Le 23/03/2022 à 19:41, JanPB a écrit :
> Einstein even specifically points to this method of synchronisation as
> impractical: "...the disadvantage [of this method] is that it is not
> independent of the standpoint of the observer" (p. 39 of the Dover ed.)

That's exactly what I'm saying.

You cannot synchronize two watches placed in two different places.

The very fact of synchronizing them in the same place, then slowly moving
them aside to position them in two different places, like this table and
this cupboard, immediately desynchronizes them.

They obviously kept their chronotropy (see what I said about that for
those who haven't read me), but by changing position, they abandoned any
notion of simultaneity.
That is to say that an event present in the universe will no longer be
noted at the same time on the two clocks.
Worse, two simultaneous events for the first clock will no longer be so
for the second clock.

It should be noted that even the very Newtonian notions of anteriority or
posteriority will sometimes be shattered.

For the first watch, for example, an event A will have taken place before
an event B.

While the other watch will affirm that it took place afterwards.

It's a pity that we don't want to admit such simple things when we
understand how it really works, and why neither Newton nor Einstein
correctly describes the world.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 23/03/2022 à 21:14, rotchm a écrit :
>>
>> If however in your scenario, the clocks there do not indicate the same value,
>> then the events are not simultaneous, even if the center Observer received the
>> four signals together.
>
> If the four clocks are out of sync, the central observer will not note a
> simultaneity of the dials, but he will nevertheless note that the four
> beeps reached him simultaneously.
>
> So we don't care what the screens show.

If the observer is not central, then the observer receiving all the beeps
at the same time does NOT mean that the events were simultaneous, in the
meaning of that word as used by physicists.

It does not matter if YOU would like to call those events simultaneous if
the observer receives the beeps at the same time. YOUR meaning of
simultaneity is not of interest in physics.

>
> Now, I repeat, the theory of relativity has a huge bias: it only talks
> about the relativity of local chronotropy.
>
> The theory tells us, with accuracy, that two watches in rapid motion
> relative to each other each see the other watch beat less quickly (I say
> the same thing, and the idea is perfectly correct).
>
> This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the relativity of
> chronotropy.
>
> But physicists ignore a property of space which is anisochrony.
>
> It is as if we were ignoring the principle of universal gravitation.
>
> And that, I don't understand. It is obvious that this property exists and
> that we must talk about it.
>
> But if you talk about it, you have to talk about it properly.
>
> And this requires an unfailing understanding that we can never match two
> watches placed in different places, and that their notion of the
> simultaneity of the world is entirely their own.
>
> In short, the notion of relativity of simultaneity is PURELY positional,
> and that the notion of relativity of chronotropy is PURELY kinetic.
>
> R.H.
>

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

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 4:26:58 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 23/03/2022 à 21:14, rotchm a écrit :

> > If however in your scenario, the clocks there do not indicate the same value,
> > then the events are not simultaneous, even if the center Observer received the
> > four signals together.
> If the four clocks are out of sync, the central observer will not note a
> simultaneity of the dials, but he will nevertheless note that the four
> beeps reached him simultaneously.

And totally irrelevant to the topic.
The notion of simultaneity refers to the values of the clocks located at the events in question.
In physics (relativity), those clocks are to be e-synched beforehand, as per the operational definition.

> Now, I repeat, the theory of relativity has a huge bias: it only talks
> about the relativity of local chronotropy.

Do you have any references to support your claim?
Which physics documentation speaks of this "chronotropy" ?
And, this t is irrelevant to the discussion. We are discussing the definition of simultaneity.

> The theory tells us, with accuracy, that two watches in rapid motion
> relative to each other each see the other watch beat less quickly

Physics, relativity, do not say that. Yes some authors express it that way. But that is not what the theory says. Moreover the words used in those loose sentences do not mean what you think they mean.

> In short, the notion of relativity of simultaneity is PURELY positional,

Irrelevant. Single 1080 is a well-defined concept in physics. There is no need to call it positional or anything else.
Keep the word salad out of it.

