Le 07/04/2022 à 09:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 08:55:19 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> And you show yourself as a crank, daily. So you don't accept Poincaré's
>> synchronization procedure, because for you Poincaré is a "relativist"
>> (whatever that crank word really means) ?
>
> Sorry, stupid Mike, Poincare's procedure is worthless.
> 120 years means an age in telecommunication, and
> Poincare was just an (quite smart, indeed) amateur
> in it.

Poincaré wrote very well. Not only in mathematics and physics, but also
in philosophy for example.

We should find an article where he talks about synchronization.

I know he said that "subjects placed on different theaters had different
notions of simultaneity".

But I don't remember if he was talking about anisochrony or chronotropy.

These two words do not have the same meaning for me and lead to different
mathematical relationships.

R.H.

On 4/7/2022 10:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 9:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein will make the same misdiagnosis in 1905.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its timing is very pretty, but it is pointless.
>>>>>
>>>>> We will have to wait 70 years (1985) for a real genius (me) to gently lift
>>>>> a finger.
>>>>
>>>> Richard, again I want to make the observation that the man who dubs himself
>>>> a world-class genius has likely missed a few important things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It’s also worth mentioning that when a man declares himself a world-class
>>> genius and says that he’s had an a priori insight about the universe that
>>> no one else in the world understands or accepts, then you’re also going to
>>> find that people will largely ignore you simply because of that attitude
>>> alone.
>>
>> Saying or acting has the same effect.
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is because such an attitude is invariably a symptom of mental
>>> delusions, and so the scientific claim can be considered useless also.
>>
>> Strange that even if a poster is technically right while being
>> antisocial the outcome is much the same. You get so tied up in
>> being right that you invariably miss your own points.
>>
>
> Please respond to Hachel yourself in the manner you think his post
> warrants.

No.

So you're the boss of me? Who knew! You're sidestepping the issue(s)
I've raised, attempting to distract all the readers. Hachel plays no
role in my reply to you. After all, you're the one who told me that
posting to Usenet exposes me to criticism. True then for you as well.

I thought you'd be pleased. Why aren't you?

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 10:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2022 9:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein will make the same misdiagnosis in 1905.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its timing is very pretty, but it is pointless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We will have to wait 70 years (1985) for a real genius (me) to gently lift
>>>>>> a finger.
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard, again I want to make the observation that the man who dubs himself
>>>>> a world-class genius has likely missed a few important things.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It’s also worth mentioning that when a man declares himself a world-class
>>>> genius and says that he’s had an a priori insight about the universe that
>>>> no one else in the world understands or accepts, then you’re also going to
>>>> find that people will largely ignore you simply because of that attitude
>>>> alone.
>>>
>>> Saying or acting has the same effect.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is because such an attitude is invariably a symptom of mental
>>>> delusions, and so the scientific claim can be considered useless also.
>>>
>>> Strange that even if a poster is technically right while being
>>> antisocial the outcome is much the same. You get so tied up in
>>> being right that you invariably miss your own points.
>>>
>>
>> Please respond to Hachel yourself in the manner you think his post
>> warrants.
>
> No.

Ah.

So let’s summarize.

You have lodged complaints to me about the negativity of my responses to
posts by Wozniak, Hachel, and Seto, for example.

In so doing, you exhibit the very same negativity that you complain about,
in the only responses you make on this forum, which are to me.

Using the word “encourage” loosely, you encourage me to be more positive in
my engagement with people like this. However, you decline to be positive in
any engagement with those same people.

So, since bald hypocrisy seems to be the only thing you’d exhibit by
example, is that what you’re advocating that I emulate?

>
> So you're the boss of me? Who knew! You're sidestepping the issue(s)
> I've raised, attempting to distract all the readers. Hachel plays no
> role in my reply to you. After all, you're the one who told me that
> posting to Usenet exposes me to criticism. True then for you as well.
>
> I thought you'd be pleased. Why aren't you?
>

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

Den 07.04.2022 16:04, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 07/04/2022 à 06:52, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> I have obviously understood very well, for decades that I have been
>>> talking about it, how Einstein's synchronization procedure worked.
>>
>> It didn't and it never will. Its requirements are ridiculous.
>
>
> Einstein's synchronization is ridiculous.
>
> It assumes that the universe is made on the principle of "universal
> present time".

