and all will give him the same
> time, that is to say his present instantaneousness.

And this is not at all what physicists mean by the term. Not at all.

>
> If another observer passes by this place at relativistic speed (say 0.6 or
> 0.8c), he will also see the same universe present as the other, and all
> the watches he observes will give him the same time as the other , i.e.
> t=0.
>
> I repeat, you cannot synchronize either two watches placed in the same
> frame of reference, nor two watches present in different inertial frames
> of reference.
>
> The first watches will differ due to the universal anisochrony and will
> give different TIMES, and the others will differ due to the relative
> chronotropy and will beat, in addition, at different rhythms, i.e. faster
> than those of the opposite frame of reference, and this, vice versa.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 22/03/2022 à 19:16, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Which has nothing to do with what an Earth observer would see on a Krypton
>> clock and on an Earth clock.
>>
>>>
>>> Now, in relativity, both facts are false.
>>
>> No, that’s not the case. What’s the case is that these are false if viewed
>> in relatively moving inertial frames. However, in the case that both clocks
>> are at rest in a common inertial reference frame, then the clocks are
>> perfectly capable of being synchronized and will run at the same rate as
>> seen by the other.
>>
>> You’ve thrown the baby out with the bath water, thinking that relativity
>> breaks this in all cases.
>
> But not at all !!!

Yes you have. You have misstated what relativity claims. You have made a
mistake.

This does not make you stupid. It makes you erroneous.

>
> That's what I keep telling myself.
>
> The notion of chronotropy is invariant for all the clocks present in a
> reference frame.
>
> Let's take this schoolyard, and line it with little, very precise atomic
> clocks.
>
> It is clear that all clocks will beat at the same speed.
>
> Otherwise, an absurd cause would have to be found.
>
> Of course all the little atomic clocks are beating at the same speed in
> this playground.
>
> I don't even think anyone in the world has ever thought otherwise.
>
> When I talk about anisotropy, I'm necessarily talking about something
> else.
>
> I'm not talking about chronotropy.
>
> I repeat (5689° edition):
> 1. The notion of chronotropy is invariant within the same frame of
> reference. All the clocks there beat at the same speed.
> 2. The notion of chronotropy is relative between reference frame animated
> by accelerated movement or uniform reciprocal.
> The clocks of a frame of reference see reciprocally the clocks of the
> other frame of reference beating less quickly.
> 3. The notion of simultaneity is relative in the same frame of reference,
> all the atomic clocks placed in a playground beat at the same speed, BUT
> advance on all the other watches placed elsewhere in the playground.
> DeltaT=x/c.
> 4. The notion of simultaneity is perfectly absolute by change of inertial
> reference frame so that the different observers meet in the same place. At
> this precise and instantaneous moment, they observe exactly the same
> universe.
>
> I can't explain better than that.
>
> It is absolutely impossible that a sane man could not understand my words.
> If he doesn't understand them, it's because he doesn't want to understand
> them. His blindness is voluntary. Why? I do not know. This belongs to
> sociology, even to psychiatry (case of Python).
>
> Doctor Richard Hachel
>

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

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 22/03/2022 à 19:16, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>> Which has nothing to do with what an Earth observer would see on a Krypton
>>> clock and on an Earth clock.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, in relativity, both facts are false.
>>>
>>> No, that’s not the case. What’s the case is that these are false if viewed
>>> in relatively moving inertial frames. However, in the case that both clocks
>>> are at rest in a common inertial reference frame, then the clocks are
>>> perfectly capable of being synchronized and will run at the same rate as
>>> seen by the other.
>>>
>>> You’ve thrown the baby out with the bath water, thinking that relativity
>>> breaks this in all cases.
>>
>> But not at all !!!
>
> Yes you have. You have misstated what relativity claims. You have made a
> mistake.
>
> This does not make you stupid. It makes you erroneous.
>
>>
>> That's what I keep telling myself.
>>
>> The notion of chronotropy is invariant for all the clocks present in a
>> reference frame.
>>
>> Let's take this schoolyard, and line it with little, very precise atomic
>> clocks.
>>
>> It is clear that all clocks will beat at the same speed.
>>
>> Otherwise, an absurd cause would have to be found.
>>
>> Of course all the little atomic clocks are beating at the same speed in
>> this playground.
>>
>> I don't even think anyone in the world has ever thought otherwise.
>>
>> When I talk about anisotropy, I'm necessarily talking about something
>> else.

I get that.

Here is the problem.

Your definition of simultaneity involves an observer standing in a
schoolyard and gazing around at all the interspersed clocks, each at rest
in the school yard, and when this observer looks around, if all the clocks
read the same time exactly, then you call them synchronized.

That is NOT the definition of simultaneity or synchronization as understood
by physicists. Nor is it what Einstein was talking about in his method for
testing synchronization.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what simultaneity means to a
physicist, and what synchronization means to a physicist. It is not what
you think it means, and it certainly does not mean what you say it means.

