At any given instant "tau" in the life of a given INERTIAL observer
(he), it's clear that there is just a single answer to the question "How
old is that particular distant person (she) right now (at the given time
"tau" in the life of the inertial observer): it is what the particular
"Helper Friend" (HF) who happens to be momentarily co-located with the
distant person (she), says it is, at the instant when he is age "tau".
The only way there could be any other allowable answer is if the
synchronization of the clocks isn't valid, and that is impossible if the
velocity of light in that inertial
reference frame is equal to the universal constant "c".

My argument above is that, IF those clocks are synchronized (according
to the given observer), then he can't help but conclude that the current
age of that distant person IS completely meaningful TO HIM. And the only
way that those clocks AREN'T synchronized according to him, is if the
velocity of light in his inertial reference frame ISN'T equal to the
universal constant "c". But the fundamental assumption of special
relativity IS that light will be measured in all inertial reference
frames to have the value "c". Therefore, FOR any given inertial observer
(he), the current age of a distant person is completely meaningful to him.

But what about a non-inertial observer? In particular, what about a
given observer who is undergoing a constant acceleration? What does HE
say the current age of a distant person is? It turns out to be possible
for such an accelerating observer to rely on an array of clocks and
associated "helper friends" (HF's) to give him the answer. Unlike in the
inertial case, those clocks DON'T run at the same rate. But the ratio of
the rates of those clocks can be CALCULATED by the given observer. And
if he (and the HF's) are initially stationary and unaccelerated, they
can start out with synchronized clocks (and ages). Then, if they all
fire their identical rockets at the same instant, they can each
CALCULATE the current reading of each of the other clocks, at each
instant in their lives. The calculations of each of the HF's all agree.
So, at any instant in their lives during that acceleration, they each
share the same "NOW" instant with all of the other HF's. That means that
the given observer (he), at any instant "tau" in his life, can obtain
the current age "T" of some distant person (her), by asking
the HF, who happens to be momentarily co-located with her at that NOW
instant, what her age is then.

In the above, I said that the given accelerating observer (he)
(abbreviated, the "AO"), at each instant of his life, can CALCULATE the
current reading on each of the HF's clocks. What IS that calculation?

Let t = 0 be the reading on his clock at the instant that the constant
acceleration "A" begins, and let all the HFs' clocks also read zero at
that instant. Thereafter, he and all of the HFs are accelerating at "A"
ls/s/s, and the ratio R of any given HF's clock rate to his (the
observer's (he) whose conclusions we are seeking) clock rate is

R(t) = [ 1 +- L A sech^2 (A t) ],

where L is the constant distance between him and the given HF, and
sech() is the hyperbolic secant (which is the reciprocal of cosh(), the
hyperbolic cosine). The "^2" after the sech indicates the square of the
sech. The "+-" in the above equation means that the second term is ADDED
to 1 for the HF's who are LEADING the accelerating observer, and the
second term is SUBTRACTED from 1 for the HF's who are TRAILING the
accelerating observer. For brevity, I'll just take the case where the HF
of interest is a leading HF.

The limit of R(t), as "t" goes to zero, is 1 + L A. The limit of R(t),
as "t" goes to infinity, is 1.0 So R(t) starts out at some positive
number greater than 1, and then approaches 1.0 as t goes to infinity. So
eventually, all the clocks essentially tic at the same rate, but early
in the acceleration, the ratio of the tic rates varies significantly
with time.

The current reading of the HF's clock (the "Age Change" or "AC"), when
the AO's clock reads "tau", is

AC(tau) = integral, from zero to tau, of { R(t) dt }

= tau + L tanh( A tau ).

The above result depends on the fact that

sech^2(u) = d{tanh(u)} / d{u}.

As tau goes to zero, AC goes to zero. As tau goes to infinity, AC goes
to tau + L, which goes to infinity, approaching a slope of 1.0 from above.

So there you have it. That's the calculation that defines "NOW" for the
AO and all of the HF's, and makes simultaneity at a distance a
meaningful concept for them. Simultaneity at a distance is not a choice.

Michael Leon Fontenot

On 4/2/22 10:12 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

>
> So there you have it. That's the calculation that defines "NOW" for the
> AO and all of the HF's, and makes simultaneity at a distance a
> meaningful concept for them. Simultaneity at a distance is not a choice.
>

But what does the above say about the current age of the home twin
(she), according to the traveling twin (he), for each instant in his
life on his trip? The answer is that the above equations give the same
results as the Co-Moving-Inertial-Frames (CMIF) simultaneity method.
That is very fortuitous, because the CMIF method is relatively easy to
use. The value of the array of clocks discussed above (which establish
a "NOW" moment for the accelerating observer that extends throughout all
space) is that they GUARANTEE that the CMIF results are fully meaningful
to the traveler, and that the CMIF method is the ONLY correct
simultaneity method for him. He has no other choice.