A strange statement.
According to Einstein's definition of simultaneity,
two clocks can be synchronous and stay synchronous
only if they are stationary in the same inertial frame.

On Earth, this can only be achieved if the clocks
are on exact the same gravitational potential.

UTC and TAI clocks are NOT synchronous according to
Einstein's definition, and SI-clocks on different altitude,
(including satellites), and/or with relative speed,
will never stay synchronous.

So what do you mean by "universal present time"?

>
> In short, Hachel's isochrony is pure nonsense.
>
> So he synchronizes all his clocks and he's happy.
>
> His blindness is total.
>
> I'm going to tell you where all this darkness (which thinks itself
> light) comes from.
>
> Initially, it comes from the first telescopes, and the observation of
> the moons of Jupiter.
>
> A huge blunder will then take place in the history of humanity.
>
> Ole Romer will notice that the moons of Jupiter seem to rotate more or
> less quickly depending on whether Jupiter is approaching or moving away
> from the earth.

Right.
Since Rømer understood that the orbital period of Io
would be constant, what was varying must be the time from
the beginning of an eclipse to the eclipse was observed on Earth.
The cause of the variation must be the varying distance
Earth-Jupiter. This meant that the speed of light must be limited.
Since Jupiter's and Earth's orbits where known (at least approximately),
Rømer was able to calculate the speed of light as:
(Greatest distance difference)/(greatest time difference,22 minutes)
He found it to be ~2.2e8 m/s.

A bit low, but this was the very first measurement of
the speed of light.

What's your problem with this?
What "huge blunder will then take place in
the history of humanity"?

>
> Its timing is very pretty, but it is pointless.
>
> We will have to wait 70 years (1985) for a real genius (me) to gently
> lift a finger.
What exactly is your problem with Einstein's definition of simultaneity?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 21:55:04 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 07.04.2022 16:04, skrev Richard Hachel:
> > Le 07/04/2022 à 06:52, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >>> I have obviously understood very well, for decades that I have been
> >>> talking about it, how Einstein's synchronization procedure worked.
> >>
> >> It didn't and it never will. Its requirements are ridiculous.
> >
> >
> > Einstein's synchronization is ridiculous.
> >
> > It assumes that the universe is made on the principle of "universal
> > present time".
> A strange statement.
> According to Einstein's definition of simultaneity,
> two clocks can be synchronous and stay synchronous
> only if they are stationary in the same inertial frame.

Put your 'Einstein's definition of simultaneity" straight
into your dumb, fanatic ass, where it belongs.
Two events are simultaneous when its TAI/GPS/UTC time
coordinate is equal. That's how things are in the world
we inhabit. You can scream "NOOOOOOOOO!!!!" as much
as you want, nothing is going to change.

>
> On Earth, this can only be achieved if the clocks
> are on exact the same gravitational potential.
>
> UTC and TAI clocks are NOT synchronous according to
> Einstein's definition

That's too bad - either for TAI and GPS or for your idiot
guru.

Le 07/04/2022 à 21:55, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> The cause of the variation must be the varying distance
Earth-Jupiter.

Exactly.

This is obviously the right reason.

Thank you for your scientific and non-aggressive intervention.

So let's get back to the reasoning: the further Jupiter moves away, the
slower its moons seem to rotate.

The closer Jupiter approaches, the faster its moons appear to spin.

We must then ask ourselves a question, that is to say, be a good scientist
(a good scientist does not just look through his telescope, he wants to
understand what he sees).

And the question the scientist asks is "Hey! That's weird! What's going
on?"

This is the real question of a scientist, it is, constantly: "But what is
happening?"

Once the question has been asked, we must try to provide answers, or
hypotheses.

Romer will then attempt to provide a hypothesis. He will think that the
speed of light may be limited.

This could of course be an explanation.

But for me, especially in view of current knowledge of the theory of
relativity, it is not the right one.

The other hypothesis is much more beautiful, more obvious, when one
understands it well, and incredibly more prophetic with regard to all the
relativistic experiments of the 20th century.

This strange phenomenon discovered by Romer is not the "speed of light",
it is universal anisochrony.

Do you see the difference?

This means that there is no "absolute and symmetrical present" in a given
frame of reference.

This cup on the table and this pencil on this cupboard will never live in
"perfect absolute present", in "perfect simultaneity".

Each object, each watch, sees the other object delaying a time t=x/c on
it.