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 5:12:37 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 23/03/2022 à 19:41, JanPB a écrit :

> You cannot synchronize two watches placed in two different places.

Yes you can. It's just a simple application of the operational definition of simultaneity.

> The very fact of synchronizing them in the same place,

If you attempt to do that, then you are not synchronizing them. The operational definition of synchronizing two clocks
does not involve the two clocks to be initially together.
If you want to discuss synchronization or simultaneity, you got to adopt the correct definition, Which is not what you are doing.

> then slowly moving them aside to position...

See above.

> For the first watch, for example, an event A will have taken place before
> an event B.
>
> While the other watch will affirm that it took place afterwards.

Yes, in some cases, SR predicts that the values of A & B are such that A < B, and that
the values of A' & B' are such that B' < A'. And this is supported by actual experiments.

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 2:12:37 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 23/03/2022 à 19:41, JanPB a écrit :
> > Einstein even specifically points to this method of synchronisation as
> > impractical: "...the disadvantage [of this method] is that it is not
> > independent of the standpoint of the observer" (p. 39 of the Dover ed.)
> That's exactly what I'm saying.
>
> You cannot synchronize two watches placed in two different places.

You can using Einstein's synchronisation. You cannot using the method in
the above paragraph.

> The very fact of synchronizing them in the same place, then slowly moving
> them aside to position them in two different places, like this table and
> this cupboard, immediately desynchronizes them.

Yes but in the limit of zero speed the resulting synchronisation equals to
that of Einstein.

BTW, the statement "in the limit of zero speed" has a very precise and
ironclad meaning. I'm mentioning this because people who don't
understand limits think it's some sort of nebulous concept without a
precise meaning or definition.

> They obviously kept their chronotropy (see what I said about that for
> those who haven't read me), but by changing position, they abandoned any
> notion of simultaneity.

Not "any", see above. To use a simple example: to say that for any
integer n the fraction 1/n is not equal to zero is saying significantly
LESS than the statement: 1/n -> 0 as n -> infinity.

> That is to say that an event present in the universe will no longer be
> noted at the same time on the two clocks.
> Worse, two simultaneous events for the first clock will no longer be so
> for the second clock.

Yes, but this is NOT the whole story. It misses 99% of its significance.

The rest of your post is not even wrong.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 22:30:43 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> If the observer is not central, then the observer receiving all the beeps
> at the same time does NOT mean that the events were simultaneous, in the
> meaning of that word as used by physicists.

It doesn't matter if your moronic church is or isn't
calling something "simultaneous", samely as it
didn't matter that marxists were calling communism
"the best".
Two events are simultaneous when
their TAI/UTC/GPS coordinates are equal. That's how
things are in the world we inhabit. Your bunch of
idiot can protest as much as you want, it's not
going to change anything.

On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 04:55:06 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:

> You can using Einstein's synchronisation.

Nobody is using this primitive nonsense, nobody ever
did and nobody ever will.

On 2022-03-23 17:06:25 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 23/03/2022 à 16:05, rotchm a écrit :
>> 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.
>
> C'est l'inverse. Les scientifiques ne comprennent pas correctement la
> théorie qu'ils proposent.

As Richard Hachel has been able to write in English, this sudden change
of language must have some other reason. Translation to another language
is basically a simple operation: just express the same in another language.
But that would require that the original words have a meaning. Therefore
we may conclude that altough the above and most of the rest of the message
look like meaningful words, they actually don't reflect any maeaning, but
are actally just a random babble, perhaps caused by some mental malfunction.

Mikko

>

Le 24/03/2022 à 10:13, Mikko a écrit :
> As Richard Hachel has been able to write in English, this sudden change
> of language must have some other reason. Translation to another language
> is basically a simple operation: just express the same in another language.
> But that would require that the original words have a meaning. Therefore
> we may conclude that altough the above and most of the rest of the message
> look like meaningful words, they actually don't reflect any maeaning, but
> are actally just a random babble, perhaps caused by some mental malfunction.