In 1907, Einstein published a VERY long paper (in several volumes) on
his "relativity principle". In volume 2, section 18, page 302, titled
"Space and time in a uniformly accelerated reference frame", he
investigated how the tic rates compare for two clocks separated by the
constant distance L, with both clocks undergoing a constant acceleration
"A". He restricted the analysis to very small accelerations (and very
small resulting velocities). His result (on page 305) was that the
leading clock tics at a rate

R = 1 + L A

faster than the rear clock. Note that that result agrees with my
equation, for very small "L" and "A". But he then said:

"From the fact that the choice of the coordinate origin must not
affect the relation, one must conclude that, strictly speaking, equation
(30) should be replaced by the equation R = exp(L A). Nevertheless, we
shall maintain formula (30)."

I've never understood that one sentence argument he gave. But I DID
assume he was right (because he was rarely wrong), until I tried
applying his equation to the case of essentially instantaneous velocity
changes that are useful in twin "paradox" scenarios in special
relativity. Specifically, I worked a series of examples where the
separation of the two clocks is always

L = 7.52 ls (lightseconds)

and where the final speed (with the initial speed being zero) is always

v = 0.866 ls/s.

That speed implies a "rapidity" of

theta = atanh(0.866) = 1.317 ls/s.

But

theta = A tau,

where tau is the duration of the acceleration (according to the rear
clock). So

A = theta / tau.

I then do a sequence of calculations, each starting at t = 0, with the
two clocks reading zero, and with zero acceleration for t < 0.

First, I set the duration tau of the acceleration to 1 second. The
acceleration then needs to be

A = theta / tau = 1.317 / 1.0 = 1.317 ls/s/s (that's roughly
40 g's).

For that case, the CURRENT reading on the leading clock (which I'll
denote as AC) is

AC = tau R = 2x10sup4 = 20000

(where 10sup4 means "10 raised to the 4th power").

I then start over and work a second case, with ten times the
acceleration (13.17 ls/s/s), but with tau ten times smaller (0.1
second). That keeps the final rapidity the same as in the first case,
and the final speed is also 0.866, as before. For the second case,

AC = 1.02x10sup42.

So when we made the acceleration an order of magnitude larger, and the
duration an order of magnitude smaller, the current reading "AC" on the
leading clock got about 38 orders of magnitude larger.

Next, I start over again and work a third case, again increasing the
acceleration by a factor of 10, and the decreasing the duration by a
factor of 10, so "A" = 131.7 ls/s/s and tau = 0.01 second. Then, AC =
1.27x10sup428. So this time, when we increased "A" by a factor of 10,
and decreased tau by a factor of ten, AC got about 380 orders of
magnitude larger.

AC is not approaching a finite limit as tau goes to zero and "A" goes to
infinity. In each iteration, the change in AC compared to the previous
change gets MUCH larger. Clearly, the clock reading is NOT converging
to a finite limit. It is going to infinity as tau goes to zero.

So, for the idealization of an instantaneous velocity change, the change
of the reading on the front clock is INFINITE. That means that, when
the traveling twin instantaneously changes his speed from zero to 0.866
(toward the home twin), the exponential version of the R equation says
that the home twin's age becomes infinite. But we know that's not true,
because the home twin is entitled to use the time dilation equation for
a perpetually-inertial observer, and that equation tells her that for a
speed of 0.866 ls/s, the traveler's age is always increasing half as
fast as her age is increasing. So when they are reunited, she is twice
as old he is, NOT infinitely older than he is, as the exponential form
of the gravitational time dilation equation claims. The time dilation
equation for a perpetually-inertial observer is the gold standard in
special relativity. Therefore the exponential form of the gravitational
time dilation equation is incorrect.

The correct gravitational time dilation equation turns out to
approximately agree with what Einstein used in his "small acceleration"
analysis, for very small accelerations, but differs substantially for
larger accelerations. And the correct gravitational time dilation
equation agrees with the ages of the twins when they are reunited. It
also exactly agrees with the CMIF simultaneity method for the traveler's
conclusions about the sudden increase in the home twin's age when the
traveler suddenly changes his velocity. The CMIF method provides a
practical way to compute the change in the home twin's age when the
traveler instantaneously changes his velocity. But it is the new
gravitational time dilation equation, and its array of clocks with a
common "NOW" moment, that guarantees that the CMIF result is fully
meaningful to the traveling twin, and that the CMIF method is the ONLY
correct simultaneity method for the traveling twin.

Mike Fontenot wrote:

> At any given instant "tau" in the life of a given INERTIAL observer
> (he), it's clear that there is just a single answer to the question "How
> old is that particular distant person (she) right now […]

Actually, that is not clear because that is not so. It is a matter of
definition because two different ages must be distinguished:

1. The age of the distant person that the inertial observer observes. This
is the age that the distant person *had* when the light had been emitted
that the inertial observer receives "now" . Because light travels at the
speed c < ∞.

2. The age that the distant observer has when the light reaches the inertial
observer. This age is necessarily larger than the age in definition 1
for the same reason as described in definition 1.