Actual value. Unavoidable. Physical.

This is the relativistic effect of the first degree.

It touches the notion of universal simultaneity which becomes null and
void by POSITIONAL change.

A second relativistic effect (of the second degree also exists). This is
the effect on chronotropy, and this effect is no longer due to position,
but to speed.

Two objects that move relative to each other at high speed not only no
longer have the same notion of universal present time
(unless they pass each other in an instant in the same place), but above
all their watches seem to beat each other less quickly.

But that is something else.

It is the relativity of chronotropy by change of inertial frame of
reference.

What Romer had discovered, but without realizing it, was the relativity of
simultaneity by positional change.

R.H.

On 4/7/2022 1:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 10:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Einstein will make the same misdiagnosis in 1905.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its timing is very pretty, but it is pointless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We will have to wait 70 years (1985) for a real genius (me) to gently lift
>>>>>>> a finger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard, again I want to make the observation that the man who dubs himself
>>>>>> a world-class genius has likely missed a few important things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s also worth mentioning that when a man declares himself a world-class
>>>>> genius and says that he’s had an a priori insight about the universe that
>>>>> no one else in the world understands or accepts, then you’re also going to
>>>>> find that people will largely ignore you simply because of that attitude
>>>>> alone.
>>>>
>>>> Saying or acting has the same effect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This is because such an attitude is invariably a symptom of mental
>>>>> delusions, and so the scientific claim can be considered useless also.
>>>>
>>>> Strange that even if a poster is technically right while being
>>>> antisocial the outcome is much the same. You get so tied up in
>>>> being right that you invariably miss your own points.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please respond to Hachel yourself in the manner you think his post
>>> warrants.
>>
>> No.
>
> Ah.
>
> So let’s summarize.
>
> You have lodged complaints to me about the negativity of my responses to
> posts by Wozniak, Hachel, and Seto, for example.
>
> In so doing, you exhibit the very same negativity that you complain about,
> in the only responses you make on this forum, which are to me.
>
> Using the word “encourage” loosely, you encourage me to be more positive in
> my engagement with people like this. However, you decline to be positive in
> any engagement with those same people.

Why do you persist in mislabeling your antisocial behavior by shifting
the goalposts? Argumentation will not move the emphasis to me. You are,
and have been, the topic all along. But it appears the time may have
arrived to let you off the hook because conditions have changed.

> So, since bald hypocrisy seems to be the only thing you’d exhibit by
> example, is that what you’re advocating that I emulate?

Once again, you misdirect and misunderstand, apparently purposely. I
have portrayed an example using you as the model. It is possibly clear
to everyone but you what I have been doing. As is usual for people in
your situation, you have, during this exercise, attempted to invalidate
my demonstrated example(s) by improving your conduct. Keep up the good
work and I will have no message for you by way of complaint.

Sometimes (rarely) this approach works. But do give some consideration
to the possibility that one or more of your protagonists is actually
trolling you. The nature of that game has changed somewhat over the
years. It used to be "hit and run." Today a popular gambit engages the
victim for a long term, the longer the term the greater the demented
achievement. I will now attempt to disengage.

>> So you're the boss of me? Who knew! You're sidestepping the issue(s)
>> I've raised, attempting to distract all the readers. Hachel plays no
>> role in my reply to you. After all, you're the one who told me that
>> posting to Usenet exposes me to criticism. True then for you as well.
>>
>> I thought you'd be pleased. Why aren't you?
>>
>
>
>

On 4/7/2022 1:37 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

> But I don't remember if he was talking about anisochrony or chronotropy.
>
> These two words do not have the same meaning for me and lead to
> different mathematical relationships.

Those made-up words of yours do not have ANY meaning to anyone in the
field of physics!