>>
>> I'm not talking about chronotropy.
>>
>> I repeat (5689° edition):
>> 1. The notion of chronotropy is invariant within the same frame of
>> reference. All the clocks there beat at the same speed.
>> 2. The notion of chronotropy is relative between reference frame animated
>> by accelerated movement or uniform reciprocal.
>> The clocks of a frame of reference see reciprocally the clocks of the
>> other frame of reference beating less quickly.
>> 3. The notion of simultaneity is relative in the same frame of reference,
>> all the atomic clocks placed in a playground beat at the same speed, BUT
>> advance on all the other watches placed elsewhere in the playground.
>> DeltaT=x/c.
>> 4. The notion of simultaneity is perfectly absolute by change of inertial
>> reference frame so that the different observers meet in the same place. At
>> this precise and instantaneous moment, they observe exactly the same
>> universe.
>>
>> I can't explain better than that.
>>
>> It is absolutely impossible that a sane man could not understand my words.
>> If he doesn't understand them, it's because he doesn't want to understand
>> them. His blindness is voluntary. Why? I do not know. This belongs to
>> sociology, even to psychiatry (case of Python).
>>
>> Doctor Richard Hachel
>>
>
>
>

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

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 12:46:38 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:

> The notion of simultaneity and the notion of chronotropy are absolute in
> Newtonian physics.

Nope, since there is no mention of "chronotropy" in Newtonian physics.

As for simultaneity, in the Newtonian sense, it has no operational definition; its an ill defined concept, as Newton pointed it out himself.
A few years after, scientists adopted a practical, doable operational definition of simultaneity. This became known as the Telegraphers synch procedure, later taken up officially by Poincare, then adopted by Einstein ( & physicists ) as a definition of 'time'.

> This means that in Newtonian physics, when we are the third of March on
> earth, we are also the third of March on plnet Krypton

But as pointed out by Newton himself, there is no way in verifying the date on Krypton "here, now, the 3rd of March".

> this means that if my watch beats at a certain speed
> it will necessarily see all the other watches beating at the same speed.

Nope. Even Newton said that that was not the case. Newton clearly indicated that Clocks here and clocks over there may beat at different rates. Don't you know your history?

> Because of these two relative effects (especially the first), it is not
> possible to synchronize two watches placed in different places.

It depends on the definition of 'synchronize'.
What is your definition of synchronize?
Does it have the same definition as SR or physicist use?

Richard Hachel wrote:

> I have very often explained that the Lorentz transformations are correct
> if one understands well what one is doing.

And you don’t. So you are not even qualified to judge.
> That is to say if you master your subject and if you visualize things a
> little in your mind.

Imagination without basic knowledge does not lead to science, but to
crackpottery like yours.
> But if we don't understand what we are doing, we imagine everything and
> anything.

But you don’t, so your ideas, which are just fantasies, are worthless.
> Where then is the problem?

The Dunning–Kruger effect: You are lacking the ability to realize your own
incompetence. This produces for you a cognitive bias that lets you consider
yourself superior in understanding, upon which you apparently think that you
should bother this newsgroup with your nonsense repeatedly in order to
"convert" people.
> We imagine two frames of reference R and R', one sliding on the axis Ox of
> the other.

There is no “axis Ox” in actual mathematics/physics.
> So far so good.

You are mentally ill, and are lost in your own delusions. There is nothing
good about this – neither for you nor the rest of the world.

PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Tuesday, 22 March 2022 at 23:37:40 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >> Le 22/03/2022 à 19:16, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >>> Which has nothing to do with what an Earth observer would see on a Krypton
> >>> clock and on an Earth clock.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, in relativity, both facts are false.
> >>>
> >>> No, that’s not the case. What’s the case is that these are false if viewed
> >>> in relatively moving inertial frames. However, in the case that both clocks
> >>> are at rest in a common inertial reference frame, then the clocks are
> >>> perfectly capable of being synchronized and will run at the same rate as
> >>> seen by the other.
> >>>
> >>> You’ve thrown the baby out with the bath water, thinking that relativity
> >>> breaks this in all cases.
> >>
> >> But not at all !!!
> >
> > Yes you have. You have misstated what relativity claims. You have made a
> > mistake.
> >
> > This does not make you stupid. It makes you erroneous.
> >
> >>
> >> That's what I keep telling myself.
> >>
> >> The notion of chronotropy is invariant for all the clocks present in a
> >> reference frame.
> >>
> >> Let's take this schoolyard, and line it with little, very precise atomic
> >> clocks.
> >>
> >> It is clear that all clocks will beat at the same speed.
> >>
> >> Otherwise, an absurd cause would have to be found.
> >>
> >> Of course all the little atomic clocks are beating at the same speed in
> >> this playground.
> >>
> >> I don't even think anyone in the world has ever thought otherwise.
> >>
> >> When I talk about anisotropy, I'm necessarily talking about something
> >> else.
> I get that.
>
> Here is the problem.
>
> Your definition of simultaneity involves an observer standing in a
> schoolyard and gazing around at all the interspersed clocks, each at rest
> in the school yard, and when this observer looks around, if all the clocks
> read the same time exactly, then you call them synchronized.
>
> That is NOT the definition of simultaneity or synchronization as understood
> by physicists.
> You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what simultaneity means to a
> physicist