Light here is merely a stand-in for information. Because in a universe
where events are causally connected, where the cause precedes the effect in
time, there has to be a maximum speed with which information propagates.
Experiments show that this speed is indistinguishable from the phase speed
that light/electromagnetic radiation has in vacuum.

ISTM that your conclusions are based on carelessly neglecting or willfully
ignoring this important distinction, which is why they are fallacies.

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

(from: WolframAlpha)

On 4/2/22 10:12 AM, (I) Mike Fontenot wrote:
> [...]
> But what about a non-inertial observer? In particular, what about a
> given observer who is undergoing a constant acceleration? What does HE
> say the current age of a distant person is? It turns out to be possible
> for such an accelerating observer to rely on an array of clocks and
> associated "helper friends" (HF's) to give him the answer. Unlike in the
> inertial case, those clocks DON'T run at the same rate. But the ratio of
> the rates of those clocks can be CALCULATED by the given observer. And
> if he (and the HF's) are initially stationary and unaccelerated, they
> can start out with synchronized clocks (and ages). Then, if they all
> fire their identical rockets at the same instant, they can each
> CALCULATE the current reading of each of the other clocks, at each
> instant in their lives.

The above is all correct.

>The calculations of each of the HF's all agree.
> So, at any instant in their lives during that acceleration, they each
> share the same "NOW" instant with all of the other HF's.

That ISN'T correct. The designated "AO" (he) (the given accelerating
observer whose conclusions about the current age of the "distant person"
we want) can indeed calculate the current time on each of the HF's
clocks at each instant in his life. And that establishes a "NOW"
instant FOR HIM that extends throughout all of space, and tells him the
current age of the distant person at that instant in his life (which IS
the goal). But it does NOT establish the same "NOW" instant, according
to each of the HF's. The "NOW" calculations of the HF's don't agree,
either among themselves, or with the AO. But that doesn't matter. All
that matters is that it establishes a "NOW" instant for the given AO,
and tells him what the current age of the distant person is.

Michael Leon Fontenot

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 12:12:37 PM UTC-4, Mike_Fontenot wrote:
> At any given instant "tau" in the life of a given INERTIAL observer
> (he), it's clear that there is just a single answer to the question "How
> old is that particular distant person (she) right now (at the given time
> "tau" in the life of the inertial observer): it is what the particular
> "Helper Friend" (HF) who happens to be momentarily co-located with the
> distant person (she), says it is, at the instant when he is age "tau".
> The only way there could be any other allowable answer is if the
> synchronization of the clocks isn't valid, and that is impossible if the
> velocity of light in that inertial
> reference frame is equal to the universal constant "c".
>
> My argument above is that, IF those clocks are synchronized (according
> to the given observer), then he can't help but conclude that the current
> age of that distant person IS completely meaningful TO HIM. And the only
> way that those clocks AREN'T synchronized according to him, is if the
> velocity of light in his inertial reference frame ISN'T equal to the
> universal constant "c". But the fundamental assumption of special
> relativity IS that light will be measured in all inertial reference
> frames to have the value "c". Therefore, FOR any given inertial observer
> (he), the current age of a distant person is completely meaningful to him..
>
> But what about a non-inertial observer? In particular, what about a
> given observer who is undergoing a constant acceleration? What does HE
> say the current age of a distant person is? It turns out to be possible
> for such an accelerating observer to rely on an array of clocks and
> associated "helper friends" (HF's) to give him the answer. Unlike in the
> inertial case, those clocks DON'T run at the same rate. But the ratio of
> the rates of those clocks can be CALCULATED by the given observer. And
> if he (and the HF's) are initially stationary and unaccelerated, they
> can start out with synchronized clocks (and ages). Then, if they all
> fire their identical rockets at the same instant, they can each
> CALCULATE the current reading of each of the other clocks, at each
> instant in their lives. The calculations of each of the HF's all agree.
> So, at any instant in their lives during that acceleration, they each
> share the same "NOW" instant with all of the other HF's. That means that
> the given observer (he), at any instant "tau" in his life, can obtain
> the current age "T" of some distant person (her), by asking
> the HF, who happens to be momentarily co-located with her at that NOW
> instant, what her age is then.
>
> In the above, I said that the given accelerating observer (he)
> (abbreviated, the "AO"), at each instant of his life, can CALCULATE the
> current reading on each of the HF's clocks. What IS that calculation?
>
> Let t = 0 be the reading on his clock at the instant that the constant
> acceleration "A" begins, and let all the HFs' clocks also read zero at
> that instant. Thereafter, he and all of the HFs are accelerating at "A"
> ls/s/s, and the ratio R of any given HF's clock rate to his (the
> observer's (he) whose conclusions we are seeking) clock rate is
>
> R(t) = [ 1 +- L A sech^2 (A t) ],
>
> where L is the constant distance between him and the given HF, and
> sech() is the hyperbolic secant (which is the reciprocal of cosh(), the
> hyperbolic cosine). The "^2" after the sech indicates the square of the
> sech. The "+-" in the above equation means that the second term is ADDED
> to 1 for the HF's who are LEADING the accelerating observer, and the
> second term is SUBTRACTED from 1 for the HF's who are TRAILING the
> accelerating observer. For brevity, I'll just take the case where the HF
> of interest is a leading HF.
>
> The limit of R(t), as "t" goes to zero, is 1 + L A. The limit of R(t),
> as "t" goes to infinity, is 1.0 So R(t) starts out at some positive
> number greater than 1, and then approaches 1.0 as t goes to infinity. So
> eventually, all the clocks essentially tic at the same rate, but early
> in the acceleration, the ratio of the tic rates varies significantly
> with time.
>
> The current reading of the HF's clock (the "Age Change" or "AC"), when
> the AO's clock reads "tau", is
>
> AC(tau) = integral, from zero to tau, of { R(t) dt }
>
> = tau + L tanh( A tau ).
>
> The above result depends on the fact that
>
> sech^2(u) = d{tanh(u)} / d{u}.
>
> As tau goes to zero, AC goes to zero. As tau goes to infinity, AC goes
> to tau + L, which goes to infinity, approaching a slope of 1.0 from above..
>
> So there you have it. That's the calculation that defines "NOW" for the
> AO and all of the HF's, and makes simultaneity at a distance a e amount of absolute time in dift frameferen
> meaningful concept for them. Simultaneity at a distance is not a choice.
a
The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion. But we don't have a clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That's why "NOW" is a local concept..
>
> Michael Leon Fontenot