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 1:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2022 10:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Einstein will make the same misdiagnosis in 1905.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Its timing is very pretty, but it is pointless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We will have to wait 70 years (1985) for a real genius (me) to gently lift
>>>>>>>> a finger.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard, again I want to make the observation that the man who dubs himself
>>>>>>> a world-class genius has likely missed a few important things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s also worth mentioning that when a man declares himself a world-class
>>>>>> genius and says that he’s had an a priori insight about the universe that
>>>>>> no one else in the world understands or accepts, then you’re also going to
>>>>>> find that people will largely ignore you simply because of that attitude
>>>>>> alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Saying or acting has the same effect.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is because such an attitude is invariably a symptom of mental
>>>>>> delusions, and so the scientific claim can be considered useless also.
>>>>>
>>>>> Strange that even if a poster is technically right while being
>>>>> antisocial the outcome is much the same. You get so tied up in
>>>>> being right that you invariably miss your own points.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please respond to Hachel yourself in the manner you think his post
>>>> warrants.
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Ah.
>>
>> So let’s summarize.
>>
>> You have lodged complaints to me about the negativity of my responses to
>> posts by Wozniak, Hachel, and Seto, for example.
>>
>> In so doing, you exhibit the very same negativity that you complain about,
>> in the only responses you make on this forum, which are to me.
>>
>> Using the word “encourage” loosely, you encourage me to be more positive in
>> my engagement with people like this. However, you decline to be positive in
>> any engagement with those same people.
>
> Why do you persist in mislabeling your antisocial behavior by shifting
> the goalposts? Argumentation will not move the emphasis to me. You are,
> and have been, the topic all along. But it appears the time may have
> arrived to let you off the hook because conditions have changed.

No, sir, I have not been the topic all along. That may be what you would
LIKE to be true. But as soon as you offer an opinion about my behavior,
then your behavior becomes part of the conversation.

You don’t want your own behavior to come under inspection?
Then why do you insist that when I offer an opinion on Seto’s behavior,
then MINE comes under inspection.
What you’d have apply to me, will also apply to you, whether you
hypocritically dodge or not.

>
>> So, since bald hypocrisy seems to be the only thing you’d exhibit by
>> example, is that what you’re advocating that I emulate?
>
> Once again, you misdirect and misunderstand, apparently purposely. I
> have portrayed an example using you as the model. It is possibly clear
> to everyone but you what I have been doing. As is usual for people in
> your situation, you have, during this exercise, attempted to invalidate
> my demonstrated example(s) by improving your conduct. Keep up the good
> work and I will have no message for you by way of complaint.
>
> Sometimes (rarely) this approach works. But do give some consideration
> to the possibility that one or more of your protagonists is actually
> trolling you. The nature of that game has changed somewhat over the
> years. It used to be "hit and run." Today a popular gambit engages the
> victim for a long term, the longer the term the greater the demented
> achievement. I will now attempt to disengage.

You have attempted to disengage for some time now. I wonder what’s keeping
you?

>
>
>>> So you're the boss of me? Who knew! You're sidestepping the issue(s)
>>> I've raised, attempting to distract all the readers. Hachel plays no
>>> role in my reply to you. After all, you're the one who told me that
>>> posting to Usenet exposes me to criticism. True then for you as well.
>>>
>>> I thought you'd be pleased. Why aren't you?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

Le 07/04/2022 à 22:55, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>
>> But I don't remember if he was talking about anisochrony or chronotropy.
>>
>> These two words do not have the same meaning for me and lead to
>> different mathematical relationships.
>
> Those made-up words of yours do not have ANY meaning to anyone in the
> field of physics!

Let's admit.

But I have the weird feeling that it's not entirely my fault.

R.H.

On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:

<snip>

> You have attempted to disengage for some time now. I wonder what’s keeping
> you?

Apparently that's clear to everyone but you.

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You have attempted to disengage for some time now. I wonder what’s keeping
>> you?
>
> Apparently that's clear to everyone but you.
>

Really? What responses have you gotten from anyone but me that would give
you that impression?

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

On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> You have attempted to disengage for some time now. I wonder what’s keeping
>>> you?
>>
>> Apparently that's clear to everyone but you.
>>
>
> Really? What responses have you gotten from anyone but me that would give
> you that impression?

How come you're the only one here who doesn't have a clue?

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> You have attempted to disengage for some time now. I wonder what’s keeping
>>>> you?
>>>
>>> Apparently that's clear to everyone but you.
>>>
>>
>> Really? What responses have you gotten from anyone but me that would give
>> you that impression?
>
> How come you're the only one here who doesn't have a clue?
>

So, no responses at all.

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

On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> You have attempted to disengage for some time now. I wonder what’s keeping
>>>>> you?
>>>>
>>>> Apparently that's clear to everyone but you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really? What responses have you gotten from anyone but me that would give
>>> you that impression?
>>
>> How come you're the only one here who doesn't have a clue?
>>
>
> So, no responses at all.