And you have a fundamental misunderstanding of
what it means for sane people.
In the real world - two events are simultaneous when
their TAI/UTC/GPS coordinates are equal. Your bunch
of idiot can protest as much as you want, it's not going
to change anything.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> And you have a fundamental misunderstanding of
> what it means for sane people.
> In the real world - two events are simultaneous when
> their TAI/UTC/GPS coordinates are equal. Your bunch
> of idiot can protest as much as you want, it's not going
> to change anything.
>

Most people in the real world do not know what TAI or UTC mean, and most
people in the real world have no idea that GPS uses clocks. Your illusions
about “sane people” and the real world are silly, though I understand that
you would like to think that sane people think like you do and operate with
the same understandings you do. Let’s just remind you that you are nothing
like sane people in the real world.

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

Le 22/03/2022 à 23:37, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Your definition of simultaneity involves an observer standing in a
> schoolyard and gazing around at all the interspersed clocks, each at rest
> in the school yard, and when this observer looks around, if all the clocks
> read the same time exactly, then you call them synchronized.
>
> That is NOT the definition of simultaneity or synchronization as understood
> by physicists. Nor is it what Einstein was talking about in his method for
> testing synchronization.
>
> You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what simultaneity means to a
> physicist, and what synchronization means to a physicist. It is not what
> you think it means, and it certainly does not mean what you say it means.

The notion of simultaneity is defined by the set of events which, at a
given moment for an observer, take place at the same time.

It is said that "all these events take place simultaneously".

If we find ourselves in the courtyard of a school and a central observer
simultaneously receives four signals (one at each corner of the square
courtyard) we can say, both in the Einstein doctrine and in the Hachel
doctrine, that events have produced simultaneously.

Everyone then understands what this definition means.

Simply, with Hachel (that's me) this notion of simultaneity is relative.

Another observer placed elsewhere in the course will not perceive the four
beeps simultaneously.

There is a huge difference between Einstein and me, in the sense that
Einstein BELIEVES (religious notion) that if it is simultaneous for one,
it is also for another, and that the court is "isochronous" ; and in the
sense that I say that it is not.

For me, NOT ONLY the different observers will not perceive the beeps at
the same time, which everyone agrees, but IN ADDITION, these four beeps
will not have OCCURRED simultaneously for any of the hundreds of possible
observers present in this courtyard.

R.H.

On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 13:51:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > And you have a fundamental misunderstanding of
> > what it means for sane people.
> > In the real world - two events are simultaneous when
> > their TAI/UTC/GPS coordinates are equal. Your bunch
> > of idiot can protest as much as you want, it's not going
> > to change anything.
> >
> Most people in the real world do not know what TAI or UTC mean,

I'd bet the whole account of mine that much more people
know of UTC than of your "proper time" idiocy, Bod.

> and most
> people in the real world have no idea that GPS uses clocks.

Buhahahahahahahahaha. Tell me, poor halfbrain,
where did you get this information from? Can you
point many "experiments" for the evidence?

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 9:45:56 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:

> The notion of simultaneity is defined by the set of events which, at a
> given moment for an observer, take place at the same time.

And here, 'observer' means a given coordinate system (reference frame RF ).

> It is said that "all these events take place simultaneously".

Given a RF, two events are simultaneous if the clocks at the events indicate the same value.
Use that definition.

> If we find ourselves in the courtyard of a school and a central observer
> simultaneously receives four signals (one at each corner of the square
> courtyard) we can say, both in the Einstein doctrine and in the Hachel
> doctrine, that events have produced simultaneously.

Although it is true in that example, the four events are simul because the
clocks at the four events (emission of the 4 signals) indicate the same value.

> Another observer placed elsewhere in the course will not perceive the four
> beeps simultaneously.

True, and his *reception* of the four signals is four *different* events. And these four events (reception of the signals)
are not simul since the clock(s) there indicate different values (his wrist watch receives the four signals at different times, different values).
Don't get confused about which events we are talking about. The four events we are interested in is the emission of the four signals.
So, even for this new ' another Observer' you placed on the ground, he will verify the values on the clocks located at the emission of those signals. He will as previously concluded by the original of server, that the values on those four indicate the same value; those four events are still simultaneous.

> There is a huge difference between Einstein and me, in the sense that
> Einstein BELIEVES (religious notion) that if it is simultaneous for one,
> it is also for another,

For another at rest wrt this first observer. As long as they are in the same RF, if two events are simultaneous for one, they are simul is for the other. If two observers are in relative motion, then the events are not simultaneous for at least one of the observers.

> For me, NOT ONLY the different observers will not perceive the beeps at
> the same time,

Are you sure you are using the word 'perceive' correctly here? How does his perception of things change the volume indicated on the clocks as they sent out the signals?