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>
> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.

Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.

--
Jan

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>
>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
>
> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
>
> --
> Jan
>

Ken has no idea what physics is.

To Ken, physics is a subject where if you publish, then you will become
famous. He believes this because there are lots of books in Barnes & Noble
about famous physicists, but he cannot find books there about famous
chemical engineers.

To Ken, the activity of doing physics is sitting in a chair and thinking
about common experience, and then dreaming up explanations for common
experience. And explanations should be verbal descriptions of motions and
causes; this pushes that, this goes around that. Maybe add a few diagrams,
because physics books have diagrams.

And to Ken, it’s important to make this activity look easy, because that’s
a sign of genius. The more you claim your explanations cover, and the
quicker you can produce the explanation, the more of genius you are.

To Ken, the art of being an important physicist is self-promotion.
Self-publish your work, pay for a spot in Who’s Who, pay for the book to
appear in legitimate libraries, pay to give talks about your work wherever
you can. This is how all the important physicists got famous, according to
Ken.

And now he is indigent because of this boondoggle.

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

On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 20:25:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
> >> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
> >
> > Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> >
> Ken has no idea what physics is.
>
> To Ken, physics is a subject where if you publish, then you will become
> famous. He believes this because there are lots of books in Barnes & Noble
> about famous physicists, but he cannot find books there about famous
> chemical engineers.
>
> To Ken, the activity of doing physics is sitting in a chair and thinking
> about common experience, and then dreaming up explanations for common
> experience. And explanations should be verbal descriptions of motions and
> causes; this pushes that, this goes around that. Maybe add a few diagrams,
> because physics books have diagrams.
>
> And to Ken, it’s important to make this activity look easy, because that’s
> a sign of genius. The more you claim your explanations cover, and the
> quicker you can produce the explanation, the more of genius you are.
>
> To Ken, the art of being an important physicist is self-promotion.
> Self-publish your work, pay for a spot in Who’s Who, pay for the book to
> appear in legitimate libraries, pay to give talks about your work wherever
> you can. This is how all the important physicists got famous, according to
> Ken.

And to Bod, any lie, any fabrication, any slander is justified,
when against an enemy of his beloved Shit.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 20:25:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
>>>
>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jan
>>>
>> Ken has no idea what physics is.
>>
>> To Ken, physics is a subject where if you publish, then you will become
>> famous. He believes this because there are lots of books in Barnes & Noble
>> about famous physicists, but he cannot find books there about famous
>> chemical engineers.
>>
>> To Ken, the activity of doing physics is sitting in a chair and thinking
>> about common experience, and then dreaming up explanations for common
>> experience. And explanations should be verbal descriptions of motions and
>> causes; this pushes that, this goes around that. Maybe add a few diagrams,
>> because physics books have diagrams.
>>
>> And to Ken, it’s important to make this activity look easy, because that’s
>> a sign of genius. The more you claim your explanations cover, and the
>> quicker you can produce the explanation, the more of genius you are.
>>
>> To Ken, the art of being an important physicist is self-promotion.
>> Self-publish your work, pay for a spot in Who’s Who, pay for the book to
>> appear in legitimate libraries, pay to give talks about your work wherever
>> you can. This is how all the important physicists got famous, according to
>> Ken.
>
> And to Bod, any lie, any fabrication, any slander is justified,
> when against an enemy of his beloved Shit.
>
>

Woz, you are WAY too thin-skinned to be on Usenet.