Gracious, it appears I have (not so) accidentally taken to wrestling
with the proverbial pig.

Sadly, you still don't have a clue.

On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 22:45:00 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Two objects that move relative to each other at high speed not only no
> longer have the same notion of universal present time
> (unless they pass each other in an instant in the same place), but above
> all their watches seem to beat each other less quickly.

Since we have GPS we can be absolutely sure, that these
delusions are just some delusions.

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You have attempted to disengage for some time now. I wonder what’s keeping
>>>>>> you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently that's clear to everyone but you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? What responses have you gotten from anyone but me that would give
>>>> you that impression?
>>>
>>> How come you're the only one here who doesn't have a clue?
>>>
>>
>> So, no responses at all.
>
> Gracious, it appears I have (not so) accidentally taken to wrestling
> with the proverbial pig.
>
> Sadly, you still don't have a clue.
>

Oh but I do. The question really is, am I to play your game?

You see, it’s apparent (at least to me) when you have an unspoken aim in
your mode of discussion. The end justifies the means. And if you deem me
the pig, it was your decision to wrestle, and it was your decision to step
into the sty.

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

Den 07.04.2022 22:44, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 07/04/2022 à 21:55, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>
>> The cause of the variation must be the varying distance Earth-Jupiter.

Why do you snip what you are responding to?

>
> Exactly.
>
> This is obviously the right reason.
>
> Thank you for your scientific and non-aggressive intervention.
>
> So let's get back to the reasoning: the further Jupiter moves away, the
> slower its moons seem to rotate.
>
> The closer Jupiter approaches, the faster its moons appear to spin.
>
> We must then ask ourselves a question, that is to say, be a good
> scientist (a good scientist does not just look through his telescope, he
> wants to understand what he sees).
>
> And the question the scientist asks is "Hey! That's weird! What's going
> on?"
>
> This is the real question of a scientist, it is, constantly: "But what
> is happening?"
>
> Once the question has been asked, we must try to provide answers, or
> hypotheses.
>
> Romer will then attempt to provide a hypothesis. He will think that the
> speed of light may be limited.
>
> This could of course be an explanation.
>
> But for me, especially in view of current knowledge of the theory of
> relativity, it is not the right one.
Stop right there!

You claim that the correct interpretation of Rømer's observations
is not that the speed of light is limited.

That means you claim the speed of light is unlimited.
I challenge you to defend your claim!

This is what Rømer did:
(In principle. The details may be slightly different.)

1: Rømer assumed that the orbital period of Io was constant.

2: When Jupiter was in opposition, Rømer measured the orbital
period of Io by measuring the time between the beginning
of two consecutive eclipses.
The orbital time P ≈ 1.77 days ≈ 2548 minutes.
(At opposition the distance Earth-Jupiter changes very
little during 1.77 days.)

3: When Io has made 120 orbits a time To = 12⋅P = 30576 minutes
will have passed since the first eclipse occurred at opposition.

4: Rømer observed the 12th eclipse a time T = 30598 minutes
after he observed the first eclipse at opposition.
At this time Jupiter was in conjunction.

5: At opposition the distance Earth-Jupiter is
Dmin = R_Jupter - R_Earh = (77.83e10 - 14.96e10)m = 62.87e10 m
At conjunction the distance Earth-Jupiter is
Dmax = R_Jupter + R_Earh = (77.83e10 + 14.96e10)m = 92.79e10 m
The difference is D = Dmax - Dmin = 29.92e10 m

6: The reason why he observed the 12th eclipse 22 minutes too
late can only be that the light used 22 minutes to go
the distance D.
c = D/(T-To) = 29.92e10/(22⋅60) m/s ≈ 2.27e8 m/s

This is a bit low. The error must be in Rømer's time measurements.
Remember that the measurements were done during years, and
the clocks were not very precise at the time.

Please explain why the interpretation of Rømer's observations above
is wrong. Be specific. Explain which of the points 1-6 is wrong,
and why.

Incoherent babble like the below won't do!

>
> The other hypothesis is much more beautiful, more obvious, when one
> understands it well, and incredibly more prophetic with regard to all
> the relativistic experiments of the 20th century.
>
> This strange phenomenon discovered by Romer is not the "speed of light",
> it is universal anisochrony.
>
> Do you see the difference?