Anonymous post.

So very suspicious.

R.H.

Le 24/03/2022 à 01:02, rotchm a écrit :
> If you want to discuss synchronization or simultaneity, you got to adopt the
> correct definition, Which is not what you are doing.

Tu n'as pas encore compris que ce n'est PAS un problème de définition.

C'est un problème de vision des choses.

Tout le monde définit correctement un citron ou une tomate.

Là, on a affaire à un aveuglement public.

Ce citron posé sur la table n'est pas une tomate.

Le problème n'est pas dans la définition.

Je peux définir un carré, mais si quelqu'un me dit que le carré, c'est
un cercle, il n'y a pas de problème de définition, mais un problème
d'ophtalmologie.

Il est très étrange que vous ne parveniez pas à comprendre le problème
qui nous oppose.

C'est un problème de structure réelle de l'espace et du temps, pas un
problème de définition.

Vous le voyez tous bleu, et moi, je le vois rouge.

Comme vous êtes majoritaire, on va dire, pour calmer les choses, que
c'est moi qui voit mal.

Mais ce n'est PAS un problème de définition.

La notion de simultanéité, nous avons la même.

La notion de chronotropie, nous avons la même.

C'est sur la "métrique" de cette simultanéité que nous ne nous
entendons plus.

Mon univers est anisochronique, le vôtre (Einstein, Hawking) basé sur un
plan du temps présent plat comme
la poitrine de Jane Birkin.

Ils parlent de cône de lumière, je trouve cette idée étrange et
amusante. Leur cône, c'est juste le plan du temps présent comme il
devraient le représenter. Mais ils ne s'en rendent pas compte.

R.H.

On 3/24/2022 5:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-03-23 17:06:25 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>> Le 23/03/2022 à 16:05, rotchm a écrit :
>>> 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.
>>
>>  C'est l'inverse. Les scientifiques ne comprennent pas correctement la
>> théorie qu'ils proposent.
>
> As Richard Hachel has been able to write in English, this sudden change
> of language must have some other reason. Translation to another language
> is basically a simple operation: just express the same in another language.
> But that would require that the original words have a meaning. Therefore
> we may conclude that altough the above and most of the rest of the message
> look like meaningful words, they actually don't reflect any maeaning, but
> are actally just a random babble, perhaps caused by some mental
> malfunction.
>
He switches to posting in French when under pressure, likely because he
doesn't have a good answer. Probably as a way to avoid additional
discussion or to get the last word, as he knows most people don't know
French and won't bother pasting his answer into a translator and
answering that. But whatever the reason, it's rather childish.

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 7:02:54 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 24/03/2022 à 10:13, Mikko a écrit :
> > As Richard Hachel has been able to write in English, this sudden change
> > of language must have some other reason. Translation to another language
> > is basically a simple operation: just express the same in another language.
> > But that would require that the original words have a meaning. Therefore
> > we may conclude that altough the above and most of the rest of the message
> > look like meaningful words, they actually don't reflect any maeaning, but
> > are actally just a random babble, perhaps caused by some mental malfunction.
> Anonymous post.
>
> So very suspicious.

At least it was in the appropriate language, Something you failed to do.

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 7:16:15 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 24/03/2022 à 01:02, rotchm a écrit :
>
> > If you want to discuss synchronization or simultaneity, you got to adopt the
> > correct definition, Which is not what you are doing.
> Tu n'as pas encore compris que ce n'est PAS un problème de définition.

<snip>

Inappropriate language. So I do not read the rest and will report as spam.
You are aware that you have no valid rebuttal, that you are not smart enough to discuss.
So your tactic it's to purposely be misunderstood as an excuse. We are aware of your feeble tactics.

Le 24/03/2022 à 15:08, rotchm a écrit :
> Inappropriate language. So I do not read the rest and will report as spam.
> You are aware that you have no valid rebuttal, that you are not smart enough to
> discuss.
> So your tactic it's to purposely be misunderstood as an excuse. We are aware of
> your feeble tactics.