Because of your long-standing ideas that are opposed to relativity, without
the benefit of actually being educated in the subject, you left yourself
open decades ago to unbridled ridicule and mockery. And because you
persisted in the same vein, unbridled ridicule and mockery are all you
receive, from now until the day you die.

Normal people who take offense at that treatment leave the place where they
are being abused. Abnormal people with serious interpersonal problems (like
yourself), tend to stay anyway and they get more and more bitter about the
abuse, complaining about it constantly (as you do).

This has nothing to do with relativity. It would be true on ANY Usenet
forum where you came in without knowing what you’re talking about and
having contrary ideas. It’s a behavioral set-up, and you are now hopeless
engrossed in it, a compulsive addict where you physically can no longer
turn away.

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

On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 20:45:11 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 20:25:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
> >>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
> >>>
> >>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jan
> >>>
> >> Ken has no idea what physics is.
> >>
> >> To Ken, physics is a subject where if you publish, then you will become
> >> famous. He believes this because there are lots of books in Barnes & Noble
> >> about famous physicists, but he cannot find books there about famous
> >> chemical engineers.
> >>
> >> To Ken, the activity of doing physics is sitting in a chair and thinking
> >> about common experience, and then dreaming up explanations for common
> >> experience. And explanations should be verbal descriptions of motions and
> >> causes; this pushes that, this goes around that. Maybe add a few diagrams,
> >> because physics books have diagrams.
> >>
> >> And to Ken, it’s important to make this activity look easy, because that’s
> >> a sign of genius. The more you claim your explanations cover, and the
> >> quicker you can produce the explanation, the more of genius you are.
> >>
> >> To Ken, the art of being an important physicist is self-promotion.
> >> Self-publish your work, pay for a spot in Who’s Who, pay for the book to
> >> appear in legitimate libraries, pay to give talks about your work wherever
> >> you can. This is how all the important physicists got famous, according to
> >> Ken.
> >
> > And to Bod, any lie, any fabrication, any slander is justified,
> > when against an enemy of his beloved Shit.
> >
> >
> Woz, you are WAY too thin-skinned to be on Usenet.

Bod, poor halfbrain, yet I am.

>
> Because of your long-standing ideas that are opposed to relativity, without
> the benefit of actually being educated in the subject, you left yourself
> open decades ago to unbridled ridicule and mockery. And because you
> persisted in the same vein, unbridled ridicule and mockery are all you
> receive, from now until the day you die.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
insane religion TAI will keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did; and stinking lies of
relativistic stinkers like yourself can do exactly nothing
about it.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 20:45:11 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 20:25:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
>>>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>> Ken has no idea what physics is.
>>>>
>>>> To Ken, physics is a subject where if you publish, then you will become
>>>> famous. He believes this because there are lots of books in Barnes & Noble
>>>> about famous physicists, but he cannot find books there about famous
>>>> chemical engineers.
>>>>
>>>> To Ken, the activity of doing physics is sitting in a chair and thinking
>>>> about common experience, and then dreaming up explanations for common
>>>> experience. And explanations should be verbal descriptions of motions and
>>>> causes; this pushes that, this goes around that. Maybe add a few diagrams,
>>>> because physics books have diagrams.
>>>>
>>>> And to Ken, it’s important to make this activity look easy, because that’s
>>>> a sign of genius. The more you claim your explanations cover, and the
>>>> quicker you can produce the explanation, the more of genius you are.
>>>>
>>>> To Ken, the art of being an important physicist is self-promotion.
>>>> Self-publish your work, pay for a spot in Who’s Who, pay for the book to
>>>> appear in legitimate libraries, pay to give talks about your work wherever
>>>> you can. This is how all the important physicists got famous, according to
>>>> Ken.
>>>
>>> And to Bod, any lie, any fabrication, any slander is justified,
>>> when against an enemy of his beloved Shit.
>>>
>>>
>> Woz, you are WAY too thin-skinned to be on Usenet.
>
> Bod, poor halfbrain, yet I am.

Well, let me clarify that you are WAY too thin-skinned to be on Usenet and
not appear like a wounded, self-indulgent, whiner.

>
>
>>
>> Because of your long-standing ideas that are opposed to relativity, without
>> the benefit of actually being educated in the subject, you left yourself
>> open decades ago to unbridled ridicule and mockery. And because you
>> persisted in the same vein, unbridled ridicule and mockery are all you
>> receive, from now until the day you die.
>
> And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
> insane religion TAI will keep measuring t'=t, just like
> all serious clocks always did; and stinking lies of
> relativistic stinkers like yourself can do exactly nothing
> about it.
>
>

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

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.

Absolute time is science. That's why they use absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock.
>
> --
> Jan

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 20:45:11 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Because of your long-standing ideas that are opposed to relativity, without
> > the benefit of actually being educated in the subject, you left yourself
> > open decades ago to unbridled ridicule and mockery. And because you
> > persisted in the same vein, unbridled ridicule and mockery are all you
> > receive, from now until the day you die.
>
> And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
> insane religion TAI will keep measuring t'=t, just like
> all serious clocks always did; and stinking lies of
> relativistic stinkers like yourself can do exactly nothing
> about it.