When you have explained what's wrong with my interpretation of Rømer's
observations, you can explain YOUR interpretation of Rømer's
observations.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Le 08/04/2022 à 15:06, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> When you have explained what's wrong with my interpretation of Rømer's
> observations, you can explain YOUR interpretation of Rømer's
> observations.

Romer will notice that when Jupiter approaches, the moons spin faster; and
that when Jupiter moves away they rotate more slowly.

Idea One: Jupiter's moons actually spin faster because they're happy to
approach Earth, so they start dancing with joy.
And when Jupiter moves away, they are sad, and become more apathetic.
This idea includes an affective aspect of the moons, and a real difference
in the speed of revolution around Jupiter.

But this idea is not taken up by anyone, of course.

We must seek a more logical and scientific cause.

The cause is scientifically obvious.

This is a simple longitudinal Doppler effect.

I think you are, and will continue to be, in agreement with me and the
physicists on this assumption.

But you can well imagine, dear Paul B. Andersen, that we are not going to
stop on such a good intellectual path.

So let's go further:
"But this Doppler effect, what is it due to?"

This is where I no longer agree with physicists: they tell me that it is
due to the speed of light, and affirm that it is "the only possible and
recognized cause".

I say that there are two, and that the second is much more clear, logical
and obvious (internal theoretical perfection, external experimental
perfection) than the first.

In short, I say that it is not due to the speed of light (we observe the
sky live-live, even to the most distant galaxies) but to another property
of space, which I have called anisochrony.

I'm sure you understood perfectly what I meant, and how I explain the
longitudinal Doppler effect of this phenomenon while talking about
instantaneous transfer of information.

I beg the reader who does not understand, to take one or two cups of
coffee and lean head in hands on the chessboard as Kasparov did in order
to understand the theoretical situation and the solution to be understood.

There is bound to be something very important to understand in what I am
saying.

And to answer me, for example: "The speed of light is 3.10^8m/s, we know
it, we have measured it", it's a monster idiocy. It is shown that one has
understood nothing of what the other is explaining. I never said that the
observable, measurable speed of light was not c.
I just said that we observe things through the distorting mirror of
spatial anisochrony, and that this speed is not true, just as all speed is
not true.

The true is Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
and inverse, Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

R.H.

Le 08/04/2022 à 06:19, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 22:45:00 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> Two objects that move relative to each other at high speed not only no
>> longer have the same notion of universal present time
>> (unless they pass each other in an instant in the same place), but above
>> all their watches seem to beat each other less quickly.
>
> Since we have GPS we can be absolutely sure, that these
> delusions are just some delusions.

There is no delirium.

The theory of relativity is of an absolute theoretical logic (although
stuffed with small pitfalls to which it is necessary to pay attention).

It is also proven by multiple very precise experiments.

It is not a theory that I attack, but that I defend.

Simply, I say that it is very badly stated, very badly understood, and
very badly applied in places; with obviously ridiculous theoretical
concepts (space contractions of the traveler of Langevin) and obviously
false results (proper time of the traveler of Tau Ceti).

R.H.

On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 15:58:24 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 08/04/2022 à 06:19, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 22:45:00 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> >> Two objects that move relative to each other at high speed not only no
> >> longer have the same notion of universal present time
> >> (unless they pass each other in an instant in the same place), but above
> >> all their watches seem to beat each other less quickly.
> >
> > Since we have GPS we can be absolutely sure, that these
> > delusions are just some delusions.
> There is no delirium.
>
> The theory of relativity is of an absolute theoretical logic (although
> stuffed with small pitfalls to which it is necessary to pay attention).
>
> It is also proven by multiple very precise experiments.

Unfortunately - in the meantime in the real
world, forbidden by this insane religion TAI
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.
Very simply - people doing real measurements for
real instead in gedankenwelt - don't share your
opinion of how a perfect measurement should
look like.

On 4/8/2022 7:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have attempted to disengage for some time now. I wonder what’s keeping
>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently that's clear to everyone but you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? What responses have you gotten from anyone but me that would give
>>>>> you that impression?
>>>>
>>>> How come you're the only one here who doesn't have a clue?
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, no responses at all.
>>
>> Gracious, it appears I have (not so) accidentally taken to wrestling
>> with the proverbial pig.
>>
>> Sadly, you still don't have a clue.
>>
>
> Oh but I do. The question really is, am I to play your game?

It has never been my game.