Go get treatment, Jean-Pierre.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 24/03/2022 à 15:08, rotchm a écrit :
>> Inappropriate language. So I do not read the rest and will report as
>> spam.
>> You are aware that you have no valid rebuttal, that you are not smart
>> enough to discuss. So your tactic it's to purposely be misunderstood
>> as an excuse. We are aware of your feeble tactics.
>
> Go get treatment, Jean-Pierre.

Rotchm is a well known poster here, for years. He's not the French
guy who tried several time, in vain, to explain relativity to you.

You are the one needing medicine, doc.

On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 15:49:29 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> > Le 24/03/2022 à 15:08, rotchm a écrit :
> >> Inappropriate language. So I do not read the rest and will report as
> >> spam.
> >> You are aware that you have no valid rebuttal, that you are not smart
> >> enough to discuss. So your tactic it's to purposely be misunderstood
> >> as an excuse. We are aware of your feeble tactics.
> >
> > Go get treatment, Jean-Pierre.
> Rotchm is a well known poster here, for years. He's not the French

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
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:
> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 15:49:29 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>> Le 24/03/2022 à 15:08, rotchm a écrit :
>>>> Inappropriate language. So I do not read the rest and will report as
>>>> spam.
>>>> You are aware that you have no valid rebuttal, that you are not smart
>>>> enough to discuss. So your tactic it's to purposely be misunderstood
>>>> as an excuse. We are aware of your feeble tactics.
>>>
>>> Go get treatment, Jean-Pierre.
>> Rotchm is a well known poster here, for years. He's not the French
>
>
> [snip idiotic tantrum]

If you're interested on detecting who is French and who is not French,
Maciej, you'd better post on soc.culture.french. Thank you for your
attention.

On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 17:44:07 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 15:49:29 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> >>> Le 24/03/2022 à 15:08, rotchm a écrit :
> >>>> Inappropriate language. So I do not read the rest and will report as
> >>>> spam.
> >>>> You are aware that you have no valid rebuttal, that you are not smart
> >>>> enough to discuss. So your tactic it's to purposely be misunderstood
> >>>> as an excuse. We are aware of your feeble tactics.
> >>>
> >>> Go get treatment, Jean-Pierre.
> >> Rotchm is a well known poster here, for years. He's not the French
> >
> >
> > [snip idiotic tantrum]
>
> If you're interested on detecting who is French and who is not French,

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
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?

Mikko wrote:

> As Richard Hachel has been able to write in English, this sudden change
> of language must have some other reason. Translation to another language
> is basically a simple operation: just express the same in another
> language. But that would require that the original words have a meaning.
> Therefore we may conclude that altough the above and most of the rest of
> the message look like meaningful words, they actually don't reflect any
> maeaning, but are actally just a random babble, perhaps caused by some
> mental malfunction.

It can be observed that he switches to French mainly when it is obvious that
his arguments that were presented in English were disproved or simply shown
to be nonsensical. I have come to think it is the pathological behavior of
a mentally ill person.

So far the words do have a discernible meaning then, though. For example,

>> C'est l'inverse. Les scientifiques ne comprennent pas correctement la
>> théorie qu'ils proposent.

means

“It is the opposite. The scientists do not understand correctly the theory
that they are proposing.”

Which, however, indicates the aforementioned mental disorder on the part of
the author; at least a case of the Dunning–Kruger effect according to which
the incompetent have a cognitive bias that prevents them to realize their
own incompetence: they overestimate their abilities, and underestimate the
abilities of acknowledged experts.

See also:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#Common_characteristics>

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

(from: WolframAlpha)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> 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.

BBC interviews Ukrainian soldier with Nazi symbol on uniform
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cve0pVNBly38/

The British broadcaster has interviewed a Ukrainian soldier sporting an
infamous *_Nazi_symbol_* on his uniform. Back in 2014, it reported on the
role of neo-Nazis in the Donbass conflict and made a documentary about
racism and anti-Semitism in the country.