OK, I'll bite one more time.
Please explain to us how an astronaut on the Moon, or on Mars
is going to establish what the TAI it is.

To the nearest nanosecond please,

Jan

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:25:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
> >> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
> >
> > Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> >
> Ken has no idea what physics is.
>
> To Ken, physics is a subject where if you publish, then you will become
> famous. He believes this because there are lots of books in Barnes & Noble
> about famous physicists, but he cannot find books there about famous
> chemical engineers.
>
> To Ken, the activity of doing physics is sitting in a chair and thinking
> about common experience, and then dreaming up explanations for common
> experience. And explanations should be verbal descriptions of motions and
> causes; this pushes that, this goes around that. Maybe add a few diagrams,
> because physics books have diagrams.
>
> And to Ken, it’s important to make this activity look easy, because that’s
> a sign of genius. The more you claim your explanations cover, and the
> quicker you can produce the explanation, the more of genius you are.
>
> To Ken, the art of being an important physicist is self-promotion.
> Self-publish your work, pay for a spot in Who’s Who, pay for the book to
> appear in legitimate libraries, pay to give talks about your work wherever
> you can. This is how all the important physicists got famous, according to
> Ken.

To Bodkin, he think that Einstein's obsolete physics is the standard and use it to criticize any new work on physics.
>
> And now he is indigent because of this boondoggle.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 20:45:11 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Because of your long-standing ideas that are opposed to relativity, without
>>> the benefit of actually being educated in the subject, you left yourself
>>> open decades ago to unbridled ridicule and mockery. And because you
>>> persisted in the same vein, unbridled ridicule and mockery are all you
>>> receive, from now until the day you die.
>>
>> And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
>> insane religion TAI will keep measuring t'=t, just like
>> all serious clocks always did; and stinking lies of
>> relativistic stinkers like yourself can do exactly nothing
>> about it.
>
> OK, I'll bite one more time.
> Please explain to us how an astronaut on the Moon, or on Mars
> is going to establish what the TAI it is.
>
> To the nearest nanosecond please,
>
> Jan
>

Doesn’t matter to Woz. What counts is ordinary people, living on the
surface of the earth, and no other applications are important.

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

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:25:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
>>>
>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jan
>>>
>> Ken has no idea what physics is.
>>
>> To Ken, physics is a subject where if you publish, then you will become
>> famous. He believes this because there are lots of books in Barnes & Noble
>> about famous physicists, but he cannot find books there about famous
>> chemical engineers.
>>
>> To Ken, the activity of doing physics is sitting in a chair and thinking
>> about common experience, and then dreaming up explanations for common
>> experience. And explanations should be verbal descriptions of motions and
>> causes; this pushes that, this goes around that. Maybe add a few diagrams,
>> because physics books have diagrams.
>>
>> And to Ken, it’s important to make this activity look easy, because that’s
>> a sign of genius. The more you claim your explanations cover, and the
>> quicker you can produce the explanation, the more of genius you are.
>>
>> To Ken, the art of being an important physicist is self-promotion.
>> Self-publish your work, pay for a spot in Who’s Who, pay for the book to
>> appear in legitimate libraries, pay to give talks about your work wherever
>> you can. This is how all the important physicists got famous, according to
>> Ken.
>
> To Bodkin, he think that Einstein's obsolete physics is the standard and
> use it to criticize any new work on physics.

Two comments:

1. It’s not just Einstein’s physics. It’s 17th century physics, 18th
century physics, 19th century physics, 20th century physics, and 21st
century physics. You don’t know ANY of it.

2. Any scientific idea has to meet certain criteria to even be called
science. You inventing something, creating something, and calling it “new
physics” doesn’t make it physics. People who look at your stuff can tell
right away it’s not even physics, no matter what you call it.

>>
>> And now he is indigent because of this boondoggle.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 20:25:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
>>>
>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jan
>>>
>> Ken has no idea what physics is.
>>
>> To Ken, physics is a subject where if you publish, then you will become
>> famous. He believes this because there are lots of books in Barnes & Noble
>> about famous physicists, but he cannot find books there about famous
>> chemical engineers.
>>
>> To Ken, the activity of doing physics is sitting in a chair and thinking
>> about common experience, and then dreaming up explanations for common
>> experience. And explanations should be verbal descriptions of motions and
>> causes; this pushes that, this goes around that. Maybe add a few diagrams,
>> because physics books have diagrams.
>>
>> And to Ken, it’s important to make this activity look easy, because that’s
>> a sign of genius. The more you claim your explanations cover, and the
>> quicker you can produce the explanation, the more of genius you are.
>>
>> To Ken, the art of being an important physicist is self-promotion.
>> Self-publish your work, pay for a spot in Who’s Who, pay for the book to
>> appear in legitimate libraries, pay to give talks about your work wherever
>> you can. This is how all the important physicists got famous, according to
>> Ken.
>
> And to Bod, any lie, any fabrication, any slander is justified,

Nothing I said about Ken is a lie or a slander.