> You see, it’s apparent (at least to me) when you have an unspoken aim in
> your mode of discussion. The end justifies the means. And if you deem me
> the pig, it was your decision to wrestle, and it was your decision to step
> into the sty.

Thanks for acknowledging your place in this realm. It is obvious you
wish no improvements. That's your choice, your decision.

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 7:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have attempted to disengage for some time now. I wonder what’s keeping
>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently that's clear to everyone but you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? What responses have you gotten from anyone but me that would give
>>>>>> you that impression?
>>>>>
>>>>> How come you're the only one here who doesn't have a clue?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, no responses at all.
>>>
>>> Gracious, it appears I have (not so) accidentally taken to wrestling
>>> with the proverbial pig.
>>>
>>> Sadly, you still don't have a clue.
>>>
>>
>> Oh but I do. The question really is, am I to play your game?
>
> It has never been my game.

Depends on what “It” you’re referring to. I was referring to the game you
do in fact play.

>
>> You see, it’s apparent (at least to me) when you have an unspoken aim in
>> your mode of discussion. The end justifies the means. And if you deem me
>> the pig, it was your decision to wrestle, and it was your decision to step
>> into the sty.
>
> Thanks for acknowledging your place in this realm. It is obvious you
> wish no improvements. That's your choice, your decision.
>

You apparently missed the conditional in my statement. Notice, please, the
choices YOU made. Also notice the meaning of the adage you referred to. In
the saying about wrestling with pigs, who is the target of that judgment,
the pig or the one who jumps into the sty to wrestle the pig?

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

On 4/8/2022 12:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 7:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have attempted to disengage for some time now. I wonder what’s keeping
>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently that's clear to everyone but you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really? What responses have you gotten from anyone but me that would give
>>>>>>> you that impression?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How come you're the only one here who doesn't have a clue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, no responses at all.
>>>>
>>>> Gracious, it appears I have (not so) accidentally taken to wrestling
>>>> with the proverbial pig.
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, you still don't have a clue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh but I do. The question really is, am I to play your game?
>>
>> It has never been my game.
>
> Depends on what “It” you’re referring to. I was referring to the game you
> do in fact play.

Your opinion.

>>> You see, it’s apparent (at least to me) when you have an unspoken aim in
>>> your mode of discussion. The end justifies the means. And if you deem me
>>> the pig, it was your decision to wrestle, and it was your decision to step
>>> into the sty.
>>
>> Thanks for acknowledging your place in this realm. It is obvious you
>> wish no improvements. That's your choice, your decision.
>>
>
> You apparently missed the conditional in my statement. Notice, please, the
> choices YOU made. Also notice the meaning of the adage you referred to. In
> the saying about wrestling with pigs, who is the target of that judgment,
> the pig or the one who jumps into the sty to wrestle the pig?

I see you're requesting an endgame escape maneuver. If so, why not.

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 12:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/8/2022 7:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have attempted to disengage for some time now. I wonder what’s keeping
>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently that's clear to everyone but you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really? What responses have you gotten from anyone but me that would give
>>>>>>>> you that impression?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How come you're the only one here who doesn't have a clue?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, no responses at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gracious, it appears I have (not so) accidentally taken to wrestling
>>>>> with the proverbial pig.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly, you still don't have a clue.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh but I do. The question really is, am I to play your game?
>>>
>>> It has never been my game.
>>
>> Depends on what “It” you’re referring to. I was referring to the game you
>> do in fact play.
>
> Your opinion.
>
>>>> You see, it’s apparent (at least to me) when you have an unspoken aim in
>>>> your mode of discussion. The end justifies the means. And if you deem me
>>>> the pig, it was your decision to wrestle, and it was your decision to step
>>>> into the sty.
>>>
>>> Thanks for acknowledging your place in this realm. It is obvious you
>>> wish no improvements. That's your choice, your decision.
>>>
>>
>> You apparently missed the conditional in my statement. Notice, please, the
>> choices YOU made. Also notice the meaning of the adage you referred to. In
>> the saying about wrestling with pigs, who is the target of that judgment,
>> the pig or the one who jumps into the sty to wrestle the pig?
>
> I see you're requesting an endgame escape maneuver. If so, why not.
>

No, I don’t consider this chess. I don’t need an endgame. You’re the one
that has indicated that it’s pointless to talk to me further because it’s
wrestling with a pig, in your opinion. If you need an exit, then just stop.
It’s pretty simple.

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