> when against an enemy of his beloved Shit.
>
>

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

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> To Ken, physics is a subject where if you publish, then you will become
> famous. He believes this because there are lots of books in Barnes &
> Noble about famous physicists, but he cannot find books there about
> famous chemical engineers.

"publish or perish", Ken is right, but he is stealing lemmas and theories.

On 4/5/2022 1:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 20:25:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
>>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
>>>>
>>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>> Ken has no idea what physics is.
>>>
>>> To Ken, physics is a subject where if you publish, then you will become
>>> famous. He believes this because there are lots of books in Barnes & Noble
>>> about famous physicists, but he cannot find books there about famous
>>> chemical engineers.
>>>
>>> To Ken, the activity of doing physics is sitting in a chair and thinking
>>> about common experience, and then dreaming up explanations for common
>>> experience. And explanations should be verbal descriptions of motions and
>>> causes; this pushes that, this goes around that. Maybe add a few diagrams,
>>> because physics books have diagrams.
>>>
>>> And to Ken, it’s important to make this activity look easy, because that’s
>>> a sign of genius. The more you claim your explanations cover, and the
>>> quicker you can produce the explanation, the more of genius you are.
>>>
>>> To Ken, the art of being an important physicist is self-promotion.
>>> Self-publish your work, pay for a spot in Who’s Who, pay for the book to
>>> appear in legitimate libraries, pay to give talks about your work wherever
>>> you can. This is how all the important physicists got famous, according to
>>> Ken.
>>
>> And to Bod, any lie, any fabrication, any slander is justified,
>> when against an enemy of his beloved Shit.
>>
>>
>
> Woz, you are WAY too thin-skinned to be on Usenet.
>
> Because of your long-standing ideas that are opposed to relativity, without
> the benefit of actually being educated in the subject, you left yourself
> open decades ago to unbridled ridicule and mockery. And because you
> persisted in the same vein, unbridled ridicule and mockery are all you
> receive, from now until the day you die.
>
> Normal people who take offense at that treatment leave the place where they
> are being abused. Abnormal people with serious interpersonal problems (like
> yourself), tend to stay anyway and they get more and more bitter about the
> abuse, complaining about it constantly (as you do).
>
> This has nothing to do with relativity. It would be true on ANY Usenet
> forum where you came in without knowing what you’re talking about and
> having contrary ideas.

> It’s a behavioral set-up, and you are now hopeless
> engrossed in it, a compulsive addict where you physically can no longer
> turn away.

Strangely enough roughly once a week you tell the truth about yourself
while attempting to lay some offensive behavior at the feet of your
victim(s.) Here you're saying Woz is a weak while a willing victim
without accepting responsibility for your abusive behavior.

The adage, "Beat me, whip me, make me write bad checks" is a predecessor
to your sick behavior that's as warped as any ever seen on Usenet.

You are mentally ill and unwilling to seek help for it. As such you're
in a worse category than your victims.

On 4/5/2022 4:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 20:45:11 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Because of your long-standing ideas that are opposed to relativity, without
>>>> the benefit of actually being educated in the subject, you left yourself
>>>> open decades ago to unbridled ridicule and mockery. And because you
>>>> persisted in the same vein, unbridled ridicule and mockery are all you
>>>> receive, from now until the day you die.
>>>
>>> And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
>>> insane religion TAI will keep measuring t'=t, just like
>>> all serious clocks always did; and stinking lies of
>>> relativistic stinkers like yourself can do exactly nothing
>>> about it.
>>
>> OK, I'll bite one more time.
>> Please explain to us how an astronaut on the Moon, or on Mars
>> is going to establish what the TAI it is.
>>
>> To the nearest nanosecond please,
>>
>> Jan
>>
>
> Doesn’t matter to Woz. What counts is ordinary people, living on the
> surface of the earth, and no other applications are important.
>
That's right. He will only parrot "And in the meantime in the real
world, forbidden by your insane religion TAI will keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did". With as much thought as an
actual parrot has when repeating "Polly wanna cracker! BRAAWWK!!" He
doesn't understand how TAI time is valid only near the geoid, and only
when stationary or moving slowly relative to it.

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/5/2022 1:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>
>> It’s a behavioral set-up, and you are now hopeless
>> engrossed in it, a compulsive addict where you physically can no longer
>> turn away.
>
> Strangely enough roughly once a week you tell the truth about yourself
> while attempting to lay some offensive behavior at the feet of your
> victim(s.) Here you're saying Woz is a weak while a willing victim
> without accepting responsibility for your abusive behavior.
>
> The adage, "Beat me, whip me, make me write bad checks" is a predecessor
> to your sick behavior that's as warped as any ever seen on Usenet.
>
> You are mentally ill and unwilling to seek help for it. As such you're
> in a worse category than your victims.
>

So, whodat, I have three calls to action for you.

First, you criticize my negativity to some posters here, and you have said
that this group should be more open and tolerant and positive to other
posters’ ideas. So let’s see what that looks like. Be the thought leader by
example and SHOW me by direct, positive response to Seto, Wozniak, or
Hachel what you think should be the proper tone in a sustained conversation
with these three. Let’s see what you’ve got.

Second, in case the policy you’re advocating is just no response at all to
cranks — just letting them have their air time without comment one way or
the other — let’s just note that the only person you have responded to here
lately is me. And when you’ve done that, it’s been with undiluted
negativity. I mean, look at YOUR OWN WORDS above. IF the best policy you
are advocating is no reaction at all, then perhaps you could try that one
on for size yourself.

Third, I believe you said that you had added me, or were imminently adding
me, to your killfile. Now, you see, there is a small action called for: do
what you say you’re going to do, and don’t announce that you’ll do
something you have no intention of doing.

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

On 4/5/2022 5:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> On 4/5/2022 1:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>
>>> It’s a behavioral set-up, and you are now hopeless
>>> engrossed in it, a compulsive addict where you physically can no longer
>>> turn away.
>>
>> Strangely enough roughly once a week you tell the truth about yourself
>> while attempting to lay some offensive behavior at the feet of your
>> victim(s.) Here you're saying Woz is a weak while a willing victim
>> without accepting responsibility for your abusive behavior.
>>
>> The adage, "Beat me, whip me, make me write bad checks" is a predecessor
>> to your sick behavior that's as warped as any ever seen on Usenet.
>>
>> You are mentally ill and unwilling to seek help for it. As such you're
>> in a worse category than your victims.
>>
>
> So, whodat, I have three calls to action for you.
>
> First, you criticize my negativity to some posters here, and you have said
> that this group should be more open and tolerant and positive to other
> posters’ ideas. So let’s see what that looks like. Be the thought leader by
> example and SHOW me by direct, positive response to Seto, Wozniak, or
> Hachel what you think should be the proper tone in a sustained conversation
> with these three. Let’s see what you’ve got.
>
> Second, in case the policy you’re advocating is just no response at all to
> cranks — just letting them have their air time without comment one way or
> the other — let’s just note that the only person you have responded to here
> lately is me. And when you’ve done that, it’s been with undiluted
> negativity. I mean, look at YOUR OWN WORDS above. IF the best policy you
> are advocating is no reaction at all, then perhaps you could try that one
> on for size yourself.
>
> Third, I believe you said that you had added me, or were imminently adding
> me, to your killfile. Now, you see, there is a small action called for: do
> what you say you’re going to do, and don’t announce that you’ll do
> something you have no intention of doing.

My posting was about the indefensible you, and you have supported
itsvalidity. Thanks.

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/5/2022 5:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2022 1:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> It’s a behavioral set-up, and you are now hopeless
>>>> engrossed in it, a compulsive addict where you physically can no longer
>>>> turn away.
>>>
>>> Strangely enough roughly once a week you tell the truth about yourself
>>> while attempting to lay some offensive behavior at the feet of your
>>> victim(s.) Here you're saying Woz is a weak while a willing victim
>>> without accepting responsibility for your abusive behavior.
>>>
>>> The adage, "Beat me, whip me, make me write bad checks" is a predecessor
>>> to your sick behavior that's as warped as any ever seen on Usenet.
>>>
>>> You are mentally ill and unwilling to seek help for it. As such you're
>>> in a worse category than your victims.
>>>
>>
>> So, whodat, I have three calls to action for you.
>>
>> First, you criticize my negativity to some posters here, and you have said
>> that this group should be more open and tolerant and positive to other
>> posters’ ideas. So let’s see what that looks like. Be the thought leader by
>> example and SHOW me by direct, positive response to Seto, Wozniak, or
>> Hachel what you think should be the proper tone in a sustained conversation
>> with these three. Let’s see what you’ve got.
>>
>> Second, in case the policy you’re advocating is just no response at all to
>> cranks — just letting them have their air time without comment one way or
>> the other — let’s just note that the only person you have responded to here
>> lately is me. And when you’ve done that, it’s been with undiluted
>> negativity. I mean, look at YOUR OWN WORDS above. IF the best policy you
>> are advocating is no reaction at all, then perhaps you could try that one
>> on for size yourself.
>>
>> Third, I believe you said that you had added me, or were imminently adding
>> me, to your killfile. Now, you see, there is a small action called for: do
>> what you say you’re going to do, and don’t announce that you’ll do
>> something you have no intention of doing.
>
> My posting was about the indefensible you, and you have supported
> itsvalidity. Thanks.
>

Huh. So not interested in heeding your own advice?

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

On 4/5/2022 4:28 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>
>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
>
> Absolute time is science.

No, Stupid Ken, your assertions of absolute time is not science. Jan
just wrote science is not decided by fiat (which is all your assertions
are).

> That's why they use absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock.

No, they do not, Stupid Ken. No reference to your assertion "absolute
time" anywhere in the GPS specs. On the other hand, they do mention
relativity, which is what they actually use to compensate for the ground
clock frequency.